Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

UNI > Criminal > Flashcards

Criminal Flashcards

1
Q

standard of proof

A

P must prove beyond reasonable doubt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

burden of proof

A

D must prove on the balance of probabilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

r v miller

A

failure to counteract a danger one has created- lit cigarette set fire to a mattress, he moved room

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

r v white

A

D poisoned mother with arsenic but died of heart failure- but for test- factual causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

kimsey

A

de minimus principle- high speed car chase between mates

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

benge

A

train track- actions of 3rd parties- must be an operative cause of the result- no breaks in the chain of causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

blaue

A

thin skull rule- Jehovahs witness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

mohan

A

direct intention- aim or purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

r v woolin

A

indirect intent- threw his baby- virtually certain and d appreciates this- then up to jury to decide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Ivey v genting

A

dishonesty- state of Ds knowledge or belief as to the facts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

list of handling offences

A

s22 theft act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

description of all the AR elements for handling

A

s24 TA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

brooks

A

knowledge they are stolen goods must be present at the time of receiving

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

barnard

A

implied representation- fraud by false rep- wore an Oxford cap and gown and got a discount because of it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

montila

A

a reasonable person would have foreseen that it might be untrue/misleading- fraud s2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

mashta

A

failing to disclose that he was in paid employment while getting benefits- fraud s3

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

marshall

A

abuse of position fraud s4- manager of a care home, used residents money

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

if given a question involving s1 fraud acts

A

look for s6 and s7 (fraud prep offences) too

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

khan

A

if knowledge/belief is required for the full offence it is also required for an attempt- got done for attempted rape

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Clarkson

A

passively watched a girl get gang raped- didn’t have mens rea so weren’t guilty as accomplices

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

ags ref 1

A

d laced ps drink with spirits and he then drove home- d charged with procuring the offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

thornton v Mitchell

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

r v Bourne

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

r v cogan and leek

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

r v rook

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

jogee

A

law requires the accomplice intends to assist or encourage the principal in the commission of the offence, with the MR for the full offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Tyrell

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

barnet v eastern electricity board

A

destroy- element of finality and totality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

hardman v cc of Avon

A

damage- water soluble paints took time and expense to get rid

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

r v a

A

spat on a policemans raincoat- not cd because damage renders an article imperfect/inoperative

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

r v smith

A

belonging to another- damaged rented property when removing wiring- thought it was his- not guilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

r v denton

A

belief in consent- employer told him to set fire to his machinery so not guilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

hunt

A

belief in need to protect property- set fire to mattresses to show alarms didn’t work- wasn’t immediate need tho so guilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Warwick

A

threw a brick through a police car windscreen- liable if he was reckless or intended to injure the damage would endanger life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

r v steer

A

shot through a window- not agg cd because didn’t intend the damage to harm them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

r v morris

A

changed labels on goods in a supermarket- appropriation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Oxford v moss

A

stole exam paper- theft of intellectual property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

p v dpp

A

stole a cig from someones hand- no force/contact so not robbery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

r v Ryan

A

d was stuck with his head and hand in a building- sufficient as entry

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

collins

A

girl invited him in thinking he was her bf, wasn’t trespassing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

r v kelly

A

used a screwdriver to break in but then threatened someone with it so became weapon of offence- agg burglary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

P must prove beyond reasonable doubt

A

standard of proof

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

D must prove on the balance of probabilities

A

burden of proof

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

failure to counteract a danger one has created- lit cigarette set fire to a mattress, he moved room

A

r v miller

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

D poisoned mother with arsenic but died of heart failure- but for test- factual causation

A

r v white

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

de minimus principle- high speed car chase between mates

A

kimsey

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

train track- actions of 3rd parties- must be an operative cause of the result- no breaks in the chain of causation

A

benge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

thin skull rule- Jehovahs witness

A

blaue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

d used his pregnant gf as a shield and fired at police officers- officers actions weren’t free— free deliberate and informed

A

pagett

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

direct intention- aim or purpose

A

mohan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

indirect intent- threw his baby- virtually certain and d appreciates this- then up to jury to decide

A

r v woolin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

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

A

r v g

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

dishonesty- state of Ds knowledge or belief as to the facts

A

Ivey v genting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

s22 theft act

A

list of handling offences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

s24 TA

A

description of all the AR elements for handling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

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

A

r v bloxham

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

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

A

r v kanwar

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

knowledge they are stolen goods must be present at the time of receiving

A

brooks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

implied representation- fraud by false rep- wore an Oxford cap and gown and got a discount because of it

A

barnard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

a reasonable person would have foreseen that it might be untrue/misleading- fraud s2

A

montila

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

failing to disclose that he was in paid employment while getting benefits- fraud s3

A

mashta

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

abuse of position fraud s4- manager of a care home, used residents money

A

marshall

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

look for s6 and s7 (fraud prep offences) too

A

if given a question involving s1 fraud acts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

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

A

geddes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

got in the back of a car with a sawn off shotgun and said “you’re not going to like this”- was an attempt

A

jones

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

if knowledge/belief is required for the full offence it is also required for an attempt- got done for attempted rape

A

khan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

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

A

shivpuri

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

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

A

Maxwell

77
Q

passively watched a girl get gang raped- didn’t have mens rea so weren’t guilty as accomplices

A

Clarkson

78
Q

d laced ps drink with spirits and he then drove home- d charged with procuring the offence

A

ags ref 1

79
Q

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

A

thornton v Mitchell

80
Q

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

A

r v Bourne

81
Q

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

A

r v cogan and leek

82
Q

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

A

r v rook

83
Q

law requires the accomplice intends to assist or encourage the principal in the commission of the offence, with the MR for the full offence

A

jogee

84
Q

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

A

Tyrell

85
Q

destroy- element of finality and totality

A

barnet v eastern electricity board

86
Q

damage- water soluble paints took time and expense to get rid

A

hardman v cc of Avon

87
Q

spat on a policemans raincoat- not cd because damage renders an article imperfect/inoperative

A

r v a

88
Q

belonging to another- damaged rented property when removing wiring- thought it was his- not guilty

A

r v smith

89
Q

belief in consent- employer told him to set fire to his machinery so not guilty

A

r v denton

90
Q

belief in need to protect property- set fire to mattresses to show alarms didn’t work- wasn’t immediate need tho so guilty

A

hunt

91
Q

threw a brick through a police car windscreen- liable if he was reckless or intended to injure the damage would endanger life

A

Warwick

92
Q

shot through a window- not agg cd because didn’t intend the damage to harm them

A

r v steer

93
Q

changed labels on goods in a supermarket- appropriation

A

r v morris

94
Q

stole exam paper- theft of intellectual property

A

Oxford v moss

95
Q

stole a cig from someones hand- no force/contact so not robbery

A

p v dpp

96
Q

d was stuck with his head and hand in a building- sufficient as entry

A

r v Ryan

97
Q

girl invited him in thinking he was her bf, wasn’t trespassing

A

collins

98
Q

used a screwdriver to break in but then threatened someone with it so became weapon of offence- agg burglary

A

r v kelly

99
Q

5 result focused offences against the person

A

psychic assault
battery
s47 ABH
s20 inflict GBH/wound
s18 cause GBH/wound with intent

100
Q

problem q offences against the person

A
  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
101
Q

Fagan v MPC

A

psychic assault
- an act
- apprehension by another person
- immediate
- unlawful personal violence

102
Q

ireland

A

phoned women and didn’t say anything- they got scared- assault by silence

103
Q

tuberville v savage

A

words can negate an assault- if it wasn’t assize time id put ee in a sack

104
Q

r v constanza

A

immediate- hand delivered letter after harassment over a long period

105
Q

battery

A

any act by which d intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful personal violence upon another person

106
Q

DPP v K

A

acid in hand dryer- guilty of battery even though indirect

107
Q

ABH where is the definition

A

s47 OAPA

108
Q

r v miller (OAP)

A

abh- any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim

109
Q

DPP v Smith

A

gbh- really serious harm

110
Q

dpp v a

A

need only be foreseen that harm might result for GBH

111
Q

r v brown

A

consent is only a defence if it is something Parliament or the courts have recognised as in the public interest- bdsm doesnt count

112
Q

r v dica

A

had hiv but didn’t tell people he was fucking- so they didn’t give informed consent- so cant rely on consent defence

113
Q

self defence- 4 situations it applies to

A
  • defend himself/others
  • defend his property
  • prevent a crime
  • make a lawful arrest
114
Q

self defence- reasonable test

A

obj- jury decide its reasonable
subj- they consider the circs as d believed them to be

115
Q

r v gladstone williams

A

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

116
Q

Clegg

A

homicide- unlawful killing- killed a girl travelling through a checkpoint in NI- self defence failed

117
Q

ags ref 3

A

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

118
Q

murder definition

A

killing with malice aforethought- intention to kill or cause serious harm

119
Q

byrne

A

D strangled a girl- he was found to be a sexual psychopath so given manslaughter not murder

120
Q

byrne

A

D strangled a girl- he was found to be a sexual psychopath so given manslaughter not murder

121
Q

r v dowds

A
  • voluntary intoxication cant be a defence
  • acute intoxication is a recognised medical condition but doesn’t count
122
Q

r v kay

A

has to be a connection between the killing and the abnormality of mental functioning

123
Q

r v stewart

A

if you’re intoxicated but suffering from alcohol dependancy then you might still be able to rely on diminished responsibility

124
Q

3 main elements to the defence of loss of control

A
  • 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
125
Q

unlawfulness element- involuntary manslaughter

A
  • subjectively reckless manslaughter
  • unlawful act manslaughter
  • gross negligence manslaughter
126
Q

lidar

A

D forsees the risk of serious injury as highly probable- drove off with victim leaning into his car

127
Q

DPP v Newbury and Jones

A

unlawful act manslaughter
pros must prove
- D performed a criminally unlawful act
- unlawful act was the cause of death
- unlawful act was dangerous

128
Q

r v adomako

A

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

129
Q

r v Kingston

A
  • if you are drugged against your will the sentence may be mitigated
130
Q

r v Lipman

A

hallucinogenic drugs making D think they’re killing a snake when they’re killing a human- lacked the mens rea

131
Q

Kingston

A

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

132
Q

DPP v Majewski

A

defined things as basic or specific intent
- voluntary intoxication is a defence for specific intent crimes

133
Q

basic intent crime eg vs specific intent crime eg

A

basic (need recklessness)
- rape, assault, criminal damage
specific (need intention)
- murder, theft, handling

134
Q

hardie

A
  • taking a substance that normally doesnt have risks may fall under involuntary intoxication
135
Q

graham test

A

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?

136
Q

singh

A

threats to expose immorality deemed insufficient for duress defence

137
Q

Cole

A

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

138
Q

r v shepherd

A

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

139
Q

re A

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

140
Q

r v dudley and stephens

A

d and s charged with murder of cabin boy when shipwrecked- necessity wasnt a defence

141
Q

eisenhower

A

wound- skin has broken (no longer intact)

142
Q

r v hale

A

ongoing appropriation- tied a woman up in her house after already picking up her jewellery

143
Q

ag ref 2

A

can use preemptive force for self defence

144
Q

psychic assault
battery
s47 ABH
s20 inflict GBH/wound
s18 cause GBH/wound with intent

A

5 result focused offences against the person

145
Q
  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
A

problem q offences against the person

146
Q

psychic assault
- an act
- apprehension by another person
- immediate
- unlawful personal violence

A

Fagan v MPC

147
Q

phoned women and didn’t say anything- they got scared- assault by silence

A

ireland

148
Q

words can negate an assault- if it wasn’t assize time id put ee in a sack

A

tuberville v savage

149
Q

immediate- hand delivered letter after harassment over a long period

A

r v constanza

150
Q

any act by which d intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful personal violence upon another person

A

battery

151
Q

acid in hand dryer- guilty of battery even though indirect

A

DPP v K

152
Q

s47 OAPA

A

ABH where is the definition

153
Q

abh- any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim

A

r v miller (OAP)

154
Q

gbh- really serious harm

A

DPP v Smith

155
Q

need only be foreseen that harm might result for GBH

A

dpp v a

156
Q

consent is only a defence if it is something Parliament or the courts have recognised as in the public interest- bdsm doesnt count

A

r v brown

157
Q

had hiv but didn’t tell people he was fucking- so they didn’t give informed consent- so cant rely on consent defence

A

r v dica

158
Q
  • defend himself/others
  • defend his property
  • prevent a crime
  • make a lawful arrest
A

self defence- 4 situations it applies to

159
Q

obj- jury decide its reasonable
subj- they consider the circs as d believed them to be

A

self defence- reasonable test

160
Q

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

A

r v gladstone williams

161
Q

homicide- unlawful killing- killed a girl travelling through a checkpoint in NI- self defence failed

A

Clegg

162
Q

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

A

ags ref 3

163
Q

killing with malice aforethought- intention to kill or cause serious harm

A

murder definition

164
Q

D strangled a girl- he was found to be a sexual psychopath so given manslaughter not murder

A

byrne

165
Q

D strangled a girl- he was found to be a sexual psychopath so given manslaughter not murder

A

byrne

166
Q
  • voluntary intoxication cant be a defence
  • acute intoxication is a recognised medical condition but doesn’t count
A

r v dowds

167
Q

has to be a connection between the killing and the abnormality of mental functioning

A

r v kay

168
Q

if you’re intoxicated but suffering from alcohol dependancy then you might still be able to rely on diminished responsibility

A

r v stewart

169
Q
  • 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
A

3 main elements to the defence of loss of control

170
Q
  • subjectively reckless manslaughter
  • unlawful act manslaughter
  • gross negligence manslaughter
A

unlawfulness element- involuntary manslaughter

171
Q

D forsees the risk of serious injury as highly probable- drove off with victim leaning into his car

A

lidar

172
Q

unlawful act manslaughter
pros must prove
- D performed a criminally unlawful act
- unlawful act was the cause of death
- unlawful act was dangerous

A

DPP v Newbury and Jones

173
Q

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

A

r v adomako

174
Q
  • if you are drugged against your will the sentence may be mitigated
A

r v Kingston

175
Q

hallucinogenic drugs making D think they’re killing a snake when they’re killing a human- lacked the mens rea

A

r v Lipman

176
Q

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

A

Kingston

177
Q

defined things as basic or specific intent
- voluntary intoxication is a defence for specific intent crimes

A

DPP v Majewski

178
Q

basic (need recklessness)
- rape, assault, criminal damage
specific (need intention)
- murder, theft, handling

A

basic intent crime eg vs specific intent crime eg

179
Q
  • taking a substance that normally doesnt have risks may fall under involuntary intoxication
A

hardie

180
Q

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?

A

graham test

181
Q

threats to expose immorality deemed insufficient for duress defence

A

singh

182
Q

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

A

Cole

183
Q

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

A

r v shepherd

184
Q

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

A

re A

185
Q

d and s charged with murder of cabin boy when shipwrecked- necessity wasnt a defence

A

r v dudley and stephens

186
Q

wound- skin has broken (no longer intact)

A

eisenhower

187
Q

ongoing appropriation- tied a woman up in her house after already picking up her jewellery

A

r v hale

188
Q

can use preemptive force for self defence

A

ag ref 2

189
Q

Broughton

A

probabilities- but for test- gf had a 10% chance of dying anyway so wasnt guilty

UNI (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions