crime AO1 + cases Flashcards
loss of control
-when d kills with malice aforethought whilst suffering a loss of self control triggered by a fear of serious violence or things said or done giving d a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged and a person of D’s age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint would have done the same as D did.
-partial defence
reduces murder to manslaughter with a mandatory to discretionary life sentence
-burden of proof on prosecution to prove if D lost control or not beyond all reasonable doubt
CASES:
Jewell- pre planned exec, killed colleague with shotgun
Barnsdale and queen- strangled wife with chain then said she killed herself, no evidence of loss
Lodge- feared serious violence to his family, fear of serious violence to family is enough for loss
Asmelash - attacks police officer when on lash, intoxication is not taken into account
burglary
- 91a: D enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intent to steal, cause criminal damage and inflict GBH
- 91b: D enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser and then attempts to steal and inflict GBH
CASES:
entry: brown, smashes argos shop window stealing goods, entry only needs to be effective not completed
building: D robbed lorry, any structure used for storage or shelter is a building
part of building: walkington, entered behind til, any part of building no physical seperation required
trespasser: smith and jones, son entered fathers home and stole tv, exceeded permission granted
robbery
- D steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so and in order to so, puts force on v or seeks to put them subjected to fear of force
- immediacy is imminent
CASES:
Waters: D snatched phone but gave it back, theft must be complete.
Hale: hurt woman breaking into her house, force was immediate
Clouden: snatched a bag off of a woman, touching the bag was enough for robbery don’t have to make physical contact.
murder
-the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being with malice aforethought under the kings peace indictible offence with a mandatory life sentence
-unlawful: clegg, force applied was unnecessary
-causation: must cause death, factual + legal = novus actus intervenius
- reasonable creature in being: attorney generals reference: fetus isnt a human being
- kings peace
- express malice
- direct intent: Mohan, desire to bring about a prohibited consequence
- oblique intent: woolin, virtual certainty
attempts
- S1 criminal attempts act 1981
-going through with an act that is mtmp to the commission of the offence with the intention of committing the full offence with the MR of the offence
CASES: - MP: Geddes, D moved from planning and prep to execution and implementation, Gullefer, Has d embarked on the crime proper
- MTMP: att gen ref, attempted to rape girl but couldnt get hard, done enough for MTMP
- impossibility: shivpuri, vegetable drugs, d still intented to deal drugs
diminished responsibility
s52 coroners and justice act 2009
-a partial defence which moves a murder to voluntary manslaughter, therefore judge can give a discretionary life sentence, don’t have to give life.
-defence is only available for murder
-burden of proof is on defendant to prove dim resp
1) where d is suffering of an abnormality of mental functioning caused by a recognised medical condition.
2) the aomf must substantially impair ds ability to understand nature of their conduct OR form a rational judgement OR exercise self control
3) aomf must provide an explanation of ds conduct.
CASES:
1)bryne, seen as abnormal by moral person
2)challen, coercive control can lead to an aomf
3)alhuwalia- sets husband on fire after experiencing abuse battered spousal syndrome is an aomf
4)wood, struck wife with meat cleaver, AlcDS must provide an explanation for Ds conduct.
gross negligence
- involuntaty manslaughter is where there is an unlawful killing of a human being with no malice aforethought,
-discretionary life
ADAMAKO:
1)was there a DOC
2)was DOC breached
3)must cause death-
4)factual causation, but for test r v white
CASES:
1)r v dytham, policeman watched someone beat up, had a contractual DOC as he was a policeman
2)r v miller, left a burning house he created, creation of a dangerous situation
3) adamako: anaesthesiologist failed to monitor breathing causing death, contactual DOC
4) causation: f+l=nai, but for test r v white
unlawful act manslaughter
-involuntary manslaughter is where there is an unlawful killing of a human being under the kings peace with no malice aforethought
-discretionary life
-defined in common law in the case of larkin
-D must commit an unlawful act which causes death and is dangerous on an objective standard
CASES:
1)act must be unlawful, lamb - d shot gun at someone thinking it was unloaded, unlawful act must be completed
2)act must cause death, factual causation, but for test, white-d attempted to kill mother by putting cyanide in drink, she had a heart attack beforehand.
3)act must be dangerous on an objective standard, larkin, d was waving razor around and drunk girl fell on it, act was dangerous on an objective standard
insanity
1991 criminal procedure act
-a defence to all crimes except strict liability to change the result of sentence
-NG by reason of insanity
>d can go to mental institution, sent for treatment, supervision order, absolute discharge
-burden of proof on prosecution to disprove insanity
TEST-M’Naughton
1)everyone is sane unless D proves otherwise
2)D must have a defect of reason
3)must come from a disease of the mind
4)d doesn’t know and nature and quality of their act
CASES
1) mcnaughton, everyone is sane unless d proves otherwise
2) clark, it must be a complete loss, not partial
3) kemp, d suffered arterial sclerosis, disease of the mind can be a condition in the body that affects the mind.
4) windle, wrong means legally wrong
automatism
-bratty test, an action by the body put of control of tjme mind, spasm or reflex or function of the mind that is out of control eg sleepwalking
-must be external as internal is insanity
-burden of proof is on prosection to disprove auto
-complete defence> acquital
1)There must exist an involuntary action arising from external source or reflex action
2)The action must be completely involuntary
3)The automatism must not be self-induced
CASES
1)hill v baxter, swarm of bees, must be an external factor
2)att gen ref, lorry driver crashing “trance like state” ,must be total destruction of voluntary control
3)R v Bailey, diabetic had sugar and water making him strike V, self induced auto doesnt ammount to a defence
intoxication
- when D claims they were out of control due to drugs/alcohol involuntarily
CASES
-kingston, drugged and raped 15 year old, drugged intent is still intent
-majewkski, intoxicated himself and assaulted others at a pub, voluntary intox is never a defence
-gallagher, d purposely got intoxicated to murder wife, dutch courage
self defence
D uses responsible force to defend themselves against another.-criminal justice and immigration act 2008
-complete defence>acquital
-burden of proof on prosecution to disprove
-can use force to defend yourself or to defend others or for the prevention of crime
CASES
-D uses such force as is reasonable Husseyn, beat up burglar with cricket bat, excessive force
-clegg, cannot use self defence is danger already passed
-att gen ref, you can prepare for self defence
-Tony Martin, booby trapped house, beat robber as he was running away, danger had passed and he used excessive force.
-gladstone and williams, if an honest mistake is made in self-defence its okay
-lipman, LSD trip and thought his gf was a snake and killed her, intoxicated mistake nah.
consent
-when d agrees to an act taking place before it happens
-full defence>acquital
CASES
-barnes, within rules, on the ball
-billinghurst, outside rules, off the ball
-surgery & medical concent only if you are gillick competent, wanted to stop girls under 16 taking the pill, does D understand what they are concenting to
-horseplay, Brown + others
-McCarthy “dr evil”, D did surgery such as cutting tongues and ears off, cant consent to serious bodily harm.
-tabassum, consent wasn’t valid as it wasn’t founded on the truth Vehicles
duress
3 types: necessity, circumstance, threats
-AG whelan- Threats of immediate death or serious personal violence so great as to overbear the ordinary powers of human resistance.
-full defence>acquital
-burden on prosecution
CASES
- Graham test: subjective, was there a threat of serious injury or death, objective, would a reasonable person done the same
nexus- cole, robbed a bank not told how
immediacy- husseyn, hijacked plane, immediacy means within near future
safe avenue of escape- Gill, had a safe ave of escap, Hudson and Taylor, didnt have a safe ave of escape
Vol assoc- sharp and shepard, self induced duress
howe- cant use defence of duress for murder
battery
-s39 CJA 1988
-summary offence heard by magistrates
-max 6 months in prison
-D intentionally/recklessly applies unlawful physical force on V
CASES:
-force includes any touching on another including clothes (r v thomas)
-bermudez, policeman searched someone and got stabbed by needle, can have a battery through omission
-kay- put chemicals in hand dryer, force can be applied indirectly
