Criminal Flashcards
1
Q
standard of proof
A
P must prove beyond reasonable doubt
2
Q
burden of proof
A
D must prove on the balance of probabilities
3
Q
pagett
A
d used his pregnant gf as a shield and fired at police officers- officers actions weren’t free— free deliberate and informed
4
Q
mohan
A
direct intention- aim or purpose
5
Q
r v woolin
A
indirect intent- threw his baby- virtually certain and d appreciates this- then up to jury to decide
6
Q
r v g
A
recklessness- set fire in a wheelie bin- have to be aware of a risk of a relevant circumstance and it was unreasonable to take the risk
7
Q
Ivey v genting
A
dishonesty- state of Ds knowledge or belief as to the facts
8
Q
list of handling offences
A
s22 theft act
9
Q
description of all the AR elements for handling
A
s24 TA
10
Q
r v bloxham
A
for the benefit of another- he just bought a car, realised it was stolen and then sold it- wasn’t guilty of handling or theft
11
Q
r v kanwar
A
assisting in the retention of stolen goods- husband stole stuff, she used it to furnish the house and lied to the police- this was necessary assistance
12
Q
brooks
A
knowledge they are stolen goods must be present at the time of receiving
13
Q
barnard
A
implied representation- fraud by false rep- wore an Oxford cap and gown and got a discount because of it
14
Q
montila
A
a reasonable person would have foreseen that it might be untrue/misleading- fraud s2
15
Q
mashta
A
failing to disclose that he was in paid employment while getting benefits- fraud s3
16
Q
marshall
A
abuse of position fraud s4- manager of a care home, used residents money
17
Q
if given a question involving s1 fraud acts
A
look for s6 and s7 (fraud prep offences) too
18
Q
geddes
A
in a school toilet with rope and a knife- hadn’t confronted a pupil- not an attempt- must have actually tried to commit an offence
19
Q
jones
A
got in the back of a car with a sawn off shotgun and said “you’re not going to like this”- was an attempt
20
Q
khan
A
if knowledge/belief is required for the full offence it is also required for an attempt- got done for attempted rape
21
Q
shivpuri
A
attempts to do the impossible- possessed a case that he thought contained heroin but it didn’t- still done with attempt possess class A even though they weren’t drugs
22
Q
Maxwell
A
drove a car to a pub to show terrorists where it was- done with aiding- didn’t need to know specifics of the crime they were going to commit
23
Q
Clarkson
A
passively watched a girl get gang raped- didn’t have mens rea so weren’t guilty as accomplices
24
Q
ags ref 1
A
d laced ps drink with spirits and he then drove home- d charged with procuring the offence
25
thornton v Mitchell
bus conductor told driver to reverse and knocked down two pedestrians- bus conductor was charged with driving without due care and the conductor abetting, but driver wasn't negligent so conductor was fine too
26
r v Bourne
can still be done as an accomplice if the principle offence hasn't been committed because they have an offence- d forced his wife to be buggered by their dog- she had duress defence
27
r v cogan and leek
rape of wife- mate thought she consented- the husband was liable as an accomplice but the mate didn't have the MR so wasnt liable
28
r v rook
planned to kill one of their wives, d didn't turn up or inform them that he wasn't going to- wasn't an effective withdrawal- has to be done well before offence as well
29
jogee
law requires the accomplice intends to assist or encourage the principal in the commission of the offence, with the MR for the full offence
30
Tyrell
D, a 13 year old girl encouraged P to have sex with her, she was charged as an accessory but then the conviction was quashed because she was a victim
31
barnet v eastern electricity board
destroy- element of finality and totality
32
hardman v cc of Avon
damage- water soluble paints took time and expense to get rid
33
r v a
spat on a policemans raincoat- not cd because damage renders an article imperfect/inoperative
34
r v smith
belonging to another- damaged rented property when removing wiring- thought it was his- not guilty
35
r v denton
belief in consent- employer told him to set fire to his machinery so not guilty
36
hunt
belief in need to protect property- set fire to mattresses to show alarms didn't work- wasn't immediate need tho so guilty
37
Warwick
threw a brick through a police car windscreen- liable if he was reckless or intended to injure the damage would endanger life
38
r v steer
shot through a window- not agg cd because didn't intend the damage to harm them
39
r v morris
changed labels on goods in a supermarket- appropriation
40
Oxford v moss
stole exam paper- theft of intellectual property
41
p v dpp
stole a cig from someones hand- no force/contact so not robbery
42
r v Ryan
d was stuck with his head and hand in a building- sufficient as entry
43
collins
girl invited him in thinking he was her bf, wasn't trespassing
44
r v kelly
used a screwdriver to break in but then threatened someone with it so became weapon of offence- agg burglary
45
P must prove beyond reasonable doubt
standard of proof
46
D must prove on the balance of probabilities
burden of proof
47
failure to counteract a danger one has created- lit cigarette set fire to a mattress, he moved room
r v miller
48
D poisoned mother with arsenic but died of heart failure- but for test- factual causation
r v white
49
de minimus principle- high speed car chase between mates
kimsey
50
train track- actions of 3rd parties- must be an operative cause of the result- no breaks in the chain of causation
benge
51
thin skull rule- Jehovahs witness
blaue
52
d used his pregnant gf as a shield and fired at police officers- officers actions weren't free--- free deliberate and informed
pagett
53
direct intention- aim or purpose
mohan
54
indirect intent- threw his baby- virtually certain and d appreciates this- then up to jury to decide
r v woolin
55
recklessness- set fire in a wheelie bin- have to be aware of a risk of a relevant circumstance and it was unreasonable to take the risk
r v g
56
dishonesty- state of Ds knowledge or belief as to the facts
Ivey v genting
57
s22 theft act
list of handling offences
58
s24 TA
description of all the AR elements for handling
59
for the benefit of another- he just bought a car, realised it was stolen and then sold it- wasn't guilty of handling or theft
r v bloxham
60
assisting in the retention of stolen goods- husband stole stuff, she used it to furnish the house and lied to the police- this was necessary assistance
r v kanwar
61
knowledge they are stolen goods must be present at the time of receiving
brooks
62
implied representation- fraud by false rep- wore an Oxford cap and gown and got a discount because of it
barnard
63
a reasonable person would have foreseen that it might be untrue/misleading- fraud s2
montila
64
failing to disclose that he was in paid employment while getting benefits- fraud s3
mashta
65
abuse of position fraud s4- manager of a care home, used residents money
marshall
66
look for s6 and s7 (fraud prep offences) too
if given a question involving s1 fraud acts
67
in a school toilet with rope and a knife- hadn't confronted a pupil- not an attempt- must have actually tried to commit an offence
geddes
68
got in the back of a car with a sawn off shotgun and said "you're not going to like this"- was an attempt
jones
69
if knowledge/belief is required for the full offence it is also required for an attempt- got done for attempted rape
khan
70
attempts to do the impossible- possessed a case that he thought contained heroin but it didn't- still done with attempt possess class A even though they weren't drugs
shivpuri
71
drove a car to a pub to show terrorists where it was- done with aiding- didn't need to know specifics of the crime they were going to commit
Maxwell
72
passively watched a girl get gang raped- didn't have mens rea so weren't guilty as accomplices
Clarkson
73
d laced ps drink with spirits and he then drove home- d charged with procuring the offence
ags ref 1
74
bus conductor told driver to reverse and knocked down two pedestrians- bus conductor was charged with driving without due care and the conductor abetting, but driver wasn't negligent so conductor was fine too
thornton v Mitchell
75
can still be done as an accomplice if the principle offence hasn't been committed because they have an offence- d forced his wife to be buggered by their dog- she had duress defence
r v Bourne
76
rape of wife- mate thought she consented- the husband was liable as an accomplice but the mate didn't have the MR so wasnt liable
r v cogan and leek
77
planned to kill one of their wives, d didn't turn up or inform them that he wasn't going to- wasn't an effective withdrawal- has to be done well before offence as well
r v rook
78
law requires the accomplice intends to assist or encourage the principal in the commission of the offence, with the MR for the full offence
jogee
79
D, a 13 year old girl encouraged P to have sex with her, she was charged as an accessory but then the conviction was quashed because she was a victim
Tyrell
80
destroy- element of finality and totality
barnet v eastern electricity board
81
damage- water soluble paints took time and expense to get rid
hardman v cc of Avon
82
spat on a policemans raincoat- not cd because damage renders an article imperfect/inoperative
r v a
83
belonging to another- damaged rented property when removing wiring- thought it was his- not guilty
r v smith
84
belief in consent- employer told him to set fire to his machinery so not guilty
r v denton
85
belief in need to protect property- set fire to mattresses to show alarms didn't work- wasn't immediate need tho so guilty
hunt
86
threw a brick through a police car windscreen- liable if he was reckless or intended to injure the damage would endanger life
Warwick
87
shot through a window- not agg cd because didn't intend the damage to harm them
r v steer
88
changed labels on goods in a supermarket- appropriation
r v morris
89
stole exam paper- theft of intellectual property
Oxford v moss
90
stole a cig from someones hand- no force/contact so not robbery
p v dpp
91
d was stuck with his head and hand in a building- sufficient as entry
r v Ryan
92
girl invited him in thinking he was her bf, wasn't trespassing
collins
93
used a screwdriver to break in but then threatened someone with it so became weapon of offence- agg burglary
r v kelly
94
5 result focused offences against the person
psychic assault
battery
s47 ABH
s20 inflict GBH/wound
s18 cause GBH/wound with intent
95
problem q offences against the person
1. decide which offence to discuss
2. consider the most serious possible and analyse whether all the elements are present
3. if they are and d is guilty, dont consider less serious ones
4. if not, work your way down until you find one or run out
96
Fagan v MPC
psychic assault
- an act
- apprehension by another person
- immediate
- unlawful personal violence
97
ireland
phoned women and didn't say anything- they got scared- assault by silence
98
tuberville v savage
words can negate an assault- if it wasn't assize time id put ee in a sack
99
r v constanza
immediate- hand delivered letter after harassment over a long period
100
battery
any act by which d intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful personal violence upon another person
101
DPP v K
acid in hand dryer- guilty of battery even though indirect
102
ABH where is the definition
s47 OAPA
103
r v miller (OAP)
abh- any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim
104
DPP v Smith
gbh- really serious harm
105
dpp v a
need only be foreseen that harm might result for GBH
106
r v brown
consent is only a defence if it is something Parliament or the courts have recognised as in the public interest- bdsm doesnt count
107
r v dica
had hiv but didn't tell people he was fucking- so they didn't give informed consent- so cant rely on consent defence
108
self defence- 4 situations it applies to
- defend himself/others
- defend his property
- prevent a crime
- make a lawful arrest
109
self defence- reasonable test
obj- jury decide its reasonable
subj- they consider the circs as d believed them to be
110
r v gladstone williams
necessary force? v saw x rob someone, v tackled x, d saw this and punched v, in the circs that d believed them to be this was reasonable
111
Clegg
homicide- unlawful killing- killed a girl travelling through a checkpoint in NI- self defence failed
112
ags ref 3
of a human being- when does life begin- stabbed pregnant gf, gave birth to the baby who then died- because it was born alive he was charged with the baby's death
113
murder definition
killing with malice aforethought- intention to kill or cause serious harm
114
byrne
D strangled a girl- he was found to be a sexual psychopath so given manslaughter not murder
115
byrne
D strangled a girl- he was found to be a sexual psychopath so given manslaughter not murder
116
r v dowds
- voluntary intoxication cant be a defence
- acute intoxication is a recognised medical condition but doesn't count
117
r v kay
has to be a connection between the killing and the abnormality of mental functioning
118
r v stewart
if you're intoxicated but suffering from alcohol dependancy then you might still be able to rely on diminished responsibility
119
3 main elements to the defence of loss of control
- objective element- jury must think that a reasonable person would have acted in the same way- same circs and age/sex of D
- qualifying trigger- fear of serious violence from the victim against D or another person or extremely grave circs causing justifiable sense of feeling seriously wronged
- loss of self control- subjective test- judge must be satisfied that sufficient evidence of losc has been raised
120
unlawfulness element- involuntary manslaughter
- subjectively reckless manslaughter
- unlawful act manslaughter
- gross negligence manslaughter
121
lidar
D forsees the risk of serious injury as highly probable- drove off with victim leaning into his car
122
DPP v Newbury and Jones
unlawful act manslaughter
pros must prove
- D performed a criminally unlawful act
- unlawful act was the cause of death
- unlawful act was dangerous
123
r v adomako
gross negligent manslaughter
- d owed v a doc
- d breached doc
- it caused the death
- there was an obvious risk of death
- the breach was sufficiently serious
124
r v Kingston
- if you are drugged against your will the sentence may be mitigated
125
r v Lipman
hallucinogenic drugs making D think they're killing a snake when they're killing a human- lacked the mens rea
126
Kingston
if you are drinking a non-alcoholic drink that is spiked then it can be considered involuntary
- contrast with allen- voluntary if D takes alcohol which is stronger than he is expecting
127
DPP v Majewski
defined things as basic or specific intent
- voluntary intoxication is a defence for specific intent crimes
128
basic intent crime eg vs specific intent crime eg
basic (need recklessness)
- rape, assault, criminal damage
specific (need intention)
- murder, theft, handling
129
hardie
- taking a substance that normally doesnt have risks may fall under involuntary intoxication
130
graham test
was the accused impelled to act as he did because he had good cause to fear that otherwise death or serious injury would result?
and
would a sober or reasonable firmness sharing the characteristics of D have responded in the same way?
131
singh
threats to expose immorality deemed insufficient for duress defence
132
Cole
offence must be committed as a result of threats and must relate to the commission of a particular offence- asking for money doesnt mean you have to rob a bank
133
r v shepherd
cant rely on duress if you voluntarily involve yourself in a violent criminal enterprise
but in this circumstance, shepherd was with non violent people so did not foresee violence
134
re A
can use necessity as a defence to murder
- the act is done to avoid otherwise inevitable evil
- no more is done than reasonably necessary
- the evil inflicted is not disproportionate to the evil avoided
135
r v dudley and stephens
d and s charged with murder of cabin boy when shipwrecked- necessity wasnt a defence
136
eisenhower
wound- skin has broken (no longer intact)
137
r v hale
ongoing appropriation- tied a woman up in her house after already picking up her jewellery
138
ag ref 2
can use preemptive force for self defence
139
psychic assault
battery
s47 ABH
s20 inflict GBH/wound
s18 cause GBH/wound with intent
5 result focused offences against the person
140
1. decide which offence to discuss
2. consider the most serious possible and analyse whether all the elements are present
3. if they are and d is guilty, dont consider less serious ones
4. if not, work your way down until you find one or run out
problem q offences against the person
141
psychic assault
- an act
- apprehension by another person
- immediate
- unlawful personal violence
Fagan v MPC
142
phoned women and didn't say anything- they got scared- assault by silence
ireland
143
words can negate an assault- if it wasn't assize time id put ee in a sack
tuberville v savage
144
immediate- hand delivered letter after harassment over a long period
r v constanza
145
any act by which d intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful personal violence upon another person
battery
146
acid in hand dryer- guilty of battery even though indirect
DPP v K
147
s47 OAPA
ABH where is the definition
148
abh- any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim
r v miller (OAP)
149
gbh- really serious harm
DPP v Smith
150
need only be foreseen that harm might result for GBH
dpp v a
151
consent is only a defence if it is something Parliament or the courts have recognised as in the public interest- bdsm doesnt count
r v brown
152
had hiv but didn't tell people he was fucking- so they didn't give informed consent- so cant rely on consent defence
r v dica
153
- defend himself/others
- defend his property
- prevent a crime
- make a lawful arrest
self defence- 4 situations it applies to
154
obj- jury decide its reasonable
subj- they consider the circs as d believed them to be
self defence- reasonable test
155
necessary force? v saw x rob someone, v tackled x, d saw this and punched v, in the circs that d believed them to be this was reasonable
r v gladstone williams
156
homicide- unlawful killing- killed a girl travelling through a checkpoint in NI- self defence failed
Clegg
157
of a human being- when does life begin- stabbed pregnant gf, gave birth to the baby who then died- because it was born alive he was charged with the baby's death
ags ref 3
158
killing with malice aforethought- intention to kill or cause serious harm
murder definition
159
D strangled a girl- he was found to be a sexual psychopath so given manslaughter not murder
byrne
160
D strangled a girl- he was found to be a sexual psychopath so given manslaughter not murder
byrne
161
- voluntary intoxication cant be a defence
- acute intoxication is a recognised medical condition but doesn't count
r v dowds
162
has to be a connection between the killing and the abnormality of mental functioning
r v kay
163
if you're intoxicated but suffering from alcohol dependancy then you might still be able to rely on diminished responsibility
r v stewart
164
- objective element- jury must think that a reasonable person would have acted in the same way- same circs and age/sex of D
- qualifying trigger- fear of serious violence from the victim against D or another person or extremely grave circs causing justifiable sense of feeling seriously wronged
- loss of self control- subjective test- judge must be satisfied that sufficient evidence of losc has been raised
3 main elements to the defence of loss of control
165
- subjectively reckless manslaughter
- unlawful act manslaughter
- gross negligence manslaughter
unlawfulness element- involuntary manslaughter
166
D forsees the risk of serious injury as highly probable- drove off with victim leaning into his car
lidar
167
unlawful act manslaughter
pros must prove
- D performed a criminally unlawful act
- unlawful act was the cause of death
- unlawful act was dangerous
DPP v Newbury and Jones
168
gross negligent manslaughter
- d owed v a doc
- d breached doc
- it caused the death
- there was an obvious risk of death
- the breach was sufficiently serious
r v adomako
169
- if you are drugged against your will the sentence may be mitigated
r v Kingston
170
hallucinogenic drugs making D think they're killing a snake when they're killing a human- lacked the mens rea
r v Lipman
171
if you are drinking a non-alcoholic drink that is spiked then it can be considered involuntary
- contrast with allen- voluntary if D takes alcohol which is stronger than he is expecting
Kingston
172
defined things as basic or specific intent
- voluntary intoxication is a defence for specific intent crimes
DPP v Majewski
173
basic (need recklessness)
- rape, assault, criminal damage
specific (need intention)
- murder, theft, handling
basic intent crime eg vs specific intent crime eg
174
- taking a substance that normally doesnt have risks may fall under involuntary intoxication
hardie
175
was the accused impelled to act as he did because he had good cause to fear that otherwise death or serious injury would result?
and
would a sober or reasonable firmness sharing the characteristics of D have responded in the same way?
graham test
176
threats to expose immorality deemed insufficient for duress defence
singh
177
offence must be committed as a result of threats and must relate to the commission of a particular offence- asking for money doesnt mean you have to rob a bank
Cole
178
cant rely on duress if you voluntarily involve yourself in a violent criminal enterprise
but in this circumstance, shepherd was with non violent people so did not foresee violence
r v shepherd
179
can use necessity as a defence to murder
- the act is done to avoid otherwise inevitable evil
- no more is done than reasonably necessary
- the evil inflicted is not disproportionate to the evil avoided
re A
180
d and s charged with murder of cabin boy when shipwrecked- necessity wasnt a defence
r v dudley and stephens
181
wound- skin has broken (no longer intact)
eisenhower
182
ongoing appropriation- tied a woman up in her house after already picking up her jewellery
r v hale
183
can use preemptive force for self defence
ag ref 2
184
Broughton
probabilities- but for test- gf had a 10% chance of dying anyway so wasnt guilty
