Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Law > Criminal Law > Flashcards

Criminal Law Flashcards

1
Q

hill v baxter

A

tells us the guilty act must be voluntary

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

r v stone

A

d’s omission was criminal because they had assumed a duty to act when they start looking after v. their omission to get help formed the actus reus of manslughter

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

r v miller

A

d’s omission was criminal because d in setting fire to the matress had set in motion a chain of events and so had a duty to act to put the fire out his omission to do this formed the acts reus.

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

r v larsonneur

A

all that was required for the actus reus was the state of affairs of d being drunk in the highway it didnt matter how d got there.

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

fagan v mpc

A

d had the actus reus when the mens rea arried and so there was coincidence

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

r v cunningham

A

reckless refers to the idea that the defendant must realise there is a risk of the prohibited outcome occuring

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

r v mohan

A

direct intent is defined as the defendant having the aim or desire to bring about the prohibited consequence

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

r v adamako

A

gross negligence defined as where the defendents conduct departed from the proper standard of care expected

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

r v pemblington

A

mens rea cannot be transferred between crimes of a different type

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

lemon v gay

A

blasphemy is an example of strict liability common law offence

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

pharmeceutical society of great britain v storkwain

A

was guilty of strict liablity because d had commited the actus reus of supplying drugs without prescription

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

sweet v parsley

A

courts are deciding whether or not an offence is one of strict liability and the stutute is unclear the starting point is that is presumed to require mens rea

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

r v benge

A

illustrates the point that d can be the legal cause of the outcome even if other causes exist aswell

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

r v hughes

A

conduct must be more than minimal cause of the prohibited outcome (legal causation)

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

r v smith

A

more than minimal cause

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

r v cheshire

A

medical negligence will not break the chain of causation unless it is extrordinary and unusual and renders d’s contribution to the outcome as insignificant

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

r v jordan

A

chain of causation was broken because the initial stab wound by d was healing and the anti biotics had nothing to do with d so could not be said to be more than minimal cause of v’s death

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

r v white

A

factual causation but for test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

smith v superintendent of woking police

A

apprehend means that v must have a general awarness of violence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

dpp v ramos

A

in order for v to apprehend immediate unlawful violence physical action is not needed it can be caused by threats

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

r v ireland

A

silent phone calls also can ammount to immediate unlawful violnece

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

r v savage

A

the mens rea required for assult is intention or recklessness to cause v to apprehend immediate unlawful violence

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

dpp v taylor

A

in this context abh the term assault refers to common assault

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

r v donovan

A

abh is defined as any hurt or injury calculated to intefere with the health or comfort of the victim. such hurt or injury need not be permenant but must be more than merely transcient and trifling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
dpp v smith
cutting of hair also amounts to gbh
26
r v roberts
the mens rea required for abh is intention or recklessness for the initial assault or battery d need not intend or risk the harm v suffers
27
moriarty v brooks
a wound is defined as a break to the continuity of the skin e.g the second layer of the skin
28
r v burstow
gbh can be caused where no physical violence is applied to v at all and that gbh can be psychiatric in nature
29
r v dica
gbh can be biological in nature
30
r v belfon
d must intend to cause serious harm
31
r v malcherek and steele
doctors turning of life support when v was already brain dead was a lawful killing
32
r v blackman
killing under the kings peace for example in battle would not constitute murder
33
r v vickers
implied malice means that d has the intention to cause v really serious harm and v dies
33
r v wood
a recognised medical condition is battered wives syndrome
34
r v byrne
abnormality of functioning as a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
35
r v golds
substaintially impaired means an important or weighty impairment rather than one merely passing the trivial
36
r v dietschmann
when d is suffering abnormality of mental fuctioning and intoxication the jury must disregard the intoxication when assessing whether d's ability to do one of three things was impaired
37
r v jewell
loss of control was defined as a loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgment or a loss of normal powers of reasoning
38
r v dawes
confirms that the loss of control need not be sudden the jury can take cumulative impact of events into account
39
r v bowyer
insults towards girlfriend do not constitute the fear trigger
40
jersey v holley
sexual infedelity by itself can not be considered to come under the anger trigger
41
r v mohammed
d's bad temper cannot be taken into account for the anger trigger
42
r v lamb
lacked any mens rea so had not commited an unlawful ac t under an accident
43
dpp v newbury jones
unlawful act can be a property crime
44
r v lowe
the unlawful act cannot be an omission
45
r v church
defines a dangerous act as one which all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to the risk of some harm
46
r v watson
burgalry was dangerous because the reasonable person would deem burgling a house would pose some harm to an elderly frail occupant
47
r v dawson
the act was not dangerous the risk posed by robbing a night counter at a garage was one of emotional disturbance not a risk of some harm
48
r v kennedy
the unlawful act of supplying drugs to a victim is not deemed the cause of death them intaking them breaks the chain of causation
49
r v broughton
their are six elements for gross negligence manslaughter : d owes v a duty of care, d breaches duty, there was a serious and obvious risk of death at the time of the breach, that such risk was reasonably foresseable at the time of the breach, that the breach caused vs death and the negligence is truly exceptionally bad
50
r v ruffel
d owed a duty of care as he assumed a duty having promised v's mother that he would take care of the victim
50
r v batemen
gross negligence was defined as such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state deserving punishment
50
r v morris
switching price lables was appropriation because the assumption of a right of owner is sufficient
51
r v gomez
there was appropriation even though v appeared to consent because the consent was obtained by deception
52
r v welsh
a sample of d's own urine was held to be personal property. this amounted to theft
53
oxford v moss
confidential information itself is not property
54
r v turner
d's own property was held to be belonging to another as it was under possession and control of the garage
55
r v robinson
no robbery because d was not dishonest and so did not commit theft which is required to commit robbery.
56
dawson v james
tells us that force is an ordinary word and this is for the jury to decide
57
b and r v dpp
threat of force will be present if the defendent seeks to cause the victim to apprehend violence whether he succeeds or not is irrelevant
58
r v hale
force was used immediately before or at the time of the theft can include situations where the force was used just after the theft if the jury decide that the approriation was a continuing act that lasted until force was used.
59
r v clouden
force on a shopping bag amounted to force as it affected v's body
60
r v james
d was not guilty of robbery because the force was not used in order to steal
61
dpp v stonehouse
for an act to be more than merely prepatory the defendant msut have crossed thew rubicon and burned his boats meaning that acts immediately connected with the offence could constitute an attempt
62
r v gullefer
more than merely prepatory means that d has embarked upon the crime proper
63
r v mohan
intention in attempts is defined as that the defendant has as his aim or desire the prohibited outcome
64
r v walker
oblique intent is also sufficient for an attempt
65
r v beckford
force is neccessary in self defence if the defendant genuinely considers the usew of force necessary in the circumstances as he believes them to be even if he is mistaken
66
r v gladstone williams
d can still claim self defence even if he strikes first
67
r v harvey
when assessing whether the defendants use of force was necessary the jury can take into account the circumstances and the danger that the defendant believs to exist
68
r v clegg
claim of self defence failed because he had used excessive force
69
dpp v majewski
if d is voluntarily intoxicated and commits a basic intent crime this is no defence as d is reckless in becoming intoxicated
70
r v sheehan and moore
defendants culpability was reduced to manslaughter as he was to intoxicated to form the mens rea for murder at all
71
northern ireland v gallagher
was guilty as he had formed the necessary intention prior to becoming intoxicated
72
r v hardie
if d is involuntarily intoxicated they will be aquitted as long as they have not formed the mens rea prior to the intoxication
73
r v kingston
d was guilty despite his involuntarily intoxication because he still had the mens rea prior to the intoxication
74
bratty v ag for ni
automatism is defined as an act done by the muscles without control by the mind such as a spasm a reflex action or a convulsion or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing
75
r v clarke
for the purposes of insanity defect of reason means that the defendants powers of reasoning are impaired just being absent minded or confused is not enough
76
r v kemp
disease of the mind covers any disease that results in a malfuctioning of the brain whether or not the disease is one we would describe as a mental illness
77
r v quick
no disease of the mind as d's hypogycaemic state was not internally caused rather it was a result of his failure to eat having taken insulin
78
r v windle
d could not claim insanity as despite suffering from a form of communicated insanity he knew that what he had done was legally wrong
79
r v baxter
an example of an external cause was a person being attacked by bees
80
ag v whelen
duress was defined as where threats of immediate death or serious personal violence so great as to the overbear the ordinary powers of human resistance should be accepted as justification for acts whcih would otherwise be criminal
81
r v aikens
threats will not be enough to ammount to duress where they fall short of threat of death or serious injury so a threat to punch d would not be enough neither would be threat to property
82
r v shayler
the requirement that threat is made to d or someone close to him was interupted as meaning that d could be responsible towards another even where he has no previous connection with that person
83
r v graham
graham test defines three elements : the defendant reasonably believed in the circumstances of threat and whether the defendants belief amounted to good cause for his fear and whether the defendants response might have been expected of a sober person of reasonable firmness
84
r v hasan
the threat being an immediate one that could not avoid was the cardinal feature of the defence. also clear that the defendants belief as to the immediacy of the threat must be a reasonable
85
r v sharp
claim of duress was not allowed as d having been part of a conspiracy to rob had brought the situation upon himself
86
r v shepherd
d had joined a gang of shoplifters that was not overtly violent so the defence of duress should be left to the jury to consider

Law (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions