Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

MID SEMS > Criminal law > Flashcards

Criminal law Flashcards

1
Q

nullus peona sine lege

A

no punishment for something not prohibited by law

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

nullus gimen sine lege

A

no crime without law

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

actus me invito non est meus actus

A

an act done by me against my will is not my act

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

actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

A

a guilty act in itself does not result in a crime (mens rea+actus reus)

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

R v prince

A

Man made 14 yr old elope (sec 55- abduction- taken person less than 16 away from guradian’s vicinity). she pretended as if she were 18.
Mala in se- morally +legally wrong act even if not men’s rea
mala prohibite- legally but not morally wrong

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

R v Tolson

A

husband went to us in 1880. missing for 7 years. woman marries in 1887, appears a month later, alleges bigamy.
1 day sentence served
she contests, pleads no men’s rea
held- men’s rea must be read into every provison

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

sherras vs rutzen

A

every statute has implied mens rea as an essential act except-
1. cases that aren’t criminal- traffic light violation
2. criminal action to enforce a civil right (e.g. fundamental rights)
3. public nuisance

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

Hobbes vs Winchester Corporation

A

Every staute must be interpreted literally

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

Brend vs Wood

A

unless a statute mentions to leave out men’s rea, it shall be included
became a standard

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

State of MH vs MH George

A
  1. smuggler case
  2. same as brend vs wood
    3.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Prabhat singh vs state of bihar

A
  1. mens rea does not matter in medical negligence.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

nathulal case

A

ECA issue- DC- ACQUIT HC- CONVICT SC- ACQUIT (must prove knowldge + intention)

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

R v Hyam

A
  1. test of ordinary reasonable man
  2. woman w a vengeance burnt down a house, her target was out but the daughter of the target died. pleaded no mens rea
  3. liable because knowledge was present
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Hari Singh Gaur

A

discussed knowledge in the context of homicide

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

Dr Suresh Guphtan vs NCT Delhi

A
  1. tort vs crime in negligence
  2. medical negligence- gross culpable negligence- considered a crime
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

RV Gribbons vs Proctor

A
  1. nelly (7) died of starvation
  2. actus reus (circumstances)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Test of forseeability case laws- non actus intervieniens

A

R v Roberts (laid down the test)
R v Mackie
R v Jordan
R v Holland
R v Blaue

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

Varadarajan v State of Madras

A
  1. almost 18 X asked to come w Y to elope. father complained to police.
  2. Not kidnapping as enticement+taking away not present
  3. court distinguished between taking someone and allowing someone to go with you
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

sweet v parsley

A
  1. cannibis tenant issue
  2. related to strict liability
  3. “concerned with the management” imply mens rea
  4. true crime and not a regulatory crime
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

R v Kingston

A
  1. committed sexual acts while intoxicated on a 15 year old boy (involuntary intoxication)
  2. still had a sense of right or wrong as wouldn’t have done it if not intoxicated
  3. not enough to negate mens rea in this specific intent crime
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

test of first act

A
  1. anthony duff
  2. stokes case
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

name the various tests

A
  1. test of first act
  2. locus poinetintiae
  3. test of last act
  4. test of proximate acts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

test of proximate acts was formulated by

A

stephen

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

locus poinetintiae

A
  1. opportunity to repent
  2. malkait singh vs state of Punjab
  3. eagleton case
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

abhayanand mishra v state of bihar

A
  1. patna university case
  2. deals with attempt
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

malkait singh v state of punjab

A
  1. truck driver paddy case
  2. deals w attempt
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

state of mh v mhd. yakub

A
  1. attempt
  2. smuggling of silver inglots
  3. test of proximity + analysis of circumstances
28
Q

R v Cruise

A
  1. Joint liability recognized for the first time
29
Q

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v Emperor

A

302 read w s. 34

30
Q

Mehboob Shah v Emperor

A
  1. reed case
  2. difference between common intention and same intention
    3.
31
Q

matthew v state

A
  1. naxalities
  2. sec 149- likely to be used
32
Q

R v Taylor

A
  1. stab wound thing
  2. active proceedings in the case of abetment
33
Q

three types of abetment

A

instigating
engaging
aiding

34
Q

madan mohan singh v state of gujarat

A
  1. abetment to suicide
  2. are harsh words contributory?
35
Q

queen v mohit

A
  1. abetment to do sati
36
Q

ramkumar v state of hp

A
  1. abetment to rape
37
Q

DPP v Woolmington

A

burden of proof lies on the prosecution

38
Q

vishwanath v state of up

A

person can protect himself and the body of others

39
Q

mobinparpal jolly v state of punjab

A
  1. revolver and strike
40
Q

amzad khan v state

A
41
Q

omkarnath singh v up

A
42
Q

cherubinger v state of bihar

A

pvt defence

43
Q

r v beard

A
44
Q

basudev v state of pepsu

A
45
Q

r v dudley and stephen

A

necessity

46
Q

state of ap vs venugopal

A

torture cannot come under “investigation”

47
Q

jageshwar v emperor

A

accident

48
Q

ulla mahapatra v theking

A

immaturity

49
Q

r v daniel mcnaughtan

A

insanity

50
Q

mubarak hussein v state of rajasthan
basudev v state of pepsu

A

voluntary intoxication

51
Q

r v straton

A
52
Q

bishamba v rumal

A
53
Q

insanity tests

A

r v arnold
r v ferror
r v bowler
r v mcnaughten

54
Q

r v arnold

A

wild beast test of insanity
man cut up wife in 178 pieces

55
Q

r v bowler

A

right and wrong test for insanity

56
Q

r v mcnaughten

A

followed in india

57
Q

5 prop of mcnaughtan

A
  1. sane until proven insane
  2. degree of responsibility until proven otherwise
  3. right/ wrong- punishable
  4. don’t ask medical expert who hasn’t seen during offense for opinion
  5. acting under delusion- delusion facts to be considered
58
Q

niruthi v state of MH

A

Devil child case

59
Q

hussain v emperor

A

wife delusion case

60
Q

essentials of common intention

A
  1. evidentiary
  2. read w rule
  3. pre-arranged plan
  4. act should be committed
61
Q

shankarlal v state of gujarat

A
62
Q

krishna govind v state of MH

A
63
Q

PANDURANG v state of hyd

A
  1. diff between common and similar intention
  2. unimpeachable
  3. meeting of minds
64
Q

rambilal v SO Bihar

A

5 ppl to attrach this section

65
Q

mahendra singh v state of mp

A

3 ppl beat up not 5

66
Q

taijuddin v state of assam

A
  1. no common intention

MID SEMS (5 decks)

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