Core Principles Questions Flashcards
Areas of difficulty
What potential duties could be applicable to a defendant guilty of gross negligence manslaughter following a car accident?
A civil duty owed to other road users, and the creation of a dangerous situation
What is the test for recklessness
A defendant is reckless when:
- D foresaw a risk of harm and went ahead anyway
- in the circumstances known to D it was unreasonable to take the risk
Subjectively reckless
Can knowledge or ignorance of a particular weapon negate a defendant’s liability for homicide?
No - a lack of knowledge of a weapon is not an overwhelming supervening event and the defendant is likely to still be liable (even if for involuntary manslaughter)
How should the judge direct the jury on the test for oblique intention?
The jury can find intention if the consequence was a virtually certain consequence the defendant’s conduct and the defendant realised it was a virtually certain consequence
There is an objective, then subjective part. The jury must answer yes to both parts
Can there be a secondary party without a principal offender?
No
Can summary offences be convicted by way of an attempted offence?
No
For example, cannot be convicted of attempted battery
A man fell out with his business partner because he owed him a large amount of money. The man handed a woman a gun and told her that the gun was loaded with blank ammunition. He instructed the woman to scare his business partner by firing the gun at him. The man knew that the gun was actually loaded with live ammunition. The woman fired the gun and the business partner was killed.
What is the man and woman’s liability for homicide?
The man is liable for murder and the woman is liable for involuntary manslaughter (she has committed unlawful act manslaughter)
What is an overwhelming supervening event?
When one party acts in a considerably more dangerous way than the other intends, then the secondary party is not liable for the specified more dangerous offence
It is a fundamentally different act
What is the best example of when a defendant can be found guilty of an attempted burglary?
When they actually break the lock so they can gain entry into the building - this would be more than merely preparatory
Trying to enter the building = more than merely preparatory
In what way is the MR lower for a secondary partyy compared to the principal offender?
Foresight of a possibility would fail to establish the mens rea
What is the position for relying on self-defence when D is intoxicated?
A defendant will be prevented from relying on self-defence because their mistake, as to the need to use force, was made because they are intoxicated
If the mistake is born from voluntary intoxication, a defendant cannot rely on a mistake as to self-defence even if they honestly believed it was necessary
A man becomes voluntarily intoxicated at a party. He gets into an argument with the party’s host who asks him to leave. During the argument, the man is waving his glass around and smashes it in the host’s face causing very serious damage to his eyes. The man is so intoxicated he does not realise what he is doing.
Is the man guilty of GBH with intent?
No, as he was so intoxicated he was unable to form the necessary intention for the offence
Voluntary intoxication is only a defence to crimes of specific intent, where the defendant argues that they could not form such an intent due to their intoxication
What happens if a defendant does argue that they did not form the MR for an offence of specific intent due to voluntary intoxication?
They will automatically be liable for any lesser offence of basic intent which may exist, as they are deemed to be reckless by becoming so intoxicated
What is the jury asked to consider for the victim’s act of suicide in breaking the chain of causation?
The jury will consider if the suicide was voluntary and informed decision of the victim
Whether the victim’s actions were reasonably foreseeable and not daft
If the jury find the victim’s actions [suicide] foreseeable, causation will be satisfied
Is recklessness part of the mens rea for GBH with intent?
NO = reckless cannot be proved against a defendant for the offence of GBH to be established
What is the test for factual causation?
But for test
What is the test for legal causation?
The defendant is the operating and substantial cause of the prohibited consequence
- act is not minimal
- consequence caused by defendant’s act
- D’s act need not be the only cause - must be substantial and operative
What is required for medical negligence to break the chain of causation?
Negligent treatment must be so independent and potent
- Courts rarely allow medical negligence to break the chain
- the cause must be so overwhelming
When do acts of third party break the chain of causation?
The act must be ‘free, deliberate and informed’
When will the act of a victim break the chain of causation?
- Fright and flight - whether escape was foreseeable by the reasonable person
- Victim’s act only breaks the chain if it was so daft and unexpected that no reasonable person could have foreseen it
How does the defence of voluntary intoxication operate for specific vs basic intent crimes?
- voluntary intoxication could be a defence to a charge of a specific intent crime, where the defendant’s intoxication negated the mens rea
- voluntary intoxication is not a defence to a chage of basic intent
What question is asked for voluntary intoxication by drugs/alcohol specific intent crimes?
Defence might be available - did D still form the necessary mens rea?
- If D was so intoxicated that they did not form the necessary intention (MR) for the offence = they are not guilty
- likely to be found liable for the lesser basic intent crime *reckless for being intoxicated/establish recklessness
What question is asked for voluntary intoxication by drugs/alcohol for basic intent?
Would D have formed the mens rea if sober?
