Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

A Level Law > Criminal Law > Flashcards

Criminal Law Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Common Assault Act

A

s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

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

R v Nelson

A

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”

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

AR of Assault

A

Cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful violence

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

MR of Assault

A

Intention or recklessness for AR

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

Lamb v DPP

A

No apprehension = no assault

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

Smith v Working Police

A

Threat of assault can be immediate even through a closed window

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

Tuberville v Savage

A

Words can negate an assault

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

R v Ireland

A

Silent phone calls can be assault

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

R v Constanza

A

Written words can be assault

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

AR of Battery

A

Application of unlawful physical force

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

MR of Battery

A

Intention or recklessness for AR

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

DPP v K

A

An indirect act can amount to a battery

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

R v Thomas

A

Touching clothes can amount to battery

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

Collins v Wilcock

A

The slightest of touches can amount to battery

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

R v Venna

A

MR for battery “intentional or reckless application of unlawful physical force”

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

ABH Act

A

s47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

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

AR of ABH

A

Assault or battery which causes ABH

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

MR of ABH

A

The MR for assault or battery

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

Miller 1954

A

Definition of ABH - “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the V”

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

T v DPP

A

Loss of consciousness can amount to ABH

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

DPP v Smith

A

Cutting hair can amount to ABH if it is a substantial amount.

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

Chan Fook

A

Fear or panic is not enough for ABH

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

R v Savage

A

MR for ABH does not need to be demonstrative of the harm caused

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

GBH Act and Sections

A

s20 and s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

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

s20 GBH definition

A

“unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict GBH on any other person, either with or without a weapon or instrument”

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

AR of s20 GBH

A

unlawfully wound or inflict GBH

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

MR of s20 GBH

A

Intention to cause harm or recklessness as to whether the harm would occur or not

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

JC v Eisenhower

A

Rupturing a blood vessel is not enough for s20

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

Wood 1830

A

Broken bones are not enough for GBH if there is no break in the skin

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

Saunders

A

GBH only needs to be serious harm

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

Bollom

A

The severity of injuries should be assessed according to V age and health (GBH)

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

Burstow

A

Serious psychiatric injury can amount to GBH

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

R v Dica

A

Biological harm can amount to GBH, eg. HIV

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

Cunningham

A

GBH does not require ill will towards V

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

Parmenter

A

No need to foresee the level of injury caused, but should be aware of the risk of some harm

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

AR of s18 GBH

A

Unlawfully wound or inflict GBH

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

MR of s18 GBH

A

Intention to do some GBH, resist or prevent the unlawful apprehension or detainer of any person (recklessness is not enough)

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

R v Taylor

A

Intent to wound is not enough for s18 GBH

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

Morrison

A

D intended or realised some risk of harm and took that risk

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

Moloney

A

The foresight of consequences is not intention

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

Nedrick

A

Harm caused needs to be a virtual certainty and the D realised this

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

Definition of Murder

A

“the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied”

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

RE: A

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

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

R v Inglis

A

“mercy killing is murder”

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

R v Adams

A

“a doctor is entitled to relieve pain and suffering, even if such measures shorten life”

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

R v Cox

A

Has to actively bring about death

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

Malcherek and Steel

A

Injuries caused death as the medical treatment was normal

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

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

A

Doctors should act in the best interest of the patient (stop feeding patient in a permanent vegetative state with unexpected recovery)

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

AG Ref No. 3

A

A foetus is not a reasonable creature in being

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

R v Clegg

A

A soldier acting under his duty can be guilty of murder if excessive force is used

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

R v Vickers

A

Intent to do GBH is enough for murder

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

Diminished Responsibility Cases

A

Voluntary manslaughter

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

Ahluwalia

A

Battered women’s syndrome

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

R v Martin

A

Paranoid personality disorder

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

R v Wood

A

Alcohol dependency disorder

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

R v Tandy

A

Alcoholism only considered if they cannot exercise any self control

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

Lloyd

A

Must not be a trivial impairment

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

Golds

A

Up to the jury to decide if they have a substantial impairment

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

Loss of Control Cases

A

Voluntary manslaughter

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

R v Jewell

A

Shot V at point-blank range

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

R v Ward

A

Fear of serious violence towards another person is a qualifying trigger

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

Zebedee

A

Grave character and justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

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

R v Hatter

A

The end of a relationship is not a qualifying trigger

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

R v Bowyer

A

V could say anything to get D to leave, no justifiable sense of being wronged

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

R v Dawes

A

Infidelity is not a qualifying trigger

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

R v Clinton

A

Infidelity can be considered with other qualifying triggers

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

Asmelash

A

D was intoxicated, this is not taken into account

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

Unlawful Act

A

Involuntary manslaughter

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

R v Franklin

A

A civil wrong is not an unlawful act

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

R v Lamb

A

no fear = no assault = no unlawful act

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

R v Lowe

A

The unlawful act cannot be an omission

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

R v Larkin

A

Doesn’t need to be aimed at the person, only has to be dangerous

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

Goodfellow

A

The unlawful act can be aimed at property

74
Q

Dawson

A

The act has to cause more than fear

75
Q

R v Church

A

Objective test - sober and reasonable person

76
Q

JM and SM

A

Does not have to foresee specific harm

77
Q

Bristow, Dunn and Delay

A

Burglary carried out in way harm is foreseeable

78
Q

Newbury and Jones

A

Intent only needed for the unlawful act

79
Q

Gross Negligence

A

Involuntary manslaughter

80
Q

Adomako

A

Requirements - for D to have a duty of care to V and breach that duty in a grossly negligent way causing death

81
Q

Singh

A

Landlords duty to maintain their property

82
Q

Litchfield

A

Duty to protect their crew from harm

83
Q

Wacker

A

You can assume a duty of care

84
Q

Evans

A

Mothers duty to her child

85
Q

Misra and Srivastava

A

Disregard for safety causing death

86
Q

Act for property offences

A

Theft Act 1968 (s1-6 theft, s8 robbery, s9 burglary)

87
Q

s1 theft definition

A

Dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive

88
Q

R v Gosh

A

Objective + subjective test (honest and reasonable)

89
Q

Ivey v Genting Casinos

A

A subjective test is not necessary

90
Q

Pitham v Hehl

A

Right to sell

91
Q

R v Morris

A

Assume any of the rights

92
Q

Lawrence

A

Consent doesn’t prevent appropriation

93
Q

Gomez

A

Consent can be taken by deception

94
Q

Hinks

A

Can appropriate voluntary gifts

95
Q

Kelley and Lindsay

A

Body parts can be property

96
Q

Oxford v Moss

A

Confidential info is not property

97
Q

R v Turner

A

Can steal own property if someone else has a proprietary interest in it

98
Q

R v Woodman

A

Can control property you weren’t aware you owned

99
Q

Ricketts

A

Property of giver/charity

100
Q

Davidge and Bunnett

A

Legal obligation s5(3)

101
Q

AG Ref No 1

A

Obligation to return s5(4)

102
Q

R v Gilks

A

Moral obligation, do not need to return

103
Q

R v Lavender

A

If D treats property as their own they have intent

104
Q

R v Lloyd

A

Take all goodness, virtue and practical value

105
Q

R v Velumyl

A

Must return the exact property

106
Q

Definition of Robbery

A

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

107
Q

AR for Robbery

A

theft with force/threat of force immediately before or at the time

108
Q

MR for Robbery

A

MR for theft and intent to use force

109
Q

R v Waters

A

Not theft if s6 cannot be established

110
Q

Concoran v Anderton

A

Even if D leaves without item, robbery is completed

111
Q

R v Clouden

A

Up to jury to decide on force

112
Q

B and R v DPP

A

No need to show V felt threatened if implied by Ds actions

113
Q

P v DPP

A

Force must be direct contact

114
Q

R v Lockley

A

Theft cannot be met before force is established

115
Q

R v Raphael

A

Wide interpretation of s6 needed for robbery

116
Q

R v Hale

A

Robbery is a continuing act until all element of theft are met

117
Q

AR of Burglary

A

Entry of a building or part of a building as a trespasser

118
Q

MR of Burglary

A

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

119
Q

R v Brown

A

“effective entry”

120
Q

R v Ryan

A

Part of body enters building

121
Q

B and S v Leathley

A

Freezer container on sleepers, connected to electricity not B/PoaB

122
Q

Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould

A

Lorry trailer is not B/PoaB

123
Q

Walkington

A

Another part of a building eg behind shop counter

124
Q

R v Collins

A

Permission to enter

125
Q

R v Smith and Jones

A

Going beyond permission given

126
Q

s2(1)(a), (b) and (c)

s2(2)

A

They believe they have the right to appropriate, consent, cannot find the owner
Willing to pay for the property

127
Q

s4(3)

s4(4)

A

wild plants unless commercial purposes

wild animals unless reduced to property

128
Q

M’Naghten

A

3 elements for insanity
□ defect of reason
□ caused by a disease of the mind
□ nature or quality of the act/legally wrong

129
Q

Clarke 1972

A

Absentmindedness is not enough

130
Q

R v Coley

A

A D who is voluntarily intoxicated and suffers a psychotic episode cannot claim insanity

131
Q

R v Kemp

A

Hardening of arteries was a disease of the mind

132
Q

R v Sullivan

A

Epilepsy is a disease of the mind

133
Q

R v Burgess

A

Sleepwalking can be a disease of the mind

134
Q

Oye

A

Understanding of nature and quality of the act

135
Q

Johnson

A

Understand the act is legally wrong

136
Q

Windle

A

Wording can show he understood the act was wrong

137
Q

Hill v Baxter

A

Concept of no-fault if D is in an automatic state due to external cause (automatism)

138
Q

R v T

A

Exceptional stress or PTSD can be an external factor that may cause automatism

139
Q

AG Ref No 2

A

Total destruction of voluntary control

140
Q

R v Bailey

A

Insufficient evidence

141
Q

DPP v Beard

A

So drunk, couldn’t form MR

142
Q

AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher

A

Had MR before intoxication = guilty

143
Q

DPP v Majewski

A

Reckless as to becoming intoxicated, enough for basic intent

144
Q

R v Harris

A

Alcoholic didn’t drink for a few days and suffered alcohol-induced hallucinations so can claim intoxication

145
Q

R v Kingston

A

Ds coffee was spiked, he sexually assaulted a 15yo boy. He had the MR

146
Q

R v O’Grady

A

Doesn’t have MR for murder but was reckless for manslaughter, drunken mistake/hallucination.

147
Q

Jaggard v Dickinson

A

Broke into the wrong house, her friend would have consented. The exception to intoxicated mistake.

148
Q

Self-defence

A

General defence

149
Q

Criminal Law Act 1967 s3

A

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances

150
Q

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

A

(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

151
Q

R v Hussain

A

If force is used after the danger has passed, self-defence is not available

152
Q

Crime and Courts Act 2013 s43

A

Wider defence to householders where an intruder enters their property

153
Q

CaCA s76(5)(a)

A

For degree of force to be reasonable it must not be grossly disproportionate

154
Q

To be a householder requirements

A

□ 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

155
Q

Collins v Secretary State for Justice

A

S76(5)(a) /= any degree of force, the jury is to decide if it was reasonable

156
Q

R v Gladstone Williams

A

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.

157
Q

AG Ref (No 2 of 1983)

A

Can make preparations if you fear an attack

158
Q

R v Bird

A

Striking first doesn’t mean force is unnecessary

159
Q

R v Clegg (Defence)

A

Self-defence not available if there is no danger when shot is fired, force is excessive

160
Q

s76(3) CJIA

A

(3) Reasonable force must be judged by the circumstances the D believed them to be

161
Q

s76(4) CJIA

A

(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

162
Q

R v Martin (Anthony)

A

Personality disorders can not be taken into account when considering self-defence
Force is excessive

163
Q

Olugboja

A

There is a difference between real consent and submission

164
Q

Clarence

A

Consent was irrelevant as she was not aware of her husbands STI

165
Q

R v Dica (consent)

A

Should be made fully aware of the risks

166
Q

Konzani

A

If D would not have cont. knowing all the facts, then consent is not informed or valid

167
Q

Wilson and Pringle

A

“Ordinary jostlings” of everyday life are not battery

168
Q

R v Barnes

A

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
169
Q

AG Ref No. 6

A

Exclusions from consent

Games/sports
Surgical interference 
Tattooing/piercings 
Horseplay 
Dangerous exhibitions
170
Q

R v Brown

A

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)

171
Q

R v Wilson

A

Branded his wife, was not unlawful despite medical attention being needed unlike in the case of Brown

172
Q

R v Aitken

A

Can have an honest but mistaken belief of consent.

173
Q

R v Jones

A

Genuine mistaken belief in ‘rough and undisciplined horseplay’ could be a defence even if the belief was unreasonable.

174
Q

Re: F

A

It is lawful to operate or give medical treatment if they cannot consent and it is the common duty to do so.

175
Q

Mitchell 1983

A

mens rea can transfer if v dies as a direct result

176
Q

Gnango 2011

A

Intent to kill but mistakenly kills another, guilty via transferred malice.

177
Q

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

A

formed the mens rea and continued the act, this is transferred malice

178
Q

R v Pagett

A

Own acts can be novus actus interveniens

179
Q

R v Jordan

A

Medical treatment can be novus actus interveniens if it is the direct cause of death

180
Q

R v Blaue

A

Thin Skull Rule - legal causation

181
Q

R v White

A

‘but for?’ - Factual

A Level Law (7 decks)

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