Criminal Law Flashcards

1
Q

intention

A

aim or purpose

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

oblique intention

A
  1. X was a virtual certainty as a result of D’s actions (objective)
  2. D appreciated this (subjective)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

recklessness

A
  1. D sees a risk that their actions would cause X (subjective)
  2. in the circumstances known to D, it was objectively unreasonable to take that risk
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

assault

A

actus reus = causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence

  • apprehension = making V to expect or anticipate but not necessarily fear
  • unlawful = not in self-defence
  • personal violence = unwanted touch (not necessarily physical harm)
  • examples = raising fist, threats of violence in words

mens rea = intention or recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence

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

battery

A

actua reus = application of unlawful force to another

  • application can be direct or indirect e.g., digging a hole that V falls into
  • applying force by omission = not warning of needle in pocket, then needle stabs V
  • force = physical contact, does not have to be rude, hostile or aggressive

mens rea = intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force on another person

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

s47 - assault occasioning actual bodily harm

A

actus reus = assault occasioning ABH

  • actus reus of either assault or battery
  • assault or battery must cause the ABH
  • ABH = any injury which interferes with the health or comfort of V, need not be permanent or serious, must be more than transient, trifling, and trivial (e.g., bruising, minor fractures, temporary loss of consciousness or sensory functioning, psychiatric injury that is more than trivial)

mens rea = mens rea for assault or battery (not intention or recklessness to cause ABH)

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

s20 - wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm

A

actus reus = wounding or inflicting GBH + causation of wounding or GBH

  • wounding = break both layers of the skin
  • GBH = serious harm - consider effect of injuries on the victim considering their health and age, and the totality of the injuries caused (e.g., broken bones, fractured skull, permanent disability, blood loss, serious psychiatric injury)

mens rea = intention or recklessness to causing SOME HARM (not wounding or GBH)

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

s18 - wounding or inflicting GBH with intent

A

actus reus = wounding or GBH + causing wounding or GBH

mens rea = intention to cause GBH (serious harm) - can be direct or oblique intent

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

theft

A

dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive

actus reus

  • appropriating = assuming any one right of the owner
  • belonging to another = someone with possession or control over an object

mens rea

  • dishonesty =
  1. D will not be dishonest if he subjectively believed they had the right to deprive V of that property, would have V’s consent if V knew, or V cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
  2. D will be dishonest if based on D’s subjective knowledge of the facts, D was objectively dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people
  • intention to permanently deprive = intention to treat the property as their own to dispose of, render property useless by destroying it, borrowing with intention to return it minus all its practical value
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

robbery

A

actus reus = theft and immediately before or at the time of theft, in order to steal, used force or the threat of force on any person or sought to put a person in fear of being then and there subject to force on

mens rea = intention to use force in order to steal (direct or oblique intent)

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

s9(1)(a) burglary

A

actus reus = D enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser

mens rea =

  1. knowing or being reckless as to entry as a trespasser
  2. at the time of entry, D intends to commit:
  • theft
  • inflicting GBH
  • unlawful criminal damage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

s9(1)(b) burglary

A

actus reus = D enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser

mens rea = knowing or being reckless as to entry as a trespasser

and once inside, commits =

  • theft / attempted theft
  • inflicted GBH / attempted inflicted GBH (but no offence required, only the GBH)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

aggravated burglary

A

if D has with them at the time of the burglary (time of entry vs time of committing ulterior offence):

  • firearms / imitation firearms
  • explosives
  • weapon of offence = article made or adapted for causing injury, or made or adapted to incapacitate a person, or an article intended by D to injure or incapacitate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

simple criminal damage

A

actus reus = damaging or destroying property belonging to another without lawful excuse

  • damage = property need not be rendered useless; need not be permanent only that time, effort, and money are needed to restore it; permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness
  • lawful excuse =
  1. self-defence
  2. D believes the owner would have consented = genuinely held; need not be reasonable
  3. D acts to protect their own or another’s property = subjective belief that property was in immediate need of protection AND that means adopted are reasonable + means adopted are objectively reasonable

mens rea =

  • intention or recklessness as to damage or destruction of property
  • knowledge or recklessness as to whether property belongs to another
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

aggravated criminal damage

A

actus reus = damaging or destroying property (D or another’s)

mens rea =

  1. intention or recklessness to destroy or damage property
  2. intention or recklessness to endanger life by the damage or destruction of property
  • no life needs to be endangered
  • the danger to life must be from the property not from the means of damaging the property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

arson

A

actus reus = damaging or destroying property by belonging to another by fire without lawful excuse

mens rea =

  • intention or recklessness as to damage or destruction of property by fire
  • knowledge or recklessness as to whether property belongs to another
17
Q

aggravated arson

A

actus reus = damaging or destroying property by fire (D or another’s)

mens rea =

  1. intention or recklessness to destroy or damage property by fire
  2. intention or recklessness to endanger life by the damage or destruction of property by fire
18
Q

murder

A

actus reus = unlawful killing of a human being + causation

mens rea = intention to kill or cause GBH (serious harm) - direct or oblique intent

19
Q

voluntary manslaughter due to diminished responsibility (partial defence to murder)

A

burden of proof = on D to prove they had DR on a balance of probabilities (via medical evidence)

4 elements to prove

  1. D had abnormality of mental functioning
  2. D suffered from a recognised medical condition at the time of killing which caused the abnormality of mental functioning
  3. abnormality of mental functioning substantially impaired D’s ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgement, or exercise self-control
  4. the abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D’s killing (causal link)

(DR can still operate if D was under influence of alcohol - up to jury)

20
Q

voluntary manslaughter due to loss of control (partial defence to murder)

A

burden of proof = D raises defence, P must prove BRD that D was not acting under loss of control

3 elements

  1. D’s acts result from their loss of self-control
  • no need to be complete loss of control so that D does not know what they are doing
  • unable to exercise self-restraint
  • loss of temper insufficient; need not be sudden but delay between provocation and killing is important
  • cannot be considered desire for revenge
  1. qualifying trigger caused loss of control:
  • fear trigger = D acts as a result of fear from serious violence
  • anger trigger = something said or done to D of an extremely grave nature (not swearing, jostling, affair) which caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (objective)
  • but D cannot have incited the fear or anger as an excuse to use violence + cannot be infidelity
  1. as a result of the qualifying trigger, a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted in a similar way
  • jury not allowed to consider characteristics that affect a normal person’s capacity for tolerance and self-restraint (bad temper, intoxication, PTSD, sensitivity)
  • jury can consider characteristics which do not affect a normal person’s capacity for tolerance and self-restraint (mental disorders which do not affect; affair)
21
Q

intoxication and murder

A
  • specific intent (only intention MR)
  • intoxication is a defence = drunken intent is still intent
  • MR = even though D was intoxicated, did D have intention to kill or cause GBH?
22
Q

self-defence (complete defence)

A
  • burden of proof = D raises defence, P proves BRD that D did not act in SD
  • can be used = imminent attack (threat of physical force) to protect D, someone else, property, or prevent a crim or assist in arrest of offender

2 elements

  1. trigger = D must honestly believe that the use of force is necessary (based on facts as D knew them; does not need to be reasonable; but D cannot rely on a drunken mistake that force was necessary)
  2. response = the level of force that D used was objectively reasonably in the circumstances that D subjectively believed them to be - reasonability differs if:
  • non-householder case = degree of force is not reasonable if it was disproportionate
  • householder case (uses force to protect themselves or another in a dwelling, D not trespasser, D thinks V is trespasser) = degree of force is not reasonable if it was grossly disproportionate
  • jury considers D acting in the heat of the moment and not being able to weigh what is reasonable
23
Q

when can D rely on intoxication defence?

A

can rely if:

  • involuntary intoxication
  • voluntary intoxication by non-dangerous drug
  • voluntary intoxication by non-dangerous drug + commits specific intent crime (MR is only intent = murder, s18, robbery, theft, burglary)

MR = did d form MR even though D was intoxicated?

  • yes = drunken intent is still intent
  • no = D lacks mens rea (e.g., D was so drunk they did not know what they were doing)
24
Q

when can D not rely on intoxication defence?

A

voluntary intoxication by dangerous drug + commits a basic intent crime (can be committed recklessly = battery, assault, s47, s20, involuntary manslaughter, criminal damage)

MR = would D form the MR if sober? D is deemed reckless if they would have foreseen the risk of harm if sober

  • if yes = D is liable (e.g., D got drunk and threw pebbles at window that smashed. D liable if they would have realised the risk of damaging window if sober)
  • if no = D is not liable (e.g., D was drunk and smashed window by tipping over a broken step that they would have tipped over if sober)
25
Q

fraud by false representation

A

actus reus = express or implied representation as to fact, law, or state of mind which was false or misleading

mens rea =

  • dishonesty
  • knowing the statement was false or misleading
  • intention to make a gain or cause a loss (no need to actually make gain or cause loss)
26
Q

fraud by failure to disclose

A

actus reus = legal duty to disclose + failing to disclose

mens rea =

  • dishonesty
  • intention to make a gain or cause a loss (no need to actually make gain or cause loss)
27
Q

fraud by abuse of position

A

actus reus = occupying a position of looking after V’s financial well-being + abuse of position

mens rea =

  • dishonesty
  • intention to make a gain or cause a loss (no need to actually make gain or cause loss)
28
Q

attempts

A

actus reus = D does an act which is more than merely preparatory to commit the offence

mens rea = intention to commit the full offence (not recklessness; includes conditional intent)

29
Q

causation

A
  1. factual causation = but for D’s act or omission, the result would not occur
  2. legal causation = D was the operating and substantial cause of the consequence
  • operating = no break in chain of causation (novus actus interveniens)
  • substantial = more than minimal
30
Q

novus actus interveniens

A
  • medical negligence = unlikely to break unless medical treatment is so independent of D’s acts and so potent in causing the death / harm that D’s acts are insignificant
  • acts of third party = break if free, deliberate, and informed
  • acts of victim in fright and flight cases = break only if they were not foreseeable to the reasonable person and not within the range of reasonable responses bearing in mind that V might act in the heat of the moment
  • act of victim in refusing medical treatment = will not break chain if D’s acts were still operating on V
  • thin skull rule = will not break chain, D must take V as they find them - where V has a belief or pre-existing medical condition that makes then suffer more harm than otherwise
31
Q

omissions

A

D will have duty to act if:

  • special relationship = spouses, parents, doctors
  • voluntary assumption of care
  • breach of contractual duty
  • D created dangerous situation - duty to take reasonable steps to rectify
32
Q

transferred malice

A

MR for intended harm can be transferred to actual harm so long as MR for the offences is the same

33
Q

coincidence of AR and MR

A

AR and MR must occur at the same time for criminal liability - but:

  1. continuing act theory = d can be guilty if they form MR at some point during the AR
  2. one transaction principle = court can find a series of actions by D as one single transaction, so it is sufficient if D has MR at some point during the series of acts