Criminal Law Flashcards
Common Assault Act
s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
R v Nelson
Assault requirements - “for the d to have done something of a physical kind which causes someone else to apprehend that they are about to be struck”
AR of Assault
Cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful violence
MR of Assault
Intention or recklessness for AR
Lamb v DPP
No apprehension = no assault
Smith v Working Police
Threat of assault can be immediate even through a closed window
Tuberville v Savage
Words can negate an assault
R v Ireland
Silent phone calls can be assault
R v Constanza
Written words can be assault
AR of Battery
Application of unlawful physical force
MR of Battery
Intention or recklessness for AR
DPP v K
An indirect act can amount to a battery
R v Thomas
Touching clothes can amount to battery
Collins v Wilcock
The slightest of touches can amount to battery
R v Venna
MR for battery “intentional or reckless application of unlawful physical force”
ABH Act
s47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
AR of ABH
Assault or battery which causes ABH
MR of ABH
The MR for assault or battery
Miller 1954
Definition of ABH - “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the V”
T v DPP
Loss of consciousness can amount to ABH
DPP v Smith
Cutting hair can amount to ABH if it is a substantial amount.
Chan Fook
Fear or panic is not enough for ABH
R v Savage
MR for ABH does not need to be demonstrative of the harm caused
GBH Act and Sections
s20 and s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
s20 GBH definition
“unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict GBH on any other person, either with or without a weapon or instrument”
AR of s20 GBH
unlawfully wound or inflict GBH
MR of s20 GBH
Intention to cause harm or recklessness as to whether the harm would occur or not
JC v Eisenhower
Rupturing a blood vessel is not enough for s20
Wood 1830
Broken bones are not enough for GBH if there is no break in the skin
Saunders
GBH only needs to be serious harm
Bollom
The severity of injuries should be assessed according to V age and health (GBH)
Burstow
Serious psychiatric injury can amount to GBH
R v Dica
Biological harm can amount to GBH, eg. HIV
Cunningham
GBH does not require ill will towards V
Parmenter
No need to foresee the level of injury caused, but should be aware of the risk of some harm
AR of s18 GBH
Unlawfully wound or inflict GBH
MR of s18 GBH
Intention to do some GBH, resist or prevent the unlawful apprehension or detainer of any person (recklessness is not enough)
R v Taylor
Intent to wound is not enough for s18 GBH
Morrison
D intended or realised some risk of harm and took that risk
Moloney
The foresight of consequences is not intention
Nedrick
Harm caused needs to be a virtual certainty and the D realised this
Definition of Murder
“the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied”
RE: A
Not unlawful if it is avoiding evil, the actions go no further than avoiding the evil and the evil caused is not disproportionate to the one avoided
R v Inglis
“mercy killing is murder”
R v Adams
“a doctor is entitled to relieve pain and suffering, even if such measures shorten life”
R v Cox
Has to actively bring about death
Malcherek and Steel
Injuries caused death as the medical treatment was normal
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
Doctors should act in the best interest of the patient (stop feeding patient in a permanent vegetative state with unexpected recovery)
AG Ref No. 3
A foetus is not a reasonable creature in being
R v Clegg
A soldier acting under his duty can be guilty of murder if excessive force is used
R v Vickers
Intent to do GBH is enough for murder
Diminished Responsibility Cases
Voluntary manslaughter
Ahluwalia
Battered women’s syndrome
R v Martin
Paranoid personality disorder
R v Wood
Alcohol dependency disorder
R v Tandy
Alcoholism only considered if they cannot exercise any self control
Lloyd
Must not be a trivial impairment
Golds
Up to the jury to decide if they have a substantial impairment
Loss of Control Cases
Voluntary manslaughter
R v Jewell
Shot V at point-blank range
R v Ward
Fear of serious violence towards another person is a qualifying trigger
Zebedee
Grave character and justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
R v Hatter
The end of a relationship is not a qualifying trigger
R v Bowyer
V could say anything to get D to leave, no justifiable sense of being wronged
R v Dawes
Infidelity is not a qualifying trigger
R v Clinton
Infidelity can be considered with other qualifying triggers
Asmelash
D was intoxicated, this is not taken into account
Unlawful Act
Involuntary manslaughter
R v Franklin
A civil wrong is not an unlawful act
R v Lamb
no fear = no assault = no unlawful act
R v Lowe
The unlawful act cannot be an omission
R v Larkin
Doesn’t need to be aimed at the person, only has to be dangerous
Goodfellow
The unlawful act can be aimed at property
Dawson
The act has to cause more than fear
R v Church
Objective test - sober and reasonable person
JM and SM
Does not have to foresee specific harm
Bristow, Dunn and Delay
Burglary carried out in way harm is foreseeable
Newbury and Jones
Intent only needed for the unlawful act
Gross Negligence
Involuntary manslaughter
Adomako
Requirements - for D to have a duty of care to V and breach that duty in a grossly negligent way causing death
Singh
Landlords duty to maintain their property
Litchfield
Duty to protect their crew from harm
Wacker
You can assume a duty of care
Evans
Mothers duty to her child
Misra and Srivastava
Disregard for safety causing death
Act for property offences
Theft Act 1968 (s1-6 theft, s8 robbery, s9 burglary)
s1 theft definition
Dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive
R v Gosh
Objective + subjective test (honest and reasonable)
Ivey v Genting Casinos
A subjective test is not necessary
Pitham v Hehl
Right to sell
R v Morris
Assume any of the rights
Lawrence
Consent doesn’t prevent appropriation
Gomez
Consent can be taken by deception
Hinks
Can appropriate voluntary gifts
Kelley and Lindsay
Body parts can be property
Oxford v Moss
Confidential info is not property
R v Turner
Can steal own property if someone else has a proprietary interest in it
R v Woodman
Can control property you weren’t aware you owned
Ricketts
Property of giver/charity
Davidge and Bunnett
Legal obligation s5(3)
AG Ref No 1
Obligation to return s5(4)
R v Gilks
Moral obligation, do not need to return
R v Lavender
If D treats property as their own they have intent
R v Lloyd
Take all goodness, virtue and practical value
R v Velumyl
Must return the exact property
Definition of Robbery
s8(1) - Steals and, immediately before or at the time of doing so, uses force or seeks to put another person in fear of violence being used then and there
AR for Robbery
theft with force/threat of force immediately before or at the time
MR for Robbery
MR for theft and intent to use force
R v Waters
Not theft if s6 cannot be established
Concoran v Anderton
Even if D leaves without item, robbery is completed
R v Clouden
Up to jury to decide on force
B and R v DPP
No need to show V felt threatened if implied by Ds actions
P v DPP
Force must be direct contact
R v Lockley
Theft cannot be met before force is established
R v Raphael
Wide interpretation of s6 needed for robbery
R v Hale
Robbery is a continuing act until all element of theft are met
AR of Burglary
Entry of a building or part of a building as a trespasser
MR of Burglary
s9(1)(a) intent before and intention of theft, GBH or criminal damage
s9(1)(b) intent after and intention of theft, GBH or criminal damage
R v Brown
“effective entry”
R v Ryan
Part of body enters building
B and S v Leathley
Freezer container on sleepers, connected to electricity not B/PoaB
Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould
Lorry trailer is not B/PoaB
Walkington
Another part of a building eg behind shop counter
R v Collins
Permission to enter
R v Smith and Jones
Going beyond permission given
s2(1)(a), (b) and (c)
s2(2)
They believe they have the right to appropriate, consent, cannot find the owner
Willing to pay for the property
s4(3)
s4(4)
wild plants unless commercial purposes
wild animals unless reduced to property
M’Naghten
3 elements for insanity
□ defect of reason
□ caused by a disease of the mind
□ nature or quality of the act/legally wrong
Clarke 1972
Absentmindedness is not enough
R v Coley
A D who is voluntarily intoxicated and suffers a psychotic episode cannot claim insanity
R v Kemp
Hardening of arteries was a disease of the mind
R v Sullivan
Epilepsy is a disease of the mind
R v Burgess
Sleepwalking can be a disease of the mind
Oye
Understanding of nature and quality of the act
Johnson
Understand the act is legally wrong
Windle
Wording can show he understood the act was wrong
Hill v Baxter
Concept of no-fault if D is in an automatic state due to external cause (automatism)
R v T
Exceptional stress or PTSD can be an external factor that may cause automatism
AG Ref No 2
Total destruction of voluntary control
R v Bailey
Insufficient evidence
DPP v Beard
So drunk, couldn’t form MR
AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
Had MR before intoxication = guilty
DPP v Majewski
Reckless as to becoming intoxicated, enough for basic intent
R v Harris
Alcoholic didn’t drink for a few days and suffered alcohol-induced hallucinations so can claim intoxication
R v Kingston
Ds coffee was spiked, he sexually assaulted a 15yo boy. He had the MR
R v O’Grady
Doesn’t have MR for murder but was reckless for manslaughter, drunken mistake/hallucination.
Jaggard v Dickinson
Broke into the wrong house, her friend would have consented. The exception to intoxicated mistake.
Self-defence
General defence
Criminal Law Act 1967 s3
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
(a) may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of necessary action; and
(b) honestly and instinctively thought it was necessary
R v Hussain
If force is used after the danger has passed, self-defence is not available
Crime and Courts Act 2013 s43
Wider defence to householders where an intruder enters their property
CaCA s76(5)(a)
For degree of force to be reasonable it must not be grossly disproportionate
To be a householder requirements
□ force must be used by D while in or partly in a building that is a dwelling
□ D must not be a trespasser
□ D must have believed V to be a trespasser
Collins v Secretary State for Justice
S76(5)(a) /= any degree of force, the jury is to decide if it was reasonable
R v Gladstone Williams
D must be judged on the facts they genuinely believed them to be, even if they are mistaken, regardless of whether the mistake was unreasonable.
AG Ref (No 2 of 1983)
Can make preparations if you fear an attack
R v Bird
Striking first doesn’t mean force is unnecessary
R v Clegg (Defence)
Self-defence not available if there is no danger when shot is fired, force is excessive
s76(3) CJIA
(3) Reasonable force must be judged by the circumstances the D believed them to be
s76(4) CJIA
(4) If D claims to have held a particular belief
(a) the reasonableness of that belief is relevant
(b) If held, D is entitled to s76(3) whether or not
(i) it was mistaken, or
(ii) the mistake was a reasonable one
R v Martin (Anthony)
Personality disorders can not be taken into account when considering self-defence
Force is excessive
Olugboja
There is a difference between real consent and submission
Clarence
Consent was irrelevant as she was not aware of her husbands STI
R v Dica (consent)
Should be made fully aware of the risks
Konzani
If D would not have cont. knowing all the facts, then consent is not informed or valid
Wilson and Pringle
“Ordinary jostlings” of everyday life are not battery
R v Barnes
Breach of rules in sport must be a serious one for there to be an offence
Consider: Intention of injury Reckless During or after consented activity Within rules
AG Ref No. 6
Exclusions from consent
Games/sports Surgical interference Tattooing/piercings Horseplay Dangerous exhibitions
R v Brown
5 consenting men convicted of sexual assault occasioning ABH and malicious wounding, none needed medical attention. It was considered a case of public policy and protection against a ‘cult of violence’ (homophobia)
R v Wilson
Branded his wife, was not unlawful despite medical attention being needed unlike in the case of Brown
R v Aitken
Can have an honest but mistaken belief of consent.
R v Jones
Genuine mistaken belief in ‘rough and undisciplined horseplay’ could be a defence even if the belief was unreasonable.
Re: F
It is lawful to operate or give medical treatment if they cannot consent and it is the common duty to do so.
Mitchell 1983
mens rea can transfer if v dies as a direct result
Gnango 2011
Intent to kill but mistakenly kills another, guilty via transferred malice.
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
formed the mens rea and continued the act, this is transferred malice
R v Pagett
Own acts can be novus actus interveniens
R v Jordan
Medical treatment can be novus actus interveniens if it is the direct cause of death
R v Blaue
Thin Skull Rule - legal causation
R v White
‘but for?’ - Factual
