Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

CRIMINAL LAW > Crim: w 5-6 - ASSAULT & RECKLESS CONDUCT > Flashcards

Crim: w 5-6 - ASSAULT & RECKLESS CONDUCT Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What type of crime is assault? Is it necessary to prove causation?

A

A conduct crime - it is not necessary to prove causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the actus reus for assault?

A

An attack

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

In addition to a direct infliction of violence, what other 2 things can constitute an ‘attack’ for assault?

A
  1. Indirectly causing injury

2. Threatening gestures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What case illustrates an indirect attack for assault?

A

Kay v Allan
* 2 boys trespassed into the accused’s garden
* he released dogs onto them, bit one of the boys
Held: indirect attack constitutes an attack for assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Can threatening gestures constitute an attack for assault? (case)

A

Yes

Gilmour v Atkinson
* Accused beckoned victim over to car and brandished toy gun ‘money or your life’
* Said it was a joke
Held: threatening gestures (even if a toy) could amount to an attack for assault.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What happened in Atkinson v HM Adv?

A

Atkinson v HM Adv
* two men robbed a petrol station, 1 brandished a knife the other didn’t - but jumped over counter.

held:causing fear and alarm could be an assault (even without a knife)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the mens rea for assault?

A

Evil intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What case defines the modern position on evil intent for assault?

What happened?

A

Smart v HM Adv
* mutually agreed fight
Held: consent is never a defence to assault.

Intention to do something that amounts to an unlawful attack = sufficient mens rea for assault.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What did LA Ref ( no.2 of 1992) state was wrong about the original trial judge’s recommendations?

A

LA Ref (no.2 of 1992)

  • accused threatened shop assistant with toy gun and demanded money.
  • Took himself to the police to state it was a joke.
  • Trial judge wrongly directed the jury that if it was a joke, he should be acquitted.

Ref held: trial judge confused motive with intent. motive irrelevant.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Can you ever consent to assault in scots law?

A

No - consent is never a valid defence to assault (Smart)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

In England when can you consent to assault and which case discussed this?

A

R v Brown

* Could consent to harm if in the public interest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Does corporal punishment of children (e.g. smacking) satisfy the definition of the offence of assault?

A

Yes, but parents/guardians may use the defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’

criminal justice (Scotland) act 2003, s 51

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What conduct is deemed unreasonable re: corporal punishment?

A

s 51(3):

  1. blows to head
  2. shaking
  3. use of an instrument
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What does the future look like for the defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’ for corporal punishment?

A

Almost certain to be abolished soon: Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (S) Bill ch 1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Is ‘reasonable chastisement’ available for teachers?

A

No

Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act 2000 s.16

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

In the absence of ‘evil intent’ needed for assault, what other two offences might apply?

A
  1. Reckless endangerment

2. Reckless injury

17
Q

What type of offence is covered by:

  1. reckless endangerment and
  2. reckless injury
A
  1. Endangerment: creation of danger for other

2. Injury: Non-intentional physical harm

18
Q

Which statute provides that there is no requirement to provide the name of an offence in the indictment or complaint - it is enough to narrate the facts

A

Criminal Procedure (S) Act 1887

19
Q

What was the issue with the indictment in HM Adv v Kelly?

A

HM Adv v Kelly

* Indictment did not make clear which of the things listed were significant re: HIV infection.

20
Q

Is either Reckless Endangerment or Reckless Injury a result crime?

A
  1. Reckless endangerment: NOT result crime - putting someone in danger without necessarily causing harm.
  2. Reckless injury: Result crime - involves actually causing the injury (causation would need proving)
21
Q

What happened in Normand v Robinson?

A

Normand v Robinson

  • 2 co-accused organised a rave in a derelict warehouse
  • Held: Charged with reckless endangerment, even before the event happened

all that needed to be established was conduct to which criminal indifference could be attributed.

22
Q

What do the ‘sharps cases’ tell us about reckless endangerment?

A

Not much risk of danger is needed for reckless endangerment - even just risk to 1 person is enough.

If a police officer is injured by needle in search that you said wasn’t there = reckless endangerment

23
Q

In which 2 cases did the accused deny they had a needle on them when searched by police officer?

A

Normand v Morrison (sheriff)
&

Kimmins v Normand
* reckless endangerment = even if risk just to 1 police officer.

24
Q

What was different in Donaldson v Normand from the other sharps cases and what was held?

A

Donaldson v Normand

  • Accused was voluntarily intoxicated
  • did remove some syringes, but not all.
  • claimed he forgot - was high

held: voluntary intoxication not a defence - for not having the required mens rea.

25
Q

Why was the accused not liable in Mallin v Clark?

A

Mallin v Clark

  • Accused said he did not know if he had sharp objects on him
    held: conviction reckless endangerment quashed

Because this was an omission, prosecution would have to prove there was a positive duty to disclose the existence of the syringe to the officer.

26
Q

What 2 particular offences are sometimes considered as a variety of reckless endangerment/injury?

A
  1. Discharge of firearms

2. Administration/supply of substances

27
Q

What is the mens rea for recklessness?

A

indifference/disregard of the consequences

28
Q

What is the mens rea for recklessness and which case defined it?

A

indifference/disregard of the consequences

Cameron v Maguire

29
Q

List 3 cases about reckless discharge of firearms

A

Gizzi v Tudhope

  • clay Pidgeon shoot in abandoned grounds
  • shots hit men working behind trees

Cameron v Maguire

  • man testing rifle in remote area near footpath
  • reckless - even though it was a remote area: indifference/disregard for the consequences

Campbell v HM Adv

  • Man trying to scare off trespassing teens
  • reckless: there was no intention to harm
30
Q

Which 2 cases show that one can be liable for culpable and reckless administration/supply of harmful (but legal) substances?

A

Khaliq (children) + Ulhaq (adults) - glue-sniffing kits

31
Q

What did HM Adv v Harris establish?

A

HM Adv v Harris

  • Bouncer threw victim downstairs (assault) - did not endanger public (so couldn’t be reckless endangerment).
  • established 2 different routes for criminal liability:
    1. reckless endangerment
    2. recklessly causing injury
32
Q

Is recklessly transmitting HIV to a partner likely to be considered reckless injury?

A

Yes, according to unreported case:

HM Adv v Kelly

33
Q

Was throwing a bottle from 15th floor flat and injuring someone enough to constitute reckless injury?

A

Yes

W v HM Adv

  • threw glass bottle from 15th floor flat
  • no intention to injure - but still liable
34
Q

According to Smart, what is sufficient mens rea for assault?

A

Intention to do something that amounts to an unlawful attack

CRIMINAL LAW (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions