CRIMINAL - FATAL OFFENCES Flashcards
FACTUAL CAUSATION
But for test: But for the actions of the defendant, would the victim have suffered the same result? (R v White 1910)
De minimus rule: Were the defendant’s actions more than minimal? (R v Kimsey)
LEGAL CAUSATION
Thin skull test: Defendants must take their victims as they find them (R v Blaue 1975)
Chain of causation: Must be a clear chain between the actions of the defendant and the death of the victim. Intervening acts may break the chain. (R v Pagett 1983)
COINCIDENCE AND VOLUNTARY ACTIONS
R v Bratty - Actus reus and mens rea must coincide
R v Fagan - Actus reus must be voluntary
MURDER DEFINITION
Lord Coke = The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought.
MURDER MENS REA
Malice aforethought = Intention to kill or cause GBH (R v Moloney, R v Cunningham)
INTENT
Direct intent = R v Mohan = The defendant desired the outcome of their actions
Oblique intent = R v Nedrick as confirmed by R v Woolin = The outcome of their actions was virtually certain and foreseeable.
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER - CONSTRUCTIVE MANSLAUGHTER
Unlawful Dangerous Act Manslaughter
UNLAWFUL = Must be a crime, a civil wrong is not enough (R v Lamb)
DANGEROUS = Risk of only some harm is accepted (R v Larkin), Objective test, a sober and reasonable person would realise the risk of some harm (R v Church)
ACT = Must be an act, not an omission (R v Lowe)
CAUSES DEATH = Normal rules of causation apply (Goodfellow 1996)
UNLAWFUL CASE
R v Lamb
DANGEROUS CASE
R v Larkin, R v Church
ACT CASE
R v Lowe
MENS REA FOR CONSTRUCTIVE MANSLAUGHTER
Defendant must have the mens rea for the UNLAWFUL ACT but it is not necessary to foresee any harm from this act (Newberry and Jones)
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER = GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER
Gross negligence is criminal, as opposed to normal negligence which is a civil matter.
DUTY OF CARE - Donoghue v Stevenson, must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which would be likely to injure your neighbour.
Duty of care can arise from contractual obligations, assumption of duty, special relationship.
BREACH CAUSING DEATH = Did the defendant’s conduct fall below the reasonable standard of competence? (R v Adamarko). Also, causation.
CRIMINAL - Objective risk of death is essential (R v Bateman). Objective - it is irrelevant what the defendant foresaw.
DUTY OF CARE CASE
Donoghue v Stevens
BREACH CAUSING DEATH CASE
R v Adamarko, standard of reasonable competence
CRIMINAL CASE
R v Bateman, objective risk of death, irrelevance of what the defendant foresaw
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER = DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
s2(1) Homicide Act 1957, AS AMENDED BY s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Burden of proof is on the defendant, balance of probabilities.
DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
- AROSE FROM A RECOGNISED MEDICAL CONDITION = Recognised by WHO - Hobson 1998 (Battered woman’s syndrome)
- SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED DEFENDANT’S ABILITY = Substantial isn’t total (R v Lloyd) but more than trivial (R v Seers)
- TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF HIS CONDUCT, TO FORM A RATIONAL JUDGEMENT, TO EXERCISE SELF-CONTROL - s2(1a) of the Homicide Act, R v Byrne for self control. s2(1b) Homicide Act, must be a causal connection between mental functioning and the killing.
RECOGNISED MEDICAL CONDITION CASE
Hobson 1998 (Battered woman’s syndrome)
SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT CASE
R v Lloyd (Not total)
R v Seers (More than trivial)
UNDERSTAND CONDUCT, JUDGEMENT, SELF-CONTROL ACT
s2(1a) Homicide Act
R v Byrne (self control)
INTOXICATION FOR DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
Intoxication cannot be diminished responsibility (Di Duca 1959), but Alcohol Dependency Syndrome can (Wood 2008)
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER - LOSS OF CONTROL
s54-56 Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
QUALIFYING TRIGGER = s55. Fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person, OR things said or done which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and D had a justifiable sense of being wronged (subjective). RULED OUT = Incitement, revenge, sexual infidelity (R v Clinton 2012)
REASONABLE PERSON = Same age, gender (Holley 2005) and circumstances (R v Hill) would’ve acted in the same way.
NEED NOT BE SUDDEN, overturns R v Duffy 1949
QUALIFYING TRIGGER
s55 Coroner’s and Justice Act
R v Clinton (NOT sexual infidelity)
REASONABLE PERSON
R v Holley (Same age + gender)
R v Hill (Same circumstances)
