Criminal Flashcards
Actus reus
must be present- R v Deller
Voluntary –Hill v Baxter
Types of Actus reus
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)
Causation
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
Contemporaneity
The mens rea and actus reus must coincide at some point Continuing act Fagan v Mpc One series of acts Thabo meli v r
Novus Actus interveniens
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
MENS REA
Intention-murder
recklessness
Intention
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
recklessness
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
Transferred Malice
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
Murder
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
Dimished responsibility(s.2 homicide act 1957 amended by coroners and justice act 2009)
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
Loss of control (coroners and just act 2009)
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
Gross negligence manslaughter
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
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
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
Intoxication
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
Insanity
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
Self Defence
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
Duress
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
ASSAULT s.39 criminal justice act
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
Battery
S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
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
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
S47 Offences Against The Person Act 1861
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
Grievous Bodily Harm
S20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861
Causing grievous bodily harm (really serious injury) DPP v Smith, R v Bollom Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm R v Parmenter
Malicious Wounding
S20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861
Causing a wound (breaking of the skin) C v Eisenhower Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm R v Parmenter
Grievous Bodily Harm
S18 Offences Against The Person Act 1861
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
Malicious Wounding
S18 Offences Against The Person Act 1861
Causing a wound (breaking of the skin) C v Eisenhower Intention to cause grievous harm R v Taylor
ABH
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
omission
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
