criminal law

Question 1

mens rea

Answer 1

latin for guilty mind,

the state of mind which is necessary for the crime in question

Question 2

intention

Answer 2

the defendant deliberately makes something their aim and purpose
following mohan

Question 3

oblique intent

Answer 3

when the defendant claims to have some other purpose that is different to the consequences of his actions
Woolin(1998) threw baby into its pram but missed and caused it head injuries causing death

Question 4

recklessness

Answer 4

the defendant knows there is an unjustified risk but still continues with the act anyway,
Cunningham(1957) the defendant appreciated that their actions made an unjustified risk but went ahead with the action anyway

Question 5

transferred malice

Answer 5

when the defendant injures someone other than their intended victim,
the rule is that the malice transferred to the actual victim is the same crime as the one they would’ve been charged with for the intended victim

Question 6

actus reus

Answer 6

unlawful physical act
must be a voluntary act and not a reflex
Hill v Baxter

Question 7

omission

Answer 7

failure to act,
u can have a contracted duty, a duty to care if your a parent you must care for your child
a duty to care for someone voluntarily can also create a duty to act
stone and dobinson(1977) sister

Question 8

causation

Answer 8

a link must be proved between the defendants actions and the consequence

Question 9

factual causation

Answer 9

when without the defendants actions, the consequence wouldn’t of happened

Question 10

legal causation

Answer 10

this is where there is significant cause

Question 11

intervening acts

Answer 11

breaks the chain of causation if they act is unforeseeable

Question 12

mens rea and actus reus

Answer 12

the rule is that mens rea and actus reus usually have to be present at the same time

if there was no mens rea during an actus reus then it is not murder

thabio meli(1954) beat up a man they had mens rea. threw him over a cliff and died. they said they had no mens rea when he died but it got rejected as one mens rea can apply to the whole act

Question 13

strict liability

Answer 13

offences that do not require any mens rea to be guilty

designed to protect the public

alphacell v woodward(1972) polluted matter entered the river

Question 14

adv of strict liability

Answer 14

protect society by promoting greater care on matters of public safety

easier to enforce as there is no need to prove mens rea

Question 15

disadv of strict liability

Answer 15

makes people guilty who are not blame worthy

even people who have taken all possible care will be found guilty SHAH

Question 16

assault

Answer 16

the apprehension of immediate unlawful physical violence
smith v working police constable - immediate
Lamb - unlawful

Question 17

battery

Answer 17

the application of unlawful force
Thomas, collins v willcock -slightest touch

doesn’t need to be any harm caused

Question 18

actual bodily harm (ABH)

Answer 18

intentionally or recklessly carrying out an assault causing ABH
define assault/ battery
Smith - some hurt/ injury
Chan fook - psychiatric injury

Question 19

GBH/ wounding

Answer 19

s. 20 -unlawfully and maliciously inflict serious harm or wounding either intent or recklessness (Paramenter)
s. 18 - cause serious harm/wounding with intent (Taylor)

Question 20

murder step 1

Answer 20

killing a reasonable creature in being with malice aforethough express or implied.
> unlawful, killed, human
> express intent(mohan), implied intent(intent to cause serious harm)
causation

Question 21

murder step 2

Answer 21

loss of control when doing act(striking once, nearby weapon, no premeditation)
> trigger R v Bowyer (fear of violence, thing said/done, racism
> objective test, revenge

Question 22

murder step 3

Answer 22

diminished responsibility
>abnormality of mental functioning, diff from normal, must be proved.
> recognised medical condition, substantial impairment of conduct and control
>explain killing?

Question 23

negligence structure

Answer 23

foreseeable, proximity, fair just and reasonable to give duty of care
neighbours?
breach? ordinary man, size of risk bolton
damages

Question 24

unlawful act manslaughter step 1

Answer 24

unlawful act causes death. act not omission (lamb)

Question 25

unlawful act manslaughter step 2

Answer 25

unlawful act must be a substantial cause of death (carey) died from running away. punch did not cause death

Question 26

step 2 part 2 causation para unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 26

but for (white), operating (cheshire) harm results from D act, intervening when someone other then the D intervenes

Question 27

step 3 unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 27

reckless > mens rea for unlawful act not for the risk of death.

Question 28

step 4 unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 28

danger of the unlawful act.
risk of some physical harm a sober person would recognise.
a dangerous act

Question 29

precedent for gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 29

Adamako > leading authority for GNM. did not realise the oxygen was out for 3 mins

Question 30

step 1 gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 30

existence of duty of care > caparo v dickman- foreseeable proximate fair. donoghue v stevenson- ‘neighbour’.

Question 31

step 2 gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 31

breach of the duty causing death > objective test- ordinary man doing the task would see risk of death. unbroken chain of events

Question 32

step 3 gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 32

grossness > very severe. R v Mistra- so gross the jury consider it criminal- adamako. it is a question of fact for the jury to decide. “jury are likely to”

Question 33

step 4 gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 33

risk of death> adamako- breach creates risk of death. risk of injury is not sufficient. it is OBJECTIVE - risk of death = liable

Question 34

attempted offence

Answer 34

attempts requires an act which is more then merely preparatory. does not complete actus reus but does complete mens rea

Question 35

attempts structure

Answer 35

state crime, define the crime and link case. define attempts link gullefer. analyse AR. analyse MR. conclusion

Question 36

insanity

Answer 36

thought process not working correctly, disease of the mind. not knowing it was wrong believed you were doing something else

Question 37

automatism

Answer 37

act done by the muscles without control of the mind. “not conscious” e.g. diabetics taken insulin - automatism as caused by external insulin. diabetics who haven’t - insanity as internal.

Question 38

intoxication

Answer 38

can raise if can prove no mens rea due to intoxicated state. prove no mebs rea by way crime was carried out. e.g. hurting someone without reason. any premed is not intoxication. no intoxication for crimes w reckless.

Question 39

necessity defences

Answer 39

it is necessary that you commit the crime to stop something bad from happening.

Question 40

self defence

Answer 40

was force necessary and reasonable. full defence. must of protected themselves or other person. even if D is mistaken they can still show honest belief they would hurt them. can also use pre-emptive force before threat happens. can use a bit more force than necessary but not excessive.

Question 41

duress by threat

Answer 41

D was forced to do crime.

Question 42

duress of circumstances

Answer 42

if they do not do it an injury will occur.

Question 43

theft

Answer 43

dishonest appropriation. takes the rights of the owner. is the propertycapable of being stolen?
was the D dishonest? (what would ordinary person do) does the D intent to permanently deprive.

Question 44

robbery

Answer 44

any force used while completing the act of theft. entry/exit force. does not need to cause any harm only has to be force.