Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

GDL 2022 > Criminal Law > Flashcards

Criminal Law Flashcards

1
Q

What is a crime?

A
  1. No universal definition.
  2. Is a reflection of time and age.
  3. An action criminally punished.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Criminal Law

A

Is the reflection of community values aimed at isolating the blameworthy who are deserving of punishment.

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

A crime

A

A crime mat be defined as an act (or omission or a state of affairs) which may be followed by the prosecution.

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

Elements of a crime

A
  1. Actus reus
  2. Mens rea
  3. Absence of defence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Type of crime?

A
  1. Conduct crime
  2. Result crime
  3. Situational crime/ State of affairs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is a conduct crime?

A

Prohibits conduct regardless of consequences

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

Result crime

A

Prohibits consequences arising from D’s conduct .

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

Situational Crime/State of affairs

A

Definition of actus reus is concerned neither with conduct or consequences, but simply with existence of set of facts/circs. (e.g. possession of drugs, drunk driving)

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

Actus reus

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

Purpose to Criminal Law

A
  1. Protect individuals.
  2. Preserve order in society.
  3. Punish offenders.
  4. Enforce moral values
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Conflicting cases in GBH

A
  1. Brown (1993) S. 47 OAPA 1861. GBH/ consent/ gays.

2. Wilson (1996) S. 47 OAPA 1861/ GBH/ consent/husband initials.

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

Examples of the changinf nature or criminal law

A
  1. Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885/ consensual homosexual act/ criminalised.
  2. The Sexual Offence Act 1967/ decriminalised sex 21 age an over.
  3. The criminal justice and Public Act 1994/ decriminaled sex 18 age an over.
    4.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Judicial Law making

A
  1. Shaw v DPP 1962/ conspiracy to corrupt publi morals.
  2. Knulller Ltd v DPP (1973) confirme this offence.
  3. Gibson 1991.
  4. R v R (1991) marital rape criminalised.
  5. Brown 1993.
  6. Wilson 1996
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Classification of offence

A
  1. Indictable.
  2. Triable.
  3. Summary
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Indictable Offence

A

Indictmet at the Crown Court ( example: murder, manslaughter, rape.

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

Triable Offence

A

Indictment at the Crown Court or Sumarily at the Magistrates’ court ( e.g. Theft, burglary, assaul, GBH.

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

Summary offence

A

Offence which can only be tried at the magistrates’ court ( e.g. Assaunting a Policeman. common assault.

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

Classifying law by its sources

A
  1. Common law (judge-made)
  2. Statutory (defined in an Act of Parliament.
  3. Regulatory (set out in delegated legislation)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Classifying the offence by the type of harm caused by the crime

A
  1. Offence against the person.
  2. Offence against property.
  3. Offence against public order
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Elements of a crime

A

Actus reus (physical element) + Mens rea (Fault element)= offence

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

Latin maxim of crime

A

“actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”.

The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty mind.

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

Actus reus

A

An act as it can cover omissions or a state of affairs

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

Actus reus

A

Lord Diplock in Miller (1983): prohibited conduct.

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

Actus reus

A

“external element”.

The law commission in the Draft Criminal code (1989)

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

Mens rea

A

Guilty mind

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

Mens Rea v The law commission in the Draft Criminal code (1989)

A

Fault element

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

Case:

Fagan v Metropolitan Police commissioner (1969)

A

Actus reus can be a continuing act, so that it mens rea is superimposed on it at any point, it completes the offence.

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

Case:

Thabo Meli v R (1954

A

Where mens rea and actus reaus are present in a series of acts then there is sufficient coincidence for D to be guilty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q 
Case:
Le Brun (1991)
A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Crimes of strict liability

A

The prosecution need only prove the actus rea; no (mens rea) mental element is need for guilty.

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

Defence

A

May can have Actus rea and mens rea, but may not be guilty.

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

Burder and standar of proof

A

Actus reus and mens rea must be prove by the prosecution.

Case: Woolminghton v DPP 1935

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

Case: Woolminghton v DPP 1935

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

The standard of proof is:

A

Beyond reasonable doubt

35
Q

Art. 6 (2) of the European Convention on Human Right

A

Principle of innocent.

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

36
Q

Art. 14 of the European Convention on Human Right

A

No discrimination.

ARTICLE 14 Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

37
Q

Case G (2008)

A
38
Q

Case:

Lambert (2001)

A
39
Q

A-G Reference (No 4 of 2002) (2004)

A

Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: HL 14 Oct 2004. Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts.

40
Q

Case:

Sheldrake v DPP (2005)

A
41
Q

Legality principle. European Convention on Human Right

A

ARTICLE 7 (1)
No punishment without law
1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than
the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

42
Q

Case:

CR v UK 1996

A
43
Q

No punishment without law

A
44
Q

Case challenges under Art. 7. Lacjs clarity

A
  1. R v Misra.
  2. R v Srivastava (2004)
  3. Goldstein (2005)
45
Q

Cases of Human rights. Challenges to the criminal law on the basis of the CHR

A
  1. Altham (2006) art. 3/ cannabis/ failed.
  2. Quayle (2005) art. 8./cannabis/ right to respect for a person’s private life/ failed.
  3. G (2008) Sexual Offence Act 2003 (rape pf a child) intercourse was consensual. aged 15.
  4. Dehal (2005) right of freedon of expression (art. 10). S.4 under Public Order Act 1986.
46
Q

Human rights and criminal procedure

A

Case: H (2003) S4 Criminal procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 incompatible ECHR.
Case: T v UK; V v UK (2000) Child defendants/ breach art. 6/ right o a fair trial.

47
Q

Case: Brown (1993)

A
  1. Adult sado-masochists.
  2. convicted of offence of assault
  3. S.47 Offence Against the Person Act 1861.
  4. S. 20 Offence Against the Person Act 1861
48
Q

Case: Brown (1993) key law

A

Consent could not be used as a defence to charges of assault, even thought the acts were between adults in privite and did nor result in SERIOUS bodily injury.

49
Q

Case: Wilson 1996/ Key law

A

Consent eas a defene in such a case. However, the law should develop on a case-by-case basis.

50
Q

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 6 of 1980). Consent

A

The court considered a reference on a point of law as to whether consent could be a defence to a charge of assault arising out of a fight in a public place to which the other party consented.

51
Q

Shaw v DPP (1962) Key law

A

The House of Lords created the offence of CONSPIRACY to corrupt public morals as there did not appear to be an offence which covered the situation

52
Q

R V R/ Key law

A

Althought old authorities stated that a MAN could not be guilty of RAPING his WIFE, the law had to evolve to suit modern society. D could be guilty.

53
Q

Case: R v Church 1965

A

Edmund Davies LJ set the applicable test for constructive manslaughter:

“The conclusion of this Court is that an unlawful act causing the death of another cannot, simply because it is an unlawful act, render a manslaughter verdict inevitable. For such a verdict inexorably to follow, the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm.”

54
Q

R v Church [1965] 2 WLR 1220/ Facts

A

during which the appellant knocked her unconscious. He tried to wake her for 30 mins to no avail. He believed she was dead and threw her body into a river. Medical evidence revealed that the cause of death was drowning and she therefore had been alive when he threw her into the river. The trial judge made several errors in his direction to the jury and in the event they convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The appellant appealed on the grounds of misdirection.

55
Q

Case: Woolmington v DPP 1953

A

The presumption of innocence was re-consolidated.

In criminal law the case identifies the metaphorical “golden thread” running through that domain of the presumption of innocence.

56
Q

Foster’s Crown Law (1762):

A

“In every charge of murder, the fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity are to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoner, unless they arise out of the evidence produced against him; for the law presumeth the fact to have been founded in malice, until the contrary appeareth. And very right it is, that the law should so presume. The defendant in this instance standeth upon just the same foot that every other defendant doth: the matters tending to justify, excuse, or alleviate, must appear in evidence before he can avail himself of them.”

57
Q

Case: Sheldrake v DPP 2004

A
58
Q

Case: R v Lambert (2001)

A
59
Q

Actus Reus

A
  1. Can be: an act or an omission or a state of affairs.
  2. Conduct MUST be voluntaty.
  3. May require a consequence caused by the D’s act or omission.
60
Q

Actus reus: an act

A

Action

61
Q

Actus reus: omission

A

Failing to provide a specimen of breath; or wilful neglect of a Child.

S. 1. Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

62
Q

Actus reus: A state of affairs

A

To be alien under the law.

Example:
A) Case Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983).
B) R v Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App R 74

63
Q

R v Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App R 74

A

The defendant, a French woman, was deported against her will, from Ireland to England, by the Irish authorities. Upon her arrival she was immediately charged with the offence of ‘being’ an illegal alien. Her conviction was upheld despite the fact that she had not voluntarily come to England.

64
Q

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent 1983

A

Facts
The defendant was taken into a hospital on a stretched, but then was found to be drunk and was told to leave.
D refused to leave the hospital.
Eventually ,the police came over and took D to their car on the highway outside the hospital.
D was charged with being ‘found drunk’ in the highway.

65
Q

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent 1983

A

Issue
Did the D have the required Actus Reus for the offence ?

Held
The Divisional Court charged the D with ‘being drunk’ in the highway under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872.

66
Q

Actus reus: A consecuence

A

In murder there mat be a stabbing, but thre must also be the consecuence of death.

S. 47 OAPA 1861/GBH

67
Q

Actus reus: Voluntary conduct

A
  1. Case: Hill v Baxter 1958

Issues
At first instance, it was accepted that B was “unconscious” at the time of the accident and, accordingly, the charges were dismissed. The prosecutor appealed and argued that having found that B had exercised skill in driving immediately prior to the incident it could not also be found that he was unconscious at the same time. B argued that whilst he was driving, he was driving in a state of automatism and he lacked mens rea.

Decision/Outcome
The Court noted that the relevant offence in the Road Traffic Act 1930 contained an absolute prohibition and raised no question of mens rea.

68
Q

Actus reus: Voluntary conduct

A

Broome v perkins (1987)
Issues
The key issue was whether the lay justices were correct in law in finding that a defendant who had erratically driven a motor vehicle for approximately five miles, during which time he was involved in an accident, was capable of utilising automatism as a defence. It was established in Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386that in cases of insane and non-insane automatism, the judge must only leave the defence of automatism to the jury where the defence has laid a proper evidential foundation for so doing.

The Court held that “automatism” implied involuntary movement of the body or limbs and whether this has occurred is a question of law which requires to proven by evidence. In the circumstances, the Court did not accept that a car could be driven for several miles without some degree of control. It must therefore be concluded that for parts of the journey P’s mind was controlling his limbs and that thus he was driving. Therefore, the automatism defence was not applicable. The case was remitted with a direction to convict.

69
Q

Liability for omissions:

A

Duty of care: five situations

70
Q

Duty of care (five situation)

A
  1. Under a contract. Case Pittwood).
  2. Because of a public office. Case Dytham).
  3. As a result of a dangerous situation create by the D. Case (Miller)
  4. Duty voluntarily undertaken. eg. case of an elderly (Stone v Dobinson)
  5. Because of the relationship ( case Gibbins v Proctor).
71
Q

Case Pittwood 1902

A
72
Q

Case Dytham 1918

A

A police officer from St. Helens, witnessed the death of a nightclubber outside Cindy’s nightclub but took no action to help because, had he reported it then Dytham would have had to stay beyond the end of his shift. The defendant was convicted of the common law offence of misconduct in a public office. The court rejected the defendant’s contention that this offence required malfeasance, or at least misfeasance, and did not extend to non-feasance.

The court held that as a police officer, he had a duty of care to all of society, unlike civilians, in which case, there is no duty to put oneself at harm.

73
Q

Case Evans 2009

A

Issues
Evans submitted that the judge had erred in his instruction to the jury regarding duty of care in the circumstances and that it was inconsistent with previous authority to do so. Further, she argued that the judge was wrong to leave the question of duty of care to the jury and that doing so conflicted the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Article 6 and 7.

Decision/Outcome
Appeal dismissed. It was held that none of the previous authority Evans referred to had dealt with manslaughter. Applying R v Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79, R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 and R v Kennedy [2007] All ER (D) 247 (Oct), it was held that in cases of gross negligence manslaughter, if an individual caused or contributed to creating a life-threatening situation; a consequent duty would normally arise to take reasonable steps to save the person’s life. On the facts of this case, Evans created such a situation by providing the heroin to her half-sister and had not taken subsequent steps to negate the danger created.

74
Q

Case: Miller 1983

A

Issues
Because the prosecution relied on the ground that the defendant had failed to take any action to extinguish the fire in addition to the fact that he had been reckless in starting the fire by falling asleep with a lit cigarette, the question arose whether the defendant could be liable for an omission. If it was not, then the actus reus of arson was not present and no conviction for arson would be possible.

Decision/Outcome
The court concluded that as he was responsible for having created the dangerous situation, the defendant was under a duty to take action to resolve it once he became aware of the fire. It was not necessary that the defendant was subjectively aware of the risk of damage posed by the fire, provided that this would be obvious to a reasonable person who troubled to turn his mind to the matter. The defendant was therefore liable for his omission to take any steps to put out the fire or seek held, and was accordingly convicted of arson.

75
Q

Case Stone v Dobinson 1977

A

Issues
The issue was the jury were entitled to find that the defendants owed a duty of care to the victim. Additionally, the definition of ‘gross negligence’ for the purpose of a manslaughter conviction was in issue.

Decision/Outcome
The jury were entitled to find that a duty of care was owed on the grounds that the victim was not only a lodger in the home of the defendants but also had closer ties to each. In Stone’s case, a duty of care was owed on the basis that she was a blood relative, whilst Dobinson had undertaken a duty of care by washing her and providing food.

Regarding the issue of negligence, the Court of Appeal held that in order to ground a conviction for manslaughter the defendants must have been ‘grossly negligent’ in respect of their breach of duty. Geoffrey Lane LJ suggested that such gross negligence required the defendants to have been either ‘indifferent’ to the risk of injury, or have foreseen the risk and run it nevertheless.

76
Q

Case Gibbins v Proctor 1918

A

Facts
The defendants, a father and mother, starves their 7-year old daughter with intension to kill.
As a result, she died of starvation due to her parents neglect.
Issue
Did the D’s commit murder?

Held
D’s were found guilty of murder.
The parents had a duty to protect their child.

77
Q

DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908 (Admin)

A

Facts

The defendant, Bermundez, was being searched by a police officer.
D told the police officer that he wasn’t carrying any ‘sharps’ before he was searched.
Consequently, the police officer was pricked by a needle when she was searching the D.
Issue

whether the D is guilty of committing battery?

Held

D was charged with battery occasioning actual bodily harm.
The court held that the D placed the police officer in a dangerous situation.
The court applied the dangerous acts doctrine from R v Miller.

https://www.explore-law.com/dpp-v-santana-bermudez/

78
Q

Airedale National Health Service Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789

A

Issues
A patient that is in a persistent vegetative state cannot withhold or offer consent for treatment. This requires the doctors to act in the best interests of the patient, which in this case was whether the continuation of Bland being on life support was in his best interests. It was important to understand whether life support can ever be withdrawn from an individual who cannot provide medical professionals with informed consent on a specific issue.

Decision/Outcome
Doctors have a duty to act in the best interests of their patients but this does not necessarily require them to prolong life. On the basis that there was no potential for improvement, the treatment Bland was receiving was deemed not to be in his best interests. It is not lawful to cause or accelerate death. However, in this instance, it was lawful to withhold life-extending treatment which in this instance was the food that Bland was being fed through a tube. Appeal dismissed.

79
Q

OMISSIONS CASES

A
  1. Ahmad, R v (1986)
  2. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]
  3. R v [1922] Cr App R 7 Downes,
  4. R v (1875) 13 Cox CC 111
  5. DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003) EWHC 2908 Dytham,
  6. R v [1979] QB 722 (Court of Appeal)
  7. . Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner[1969] 1 QB 439 Firth,
  8. R v (1990) 1 Med LR 411 (Court of Appeal) Frenchay NHS Trust v S [1993]
  9. Gibbins & Proctor, R v (1918) 13 Cr App Rep 134 Instan,
  10. R v [1893] 1 QB 50 Kaitamaki v The Queen [1984] Privy Council (New Zealand) Khan, R v [1998] Crim LR 830 (CA) Lowe, R v [1973] QB 702 (Court of Appeal) Miller, R v [1983] 2 AC 161 (House of Lords) Pitchley, R v [1973] 57 Cr App R 30 (CA Pittwood, R v [1902] TLR 37 Re B (Adult: refusal of medical treatment) [2002] 2 All ER 449 Re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1981] 1 WLR 1421 (CA) Re J [1991] (Court of Appeal) Re T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1993] Re W (A Minor) (Medical Treatment: Court’s Jurisdiction) [1993] FAM 64 [CA] Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414 Shepherd, R v (1862) 169 ER 1340 Smith, R v (1826) 2 C&P 449 Smith, R v [1979] (Crown Court) Speck, R v [1977] 2 ALL ER 859 (CA) Stone and Dobinson, R v (1977) 1 QB 354 (CA) Yuthiwattana, R v (1984) 16 HLR 49 (CA)

https://digestiblenotes.com/law/criminal_cases/omissions.php

80
Q

Causation

A
81
Q

Factual causation

A
82
Q

Legal Causation

A
83
Q

Intervening act

A

The chain of causation

GDL 2022 (4 decks)

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