Criminal

Question 1

Actus reus

Answer 1

must be present- R v Deller

Voluntary –Hill v Baxter

Question 2

Types of Actus reus

Answer 2

Conduct- enough to do something (perjury speeding)
Consequence- specific result needed (ABH,GBH, murder)
State of affairs- in the wrong place (Winzar v chief constable of Kent)

Question 3

Causation

Answer 3

1st limb- factual cause- but for their actions
R v White
R v Pagett
2nd limb – legal cause- reasonably foreseeable?
R v Roberts
R v Williams

Question 4

Contemporaneity

Answer 4

The mens rea and actus reus must coincide at some point
Continuing act
Fagan v Mpc
One series of acts
Thabo meli v r

Question 5

Novus Actus interveniens

Answer 5

Broken the chain of causation
R V Cheshire
not have to be the sole cause just a significant one
R v Malcherek
Brain dead is dead
Switching off life support doesn’t not break chain
R v Blaue
Thin skull rule
R v Dear
Refusal to seek medical attention does not break the chain even where they may have aggravated the wound

Question 6

MENS REA

Answer 6

Intention-murder

recklessness

Question 7

Intention

Answer 7

Direct Intent (desired outcome)
R v Mohan
attempting by wanton driving to cause BH
Indirect
R v Woollin
Virtual certainty barring unforeseen intervention and defendant realised

Question 8

recklessness

Answer 8

R v Cunningham – tampered with gas- didn’t know it poison neighbour
Malice= intention/recklessness
Recklessness=foreseeable risk realised and does anyway
Rv G&R- boys set fire to co-op

Question 9

Transferred Malice

Answer 9

Transferred Malice
The law regards the actual victim and the target as the same
R v Latimer
Aimed a belt lash at one person, hit another (transferred intent)
R v Pembilton
aimed stone throw at a person, hit a window (no transferred inten t

Question 10

Murder

Answer 10

Common law offence
Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought
UNLAWFUL
R v Clegg
R v Martin(Anthony)-
excessive force is unlawful force
R v Adams 
any acceleration of death is unlawful unless to ease a terminally ill patient
KILLING
R v Malcherek
Switching of life support not killing
Attorney General’s Reference no.3
If the wound baby received caused death once biologically independent
R v Vickers 
Intention to kill or cause GBH is enough
Dpp v Smith
GBH means serious injury

Question 11

Dimished responsibility(s.2 homicide act 1957 amended by coroners and justice act 2009)

Answer 11

Special defence to murder-partial
ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FUNCTION
R v Byrne- abnormality of mental function- what the ordinary person would find abnormal
RECOGNISED MEDICAL
R v Seers – depression
R v Vinagre- Othello syndrome
R V martin Anthony- paranoia
R v Hobson – battered wife
R v Dowds- voluntary intoxication not medical condition
R v wood- addiction is condition
Substantially impaired to understand,
R v Simcox- appreciably beyond trivial
R v Golds- use appreciably beyond trivial
explanation to death

Question 12

Loss of control (coroners and just act 2009)

Answer 12

Loss of control
s.54(2)- snapping in slow motion
S.54(4) – not revenge
R v Jewell-s.54(6) reasonable evidence of loss of control. Premeditation undermines this
Qualifying trigger s.55
(1)fears serious violence
(2) grave situation and justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
(1)R v Martin Anthony- excessive
(2) R v Dawes- an ordinary person would believe it was serious wrong
E X C L U D E D s.55(6)
Self induced
Sexual infidelity
R v Clinton- sexual infidelity can be considered along with other grave circumstances if there are many

Might person the same but normal restraint act the same

Question 13

Gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 13

Duty of care
R v Adomako- breach duty lead to death liable for manslaughter
Gross breach
R v Bateman- negligence that’s crime
R v wacker- no oxygen for passenger
Death
R v Misra & sristava- must risk death
Breach cause death?
R v Cheshire- significant cause

Question 14

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Answer 14

Unlawful act (ULA)
R V Franklin- tort insufficient must be a crime
R v Lowe- omission not ULA
Rv Khann Khan- omission not ULA
Dangerous?
R v Church- Dangerous if reasonable people would foresee the risk of some harm
R v Mitchell- the dangerous act doesn’t need to be targeted at the victim
R v Goodfellow- the dangerous act doesn’t need to be targeted at a person
R v Carey, Coyle & Foster- even if death caused it wont be UAM unless objectively dangerous
R v Larkin-doesn’t lead to harm can be dangerous – UAM
R v Watson- age= more vulnerable
Death
R v kennedy- voluntary act of adult break chain of causation
Mens rea
Dpp v Newbury- the mens rea of the selected unlawful act alone will do . it is enough that the ordinary peson would foresee the harm even if D didnt
R v Lamb- the mens rea of UAM is the mens rea od the unlawful act used ti construct the charge- lacking for assault or battery

Question 15

Intoxication

Answer 15

Unable to form mens rea?
R v Kingston- defendant must be unable to form mens rea to successfully plead intoxication
AG NI v Gallagher- absence of mens rea will not prevent liability
VOLUNTARY
Misjudgement?
R v Allen- misjudging strength of drug amounts to voluntary
Basic or specific?
Basic
Dpp v Majewski-voluntary intoxication not a defence
Specific?
Yes
R v Lipman- convicted of a lesser offence with the same acted reus but basic intent mens rea murder-mens rea
No
Acquittal
INVIOLUNTARY
Laced or spiked
Prescription drugs
Soporific drugs
R v Hardie

Question 16

Insanity

Answer 16

M’Naghten- insanity requires prood of defect of reason, disease of the mind,not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing and if he did , he did not know it was wrong
Defect of reason
R v Clarke- reason must be defective not merely unused
Disease of the mind
R V Burgess-insanity caused by an internal factor and be prone to reoccur but be transient
R v Kemp- any condition that affects the mind can bea disease of the mind not solely mental illness
R v Henessey- lack of insulin meant internal diabetes was the reason
R v Quick- lacl of food after insulin meant external was the reason
Not know the nature and quality of the act or not know the act was wrong
R v Windle Saying they’ll hang me for this showed he knew it was wrong

Question 17

Self Defence

Answer 17

Hybrid of common law and statue- criminal justice and immigration act 2008
s.3 1 of criminal law act 1967 – May help in prevention of crime
R v Renouf- public defence
-Imminent threat
Malnik v Dpp- D must face imminent threat, not one they have created
AG reference no.2 – what is reasonable force depends on the threat and can be pre-emptive
R v Keane- self induced threat will only enable the defence where the response is out of all proportion to the original
-Reasonable Force
Perception of events is judged subjectively, Reaction judged objectively
R v Oye- the threat will be judged from D’s perspective under s76(4) so long as D is sane
R v Clegg- excessive force provides no defence
R v Collins v sec state for justice- must still be reasonable but more force may be reasonable within a dwelling

Question 18

Duress

Answer 18

SUBJETIVE
threat/circumstance: death or serious injury only (plus other) valderrama- vega
nexus: must be to carry out a specific crime ,cole
Not self induced: voluntary exposure to a risk of coercion to do anything ,sharp, hasan
Imminent: immediate or almost, no way out gill,hasan
honest and reasonable: def. an ordinary person would believe. If so thereat or circumstance doesnt have to be actual, empty gun safi, hasan

OBJECTIVE
sober: drunken mistakes generally no defence in law O’grady
reasonable firmness: not just emotional or drug addiction - hegarty,flatts
sharaing characteristics: low IQ excluded but afes gender, pregnancy, physical/mental disability included- bowen

Question 19

ASSAULT s.39 criminal justice act

Answer 19

Cause the victim to fear immediate use of unlawful force
Smith v Chief Sup. Woking
Intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to fear immediate unlawful force
Logdon v DPP
silence =assault r v ireland
words can prevent-tuberville v savage

Question 20

Battery

S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Answer 20

Unlawful application of force
Collins v Wilcock
Intention or recklessness as to unlawful application of force
Fagan v MPC
DPP V K= doesnt need to be present
R v thomas = contact with clothing

Question 21

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

S47 Offences Against The Person Act 1861

Answer 21

Causing actual bodily harm
(discomfort or injury)
R v Miller
Intention or recklessness as to..
assault - ..cause fear of immediate unlawful force OR R v Ireland
battery - ..application of unlawful force R v Roberts, R v Savage

Question 22

Grievous Bodily Harm

S20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861

Answer 22

Causing grievous bodily harm
(really serious injury)
DPP v Smith, R v Bollom
Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm
R v Parmenter

Question 23

Malicious Wounding

S20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861

Answer 23

Causing a wound
(breaking of the skin)
C v Eisenhower
Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm
R v Parmenter

Question 24

Grievous Bodily Harm

S18 Offences Against The Person Act 1861

Answer 24

Causing grievous bodily harm
(really serious injury)
DPP v Smith, R v Bollom
Intention to cause grievous harm
R v Taylor
r v dICA 
Didnty consent to HIV

Question 25

Malicious Wounding

S18 Offences Against The Person Act 1861

Answer 25

Causing a wound
(breaking of the skin)
C v Eisenhower
Intention to cause grievous harm
R v Taylor

Question 26

ABH

Answer 26

Dpp v Smith (Michael)
Cutting hair amounted to ABH
R v Chanfook 
Only real psychiatric harm is covered
T v Dpp
Momentary loss of consciousness

Question 27

omission

Answer 27

Special relationship
R v Gibbins& proctor- child
Assumed Responsibility
R v stone& Dobinson
Supervening Fault
R v Miller
Contractual duty 
R v Pittwood
Official position
R v Dytham
Statutory Duty 
Road traffic act 1988