criminal law Flashcards
mens rea
latin for guilty mind,
the state of mind which is necessary for the crime in question
intention
the defendant deliberately makes something their aim and purpose
following mohan
oblique intent
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
recklessness
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
transferred malice
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
actus reus
unlawful physical act
must be a voluntary act and not a reflex
Hill v Baxter
omission
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
causation
a link must be proved between the defendants actions and the consequence
factual causation
when without the defendants actions, the consequence wouldn’t of happened
legal causation
this is where there is significant cause
intervening acts
breaks the chain of causation if they act is unforeseeable
mens rea and actus reus
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
strict liability
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
adv of strict liability
protect society by promoting greater care on matters of public safety
easier to enforce as there is no need to prove mens rea
disadv of strict liability
makes people guilty who are not blame worthy
even people who have taken all possible care will be found guilty SHAH
assault
the apprehension of immediate unlawful physical violence
smith v working police constable - immediate
Lamb - unlawful
battery
the application of unlawful force
Thomas, collins v willcock -slightest touch
doesn’t need to be any harm caused
actual bodily harm (ABH)
intentionally or recklessly carrying out an assault causing ABH
define assault/ battery
Smith - some hurt/ injury
Chan fook - psychiatric injury
GBH/ wounding
s. 20 -unlawfully and maliciously inflict serious harm or wounding either intent or recklessness (Paramenter)
s. 18 - cause serious harm/wounding with intent (Taylor)
murder step 1
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
murder step 2
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
murder step 3
diminished responsibility
>abnormality of mental functioning, diff from normal, must be proved.
> recognised medical condition, substantial impairment of conduct and control
>explain killing?
negligence structure
foreseeable, proximity, fair just and reasonable to give duty of care
neighbours?
breach? ordinary man, size of risk bolton
damages
unlawful act manslaughter step 1
unlawful act causes death. act not omission (lamb)
unlawful act manslaughter step 2
unlawful act must be a substantial cause of death (carey) died from running away. punch did not cause death
step 2 part 2 causation para unlawful act manslaughter
but for (white), operating (cheshire) harm results from D act, intervening when someone other then the D intervenes
step 3 unlawful act manslaughter
reckless > mens rea for unlawful act not for the risk of death.
step 4 unlawful act manslaughter
danger of the unlawful act.
risk of some physical harm a sober person would recognise.
a dangerous act
precedent for gross negligence manslaughter
Adamako > leading authority for GNM. did not realise the oxygen was out for 3 mins
step 1 gross negligence manslaughter
existence of duty of care > caparo v dickman- foreseeable proximate fair. donoghue v stevenson- ‘neighbour’.
step 2 gross negligence manslaughter
breach of the duty causing death > objective test- ordinary man doing the task would see risk of death. unbroken chain of events
step 3 gross negligence manslaughter
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”
step 4 gross negligence manslaughter
risk of death> adamako- breach creates risk of death. risk of injury is not sufficient. it is OBJECTIVE - risk of death = liable
attempted offence
attempts requires an act which is more then merely preparatory. does not complete actus reus but does complete mens rea
attempts structure
state crime, define the crime and link case. define attempts link gullefer. analyse AR. analyse MR. conclusion
insanity
thought process not working correctly, disease of the mind. not knowing it was wrong believed you were doing something else
automatism
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.
intoxication
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.
necessity defences
it is necessary that you commit the crime to stop something bad from happening.
self defence
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.
duress by threat
D was forced to do crime.
duress of circumstances
if they do not do it an injury will occur.
theft
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.
robbery
any force used while completing the act of theft. entry/exit force. does not need to cause any harm only has to be force.
