Criminal Flashcards
standard of proof
P must prove beyond reasonable doubt
burden of proof
D must prove on the balance of probabilities
pagett
d used his pregnant gf as a shield and fired at police officers- officers actions weren’t free— free deliberate and informed
mohan
direct intention- aim or purpose
r v woolin
indirect intent- threw his baby- virtually certain and d appreciates this- then up to jury to decide
r v g
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
Ivey v genting
dishonesty- state of Ds knowledge or belief as to the facts
list of handling offences
s22 theft act
description of all the AR elements for handling
s24 TA
r v bloxham
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 kanwar
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
brooks
knowledge they are stolen goods must be present at the time of receiving
barnard
implied representation- fraud by false rep- wore an Oxford cap and gown and got a discount because of it
montila
a reasonable person would have foreseen that it might be untrue/misleading- fraud s2
mashta
failing to disclose that he was in paid employment while getting benefits- fraud s3
marshall
abuse of position fraud s4- manager of a care home, used residents money
if given a question involving s1 fraud acts
look for s6 and s7 (fraud prep offences) too
geddes
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
jones
got in the back of a car with a sawn off shotgun and said “you’re not going to like this”- was an attempt
khan
if knowledge/belief is required for the full offence it is also required for an attempt- got done for attempted rape
shivpuri
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
Maxwell
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
Clarkson
passively watched a girl get gang raped- didn’t have mens rea so weren’t guilty as accomplices
ags ref 1
d laced ps drink with spirits and he then drove home- d charged with procuring the offence
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
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
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
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
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
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
barnet v eastern electricity board
destroy- element of finality and totality
hardman v cc of Avon
damage- water soluble paints took time and expense to get rid
r v a
spat on a policemans raincoat- not cd because damage renders an article imperfect/inoperative
r v smith
belonging to another- damaged rented property when removing wiring- thought it was his- not guilty
r v denton
belief in consent- employer told him to set fire to his machinery so not guilty
hunt
belief in need to protect property- set fire to mattresses to show alarms didn’t work- wasn’t immediate need tho so guilty
Warwick
threw a brick through a police car windscreen- liable if he was reckless or intended to injure the damage would endanger life
r v steer
shot through a window- not agg cd because didn’t intend the damage to harm them
r v morris
changed labels on goods in a supermarket- appropriation
Oxford v moss
stole exam paper- theft of intellectual property
p v dpp
stole a cig from someones hand- no force/contact so not robbery
r v Ryan
d was stuck with his head and hand in a building- sufficient as entry
collins
girl invited him in thinking he was her bf, wasn’t trespassing
r v kelly
used a screwdriver to break in but then threatened someone with it so became weapon of offence- agg burglary
P must prove beyond reasonable doubt
standard of proof
D must prove on the balance of probabilities
burden of proof
failure to counteract a danger one has created- lit cigarette set fire to a mattress, he moved room
r v miller
D poisoned mother with arsenic but died of heart failure- but for test- factual causation
r v white
de minimus principle- high speed car chase between mates
kimsey
train track- actions of 3rd parties- must be an operative cause of the result- no breaks in the chain of causation
benge
thin skull rule- Jehovahs witness
blaue
d used his pregnant gf as a shield and fired at police officers- officers actions weren’t free— free deliberate and informed
pagett
direct intention- aim or purpose
mohan
indirect intent- threw his baby- virtually certain and d appreciates this- then up to jury to decide
r v woolin
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
dishonesty- state of Ds knowledge or belief as to the facts
Ivey v genting
s22 theft act
list of handling offences
s24 TA
description of all the AR elements for handling
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
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
knowledge they are stolen goods must be present at the time of receiving
brooks
implied representation- fraud by false rep- wore an Oxford cap and gown and got a discount because of it
barnard
a reasonable person would have foreseen that it might be untrue/misleading- fraud s2
montila
failing to disclose that he was in paid employment while getting benefits- fraud s3
mashta
abuse of position fraud s4- manager of a care home, used residents money
marshall
look for s6 and s7 (fraud prep offences) too
if given a question involving s1 fraud acts
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
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
if knowledge/belief is required for the full offence it is also required for an attempt- got done for attempted rape
khan
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
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
passively watched a girl get gang raped- didn’t have mens rea so weren’t guilty as accomplices
Clarkson
d laced ps drink with spirits and he then drove home- d charged with procuring the offence
ags ref 1
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
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
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
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
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
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
destroy- element of finality and totality
barnet v eastern electricity board
damage- water soluble paints took time and expense to get rid
hardman v cc of Avon
spat on a policemans raincoat- not cd because damage renders an article imperfect/inoperative
r v a
belonging to another- damaged rented property when removing wiring- thought it was his- not guilty
r v smith
belief in consent- employer told him to set fire to his machinery so not guilty
r v denton
belief in need to protect property- set fire to mattresses to show alarms didn’t work- wasn’t immediate need tho so guilty
hunt
threw a brick through a police car windscreen- liable if he was reckless or intended to injure the damage would endanger life
Warwick
shot through a window- not agg cd because didn’t intend the damage to harm them
r v steer
changed labels on goods in a supermarket- appropriation
r v morris
stole exam paper- theft of intellectual property
Oxford v moss
stole a cig from someones hand- no force/contact so not robbery
p v dpp
d was stuck with his head and hand in a building- sufficient as entry
r v Ryan
girl invited him in thinking he was her bf, wasn’t trespassing
collins
used a screwdriver to break in but then threatened someone with it so became weapon of offence- agg burglary
r v kelly
5 result focused offences against the person
psychic assault
battery
s47 ABH
s20 inflict GBH/wound
s18 cause GBH/wound with intent
problem q offences against the person
- decide which offence to discuss
- consider the most serious possible and analyse whether all the elements are present
- if they are and d is guilty, dont consider less serious ones
- if not, work your way down until you find one or run out
Fagan v MPC
psychic assault
- an act
- apprehension by another person
- immediate
- unlawful personal violence
ireland
phoned women and didn’t say anything- they got scared- assault by silence
tuberville v savage
words can negate an assault- if it wasn’t assize time id put ee in a sack
r v constanza
immediate- hand delivered letter after harassment over a long period
battery
any act by which d intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful personal violence upon another person
DPP v K
acid in hand dryer- guilty of battery even though indirect
ABH where is the definition
s47 OAPA
r v miller (OAP)
abh- any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim
DPP v Smith
gbh- really serious harm
dpp v a
need only be foreseen that harm might result for GBH
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
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
self defence- 4 situations it applies to
- defend himself/others
- defend his property
- prevent a crime
- make a lawful arrest
self defence- reasonable test
obj- jury decide its reasonable
subj- they consider the circs as d believed them to be
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
Clegg
homicide- unlawful killing- killed a girl travelling through a checkpoint in NI- self defence failed
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
murder definition
killing with malice aforethought- intention to kill or cause serious harm
byrne
D strangled a girl- he was found to be a sexual psychopath so given manslaughter not murder
byrne
D strangled a girl- he was found to be a sexual psychopath so given manslaughter not murder
r v dowds
- voluntary intoxication cant be a defence
- acute intoxication is a recognised medical condition but doesn’t count
r v kay
has to be a connection between the killing and the abnormality of mental functioning
r v stewart
if you’re intoxicated but suffering from alcohol dependancy then you might still be able to rely on diminished responsibility
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
unlawfulness element- involuntary manslaughter
- subjectively reckless manslaughter
- unlawful act manslaughter
- gross negligence manslaughter
lidar
D forsees the risk of serious injury as highly probable- drove off with victim leaning into his car
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
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
r v Kingston
- if you are drugged against your will the sentence may be mitigated
r v Lipman
hallucinogenic drugs making D think they’re killing a snake when they’re killing a human- lacked the mens rea
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
DPP v Majewski
defined things as basic or specific intent
- voluntary intoxication is a defence for specific intent crimes
basic intent crime eg vs specific intent crime eg
basic (need recklessness)
- rape, assault, criminal damage
specific (need intention)
- murder, theft, handling
hardie
- taking a substance that normally doesnt have risks may fall under involuntary intoxication
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?
singh
threats to expose immorality deemed insufficient for duress defence
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
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
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
r v dudley and stephens
d and s charged with murder of cabin boy when shipwrecked- necessity wasnt a defence
eisenhower
wound- skin has broken (no longer intact)
r v hale
ongoing appropriation- tied a woman up in her house after already picking up her jewellery
ag ref 2
can use preemptive force for self defence
psychic assault
battery
s47 ABH
s20 inflict GBH/wound
s18 cause GBH/wound with intent
5 result focused offences against the person
- decide which offence to discuss
- consider the most serious possible and analyse whether all the elements are present
- if they are and d is guilty, dont consider less serious ones
- if not, work your way down until you find one or run out
problem q offences against the person
psychic assault
- an act
- apprehension by another person
- immediate
- unlawful personal violence
Fagan v MPC
phoned women and didn’t say anything- they got scared- assault by silence
ireland
words can negate an assault- if it wasn’t assize time id put ee in a sack
tuberville v savage
immediate- hand delivered letter after harassment over a long period
r v constanza
any act by which d intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful personal violence upon another person
battery
acid in hand dryer- guilty of battery even though indirect
DPP v K
s47 OAPA
ABH where is the definition
abh- any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim
r v miller (OAP)
gbh- really serious harm
DPP v Smith
need only be foreseen that harm might result for GBH
dpp v a
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
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
- defend himself/others
- defend his property
- prevent a crime
- make a lawful arrest
self defence- 4 situations it applies to
obj- jury decide its reasonable
subj- they consider the circs as d believed them to be
self defence- reasonable test
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
homicide- unlawful killing- killed a girl travelling through a checkpoint in NI- self defence failed
Clegg
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
killing with malice aforethought- intention to kill or cause serious harm
murder definition
D strangled a girl- he was found to be a sexual psychopath so given manslaughter not murder
byrne
D strangled a girl- he was found to be a sexual psychopath so given manslaughter not murder
byrne
- voluntary intoxication cant be a defence
- acute intoxication is a recognised medical condition but doesn’t count
r v dowds
has to be a connection between the killing and the abnormality of mental functioning
r v kay
if you’re intoxicated but suffering from alcohol dependancy then you might still be able to rely on diminished responsibility
r v stewart
- 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
- subjectively reckless manslaughter
- unlawful act manslaughter
- gross negligence manslaughter
unlawfulness element- involuntary manslaughter
D forsees the risk of serious injury as highly probable- drove off with victim leaning into his car
lidar
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
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
- if you are drugged against your will the sentence may be mitigated
r v Kingston
hallucinogenic drugs making D think they’re killing a snake when they’re killing a human- lacked the mens rea
r v Lipman
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
defined things as basic or specific intent
- voluntary intoxication is a defence for specific intent crimes
DPP v Majewski
basic (need recklessness)
- rape, assault, criminal damage
specific (need intention)
- murder, theft, handling
basic intent crime eg vs specific intent crime eg
- taking a substance that normally doesnt have risks may fall under involuntary intoxication
hardie
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
threats to expose immorality deemed insufficient for duress defence
singh
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
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
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
d and s charged with murder of cabin boy when shipwrecked- necessity wasnt a defence
r v dudley and stephens
wound- skin has broken (no longer intact)
eisenhower
ongoing appropriation- tied a woman up in her house after already picking up her jewellery
r v hale
can use preemptive force for self defence
ag ref 2
Broughton
probabilities- but for test- gf had a 10% chance of dying anyway so wasnt guilty
