Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

!st Year Law > Criminal Law > Flashcards

Criminal Law Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
2
Q

Burden of Proof: Woolmington (1935)

A

Where D raises a defence it is for the prosecution to negate that defence. This applies to nearly all defences.

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

Burden of Proof: Lambert (2001)

A

It is normally a breach of human rights for D to have to prove innocence.

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

Burden of Proof: Sheldrake (2004)

A

BUT imposing a legal burden of proof on D is not objetionable where the offence carries risk of death and the relevant information is within D’s knowledge.

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

Purpose of Law: Brown (1993)

A

The law should protect society from a cult of violence

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

Purpose of Law: Wilson (1996)

A

Consensual marital behavior was not criminal BUT the law should develop on a case by case basis

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

Judicial Law-Making: Shaw v DPP (1961)

A

Created the offence of corrupting public morals

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

Judicial Law-Making: Knuller v DPP (1973)

A

Recognized that Shaw had created the offence of corrupting public morals; majority also thought an offence of outraging public decency existed.

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

Judicial Law-Making: R (1991)

A

Law should change with society

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

Elements of a Crime: Fagan v MPC (1968)

A

Actus reus can be a continuing act, so that if 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
11
Q

Elements of a Crime: Thabo Meli v R (1954)

A

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

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

Actus Reus: Omissions: Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

A

Parents and anyone who has undertaken care of a child owe a duty to that child.

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

Actus Reus: Omissions: Stone and Dobinson (1977)

A

D may owe a duty to vulnerable family members. Anyone undertakening care of an elderly person may owe a duty.

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

Actus Reus: Omissions: Miller(1983)

A

Where D sets in motion a chain of events which might cause harm, he has a duty to act.

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

Actus Reus: Omissions: Evans (2009)

A

A person who has created or contributed to a life threatening state of affairs is under a duty to act.

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

Actus Reus: Omissions: Dytham (1979)

A

There may be a duty because of a public office

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

Actus Reus: Intervening Acts: Roberts (1972)

A

Where V’s intervening act is reasonably forseeable then it does not break the chain of causation.

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

Actus Reus: Intervening Acts: Wiliams and Davis (1992)

A

If V’s conduct is not reasonably foreseeable then it will break the chain of causation

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

Actus Reus: Causation: White (1970)

A

The act myust be the factual cause

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

Actus Reus: Causation: Pagett (1983)

A

A reasonable response to self defence does not break the chain of causation.

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

Actus Reus: Causation: Malcherek (1981)

A

Switching off a life-support machine does not break the chain of causation.

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

Actus Reus: Causation: Cheshire (1991)

A

Negligent treatment by medial staff does not normally break the cain of causation.

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

Mens Rea: Intention: Mohan (1975)

A

Intention is a decision to bring about a certain consequence.

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

Mens Rea: Intention: Moloney (1985)

A

Foresight of consequence is evidence of intention.

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

Mens Rea: Intention: Hancock and Shankland (1986)

A

Probablity is important in foresight of consequences

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

Mens Rea: Intention: Nedrick (1986)

A

The consequence has to be a virtual certanity and D must realise this

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

Mens Rea: Intention: Woolin (1998)

A

Where the consequence is a virtual certanity and D realizes this, the jury can find intention.

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

Mens Rea: Recklessness: Cunningham (1957)

A

Maliciously means either interntion or subjective recklessness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Mens Rea: Recklessness: G and another (2003)

A

Recklessness means that D must realise there is risk and take that risk.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Mens Rea: Gross Negligence: Bateman (1925)

A

The negligence must be higher than for a civil case. D’s conduct must show such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount in a crime

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

Mens Rea: Gross Negligence: Adomako (1994)

A

The three elements of negligence must be present and the breach must be sufficiently serious to make it criminal.

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

Mens Rea: Transferred Malice: Latimer (1886)

A

An intention can be transferred to an unintended victim

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

Mens Rea: Transferred Malice: Pembiliton (1874)

A

Malice cannot be transferred if D intended a completely different offence

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

Mens Rea: Transferrred Malice: A-G’s ref (No 3 of 1994) (1997)

A

Confirmed that the doctrine of transferred malic is good law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Strict Liability: Absolute Liability: Larsonneur (1935)

A

An absolute offence can be committed through a state of affairs. Not only need D have no mens rea, but D’s ac need not be voluntary.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Strict Liability: Strict Liablity and Human Rights: G (2008)

A

The concept of strict liablity offences does not breach human rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Strict Liability: Statutory Offences: Sweet v Parsley (1969)

A

There is a presumption that mens rea is required

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Strict Liablility:Statutory Offences: Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd (1984)

A

The presumption that mens rea is required can only be displaced if it is clearly the effect of the statute.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Strict Liablility: Statutory Offences: B (a minor) (2000)

A

The starting point is that mens rea is required

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Strict Liablity: Statutory Offences: Sherras v de Rutzen (1895)

A

A genuine mistake can be a defence only if the offence is not one of strict liablity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Secondary Participation: Actus Reus: Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975)(1975)

A

Aid, abet, counsel and procure have different meanings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Secondary Participation: Actus Reus: Giannetto (1997)

A

Abetting can be mere encouragement upwards

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Secondary Participation: Actus Reus: Wilcox v Jeffery (1951)

A

Prescence at a public performance can be sufficient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Secondary Participation: Actus Reus: Clarkson and others (1971)

A

Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not enough

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Secondary Participation: Actus Reus: Calhaen (1985)

A

There is no need for a causal link between counseling and the offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Secondary Participation: Mens Rea: National Coal Board v Gamble (1958)

A

Intention to do the act which aids and abets but there can be indifference to the offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Secondary Participation: Mens Rea: Brainbridge (1959)

A

There is no need to know the details of the offence the principal will commit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Secondary Participation: Mens Rea: DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell (1978)

A

It is enough for D to know that it is one of a number of possible crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Secondary Participation: Mens Rea: Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975) (1975)

A

For procurring there is no need to prove a shared intention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Secondary Participation: Joint Enterprise: Powell; English (1997)

A

There need only be foresight or contemplation that the principal might commit the offence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Secondary Participation: Joint Enterprise: Stewart and Schofield (1995)

A

If a secondary party does not foresee or contemplate serious injury or death they cannot be liable for murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Secondary Participation: Joint Enterprise: Uddin (1998)

A

If all intent serious injury or death, they are all liable for murder. If a very different weapon is used, D is not liable for the death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Secondary Participation: Joint Enterprise: Rahman (2008)

A

Confirmed decision in Powell; English

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Secondary Participation: Withdrawal from a Joint Enterprise: Becerra and Cooper (1975)

A

D must effectively communicate his withdrawal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Secondary Participation: Withdrawal from a Joint Enterprise: Mitchell and King (1999)

A

Where there is a spontaneous violence then walking away is sufficient for withdrawal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Inchoate Offences: Encouraging and Assisting:

A

ss 44, 45, and 46 Serious Crime Act 2007

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Inchoate Offences: Attempts: A-G’s reference (No 1 of 1992)(1993)

A

Need not have performed the ast act before the crime proper, nor reached the point of no-return

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

Inchoate Offences: Attempts: Gullefer (1987)

A

Must have gone beyond purely preparatory acts and be embarked on the crime proper

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Inchoate Offences: Attempts: Millard and Vernon (1987)

A

Recklessness as to a consequence is not sufficient mens rea for an attempt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

Inchoate Offences: Attempts: Shivpuri (1987)

A

Even when the complete offence is impossible to commit, there can be an attempt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

Inchoate Offences: Statutory Conspiracy: Reed (1982)

A

There is a statutory conspiracy when an offence will necessarily be committed if the plan is carried out as intended

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

Inchoate Offences: Statutory Conspiracy: Jackson (1985)

A

A plan for a contingency which necessarily involved the commission of an offence is sufficient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

Inchoate Offences: Statutory Conspiracy: Yip Chiu-Cheung v R (1994)

A

D and at least one other must intend that the offence be committed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

Inchoate Offences: Statutory Conspiracy: Kenning (2008)

A

Cannot conspire to aid and abet

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

Inchoate Offences: Conspiracy to Defraud: Scott v MPC (1975)

A

(1) Not necessary to prove that economic loss was suffered, but V’s economic interests must be put at risk. (2) Deception is not a required element of the offence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

Inchoate Offences: Conspiracy to Defraud: Wai Yu-tsang (1991)

A

It is enough if anyone may be prejudiced in any way by the fraud.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

Capacity: Children: JTB (2009)

A

S.34 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has abolished the common law presumption of doli incapax

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

Capacity: Corporations: Bolton (Engineering) v TJ Graham (1956)

A

There are people who represent the mind and will of the company

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

Capacity: Corporations: Tesco Supermarket v Natrass (1972)

A

Only those at a asufficiently high managerial level can make the company liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

Capacity: Mentally Ill: Unfitness to plead: Antoine (2000)

A

Following a finding of unfitness to plead a jury should e empanelled to decie if D did the act alleged

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

Capacity: Mentally Ill: Insanity: M’Naghten’s casew (1843)

A

Presumed sane until the contrary is proved. Must have a defect of reason caused by disease of the mind so as not to know the nature and quality of act or that what he was doing was wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

Capacity: Mentally Ill: Insanity: Sullivan (1984)

A

Impairment can be organic or functional and need not be permanent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

Capacity: Mentally Ill: Insanity: Burgess (1991)

A

A mental disorder which manifests itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

Capacity: Mentally Ill: Insanity: Hennesy (1989)

A

An internal cause is a disease of the mind, even where the disease is a physical one such as diabetes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

Capacity: Mentally Ill: Insanity: Winde (1952)/Johnson (2007)

A

If D knows he is doing wrong the defence of insanity is not available to him

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

Capacity: Mentally Ill: Diminished Responsibility: Byrne (1960)

A

Old definition: ‘abnormality of mind’ is wide enough to cover perception, ability to form rational judgment and to exercise willpower

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

Capacity: Mentally Ill: Diminished Responsibility: Dietschmann (2003)

A

The abnormality does not havve to be te sole cause of D’s acts in doing the killing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

Capacity: Mentally Ill: Diminished Responsibility: Wood (2008)

A

Alcohol dependency syndrome can amount to an abnormality (of mind)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

Capacity: Vicarious Liabliity: Coppen v Moore (1898)

A

An act done within the scope of employment can make the employer liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

Capacity: Vicarious Liabliity: Adams vCamfoni (1929)

A

An act outside of the scope of employment does not make the employer liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
81
Q

Capacity: Vicarious Liabliity: Allen v Whitehead (1930)

A

Where there is full delegation the knowledge of the delegate will be imputed to the delegator

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
82
Q

Capacity: Vicarious Liabliity: Vane v Viannopoullos (1964)

A

Where there is only partial delegation the knowledge of the delegate will not be imputed to the delegator

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
83
Q

Duress: DPP for NI v Lynch (1975)

A

Duress is where D’s will is overborne by hreats of death or serious injury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
84
Q

Duress: Howe (1987)/Wilson (2007)

A

The defence is not available for murder

85
Q

Duress: Valderrama-Vega (1985)

A

There must be threats of death or serious injury but a combination of these and other threats can be considered

86
Q

Duress: Hudson and Taylor (1971)

A

The threat has to be present and immediate

87
Q

Duress: Abdul-Hussain (1999)

A

(1) The treat must be imminent but it need not be immediate. (2)The response to a threat need not be spontaneous

88
Q

Duress: Graham (1982)

A

(1) D must have acted as he did because of threats of death or serious injury (subjective) (2) a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of D, would have responded in the same way (objective)

89
Q

Duress: Hasan (formerly Z) (2005)

A

The defence is not available where D has voluntarily associated with criminals whom he forsaw or ought reasonably to have forseen might compel him to act through threats

90
Q

Duress of Circumstances: Willer (1986)

A

Threats from circumstances can form the basis of the defence of duress.

91
Q

Duress of Circumstances: Martin (1989)

A

The same principles for duress by threats set out in Graham (1982) apply to duress of circumstances

92
Q

Duress of Circumstances: Pommell (1995)

A

The defence of duress of circumstance is available to the same range of offences as the defence of duress by threats.

93
Q

Necessity: Dudley and Stephens (1884)

A

Neessity is not a defence to murder

94
Q

Necessity: Re A (2000)

A

Necessity is choosing the lesser of two evils to avoid the greater harm

95
Q

Automatism: Brett v A-G for NI (1961)

A

Automatism is an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind

96
Q

Automatism: Hill v Baxter (1958)

A

For the defence of automatism the cause must be an external one

97
Q

Automatism: A-G’s ref (No 2 of 1992) (1993)

A

Reduced or partial awareness is insufficient for the defence

98
Q

Automatism: Bailey (1983)

A

(1) self induced automatism is a defence to a specific intent offence (2) Reckless self induced automatism is not a defence to a basic intent offence

99
Q

Automatism: Hardie (1984)

A

If D is not reckless iin getting into an automatic state then automatism is a defence to a basic intent offence

100
Q

Intoxication: A-G for NI v Gallagher (1963)

A

A drunken intent is sufficient for mens rea

101
Q

Intoxication: DPP v Majewski (1976)

A

Voluntary intoxication is not available as a defence for a basic intent offence

102
Q

Intoxication: Kingston (1994)

A

The defence of involuntary intoxication is not available if d has the mens rea for the offence.

103
Q

Consent: Tabassum (2000)

A

There must be true consent to the nature and quality of the act for D to establish a defence of consent

104
Q

Consent: Dica (2004)

A

Where V is ignorant of D’s infextion, V is not consenting to the risk of infection

105
Q

Consent: Donovan (1934)

A

Consent is not avaialbe as a defence where actual bodily harm is intended or likely to be caused

106
Q

Consent:A-G’s Ref (No 6 of 1980)(1981)

A

Consent is not avaialble as a defence in private fights, but it is available as adefence in properly conducted games and sports

107
Q

Consent: Brown (1983)

A

Consent is not available as a defence to charge of assualt where injury was caused

108
Q

Consent: Jones and others (1986)

A

It is a defence where D genuinely believes that V has consented to ‘rough and undisciplined horseplay’

109
Q

Mistake: DPP v Morgan (1975)

A

A Mistaken belief must be genuinely held but the mistake need not be reasonable

110
Q

Mistake: Williams (Gladstone) (1987)

A

D must be judged on the facts as he genuinely believed them to be

111
Q

Mistake: B v DPP (2000)

A

Affirmed that D must be judged on the facts as he genuinely believed them to be

112
Q

Mistake: O’Grady (1987)

A

D is not entitled to rely on a mistake of fact which has been induced by voluntary intoxication

113
Q

Self-Defence: Palmer V R (1971)

A

D may use what force is reasonable necessary in self-defence. The forst must not be wholly out of proportion to the threat

114
Q

Self-Defence: Clegg (1995)

A

The defence is not availabe if excessive force is used

115
Q

Self-Defence: A-G’s Ref (No 2. of 1983) (1984)

A

Where self-defence is necessary then acts preparatory to it are also lawful

116
Q

Mens Rea for Murder: Vickers (1957)

A

Intention to cause grevious bodily harm is sufficient for the mens rea of murder

117
Q

Mens Rea for Murder: Moloney (1985)

A

Foresight of consequences is only evidence from which the intention for murder may be found

118
Q

Mens Rea for Murder: Woolin (1998)

A

The jury are not entitled to find the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual cetainty as a result of D’s act and that D realised this

119
Q

Loss of Control

A

S54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Loss of control replaces provcocation as a partial defence to murder

120
Q

Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful Manslaughter: Lowe (1973)

A

An omission is not sufficient for the actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter

121
Q

Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful Manslaughter: Church (1965)

A

The unlawful act must be one which a sober and reasonable person would recognise put V at risk of some harm

122
Q

Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful Manslaughter: Goodfellow (1986)

A

The unlawful act can be aimed at property provided it puts a person at risk of harm

123
Q

Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful Manslaughter: Dawson (1985)

A

Causing fear is not a dangerous act unless D knows V is at risk of injury from the fear

124
Q

Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful Manslaughter: DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976)

A

D Need only have the mens rea for the unlawful act: there is not need to prove that D foresaw harm

125
Q

Involuntary Manslaughter: Gross Negligence Manslaughter: Bateman (1925)

A

Gross negligence is aconduct which goes beyond the civil tort for negligence so as to be considered criminal

126
Q

Involuntary Manslaughter: Gross Negligence Manslaughter: Adomako (1994)

A

There must be a duty of care, breach of that duty which causes V’s death, and the negligence must be so bad as to amount in all the circumstance to a criminal act or omission

127
Q

Involuntary Manslaughter: Gross Negligence Manslaughter: Khan and Khan (1998)

A

the categories of duty of care can be extended on a case by case basis

128
Q

Involuntary Manslaughter: Gross Negligence Manslaughter: Wacker (2003)

A

even though v is involved whith D in a criminal act, D can still owe a duty of care to V

129
Q

Other Homicide: Infanticide

A

s.1 Infanticide Act as amended by Coroners and Justice Act 2009 D must be proved to have the intent for murder

130
Q

Other Homicide: Causing Death by Dangerous Driving

A

s.2a Road Traffic Act 1988

131
Q

Other Homicide: Marchant and Muntz (2003)

A

There is no offence where the dangerousness comes from an inherent design of the vehicle

132
Q

Other Homicide: Causing or allowing the death of a child or Vulnerable Adult

A

s.5 Domestic Violence and Victims Act 2004

133
Q

Other Homicide: Causing or allowing the death of a child or Vulnerable Adult: Ikram and Pareen (2008)

A

s.5 was created for instances where it was impossible to prove which of two people killed the child

134
Q

Other Homicide: Causing or allowing the death of a child or Vulnerable Adult: Mujuru (2007)

A

s.5 covers leaving a child with a person who has been violent towards it

135
Q

Other Homicide: Causing or allowing the death of a child or Vulnerable Adult: Khan and others (2009)

A

An adult may be vulnerable if they are utterly dependent on others. The state of vulnerability can be short or temproary

136
Q

Assaults: Actus Reus of s. 20 and s.18 OAPA 1861: Burstow (1997)

A

It is not necessary to prove an assault for either ‘inflict’ or ‘cause’

137
Q

Assaults: Actus Reus of s. 20 and s.18 OAPA 1861: Martin (1881)

A

an indirect act is sufficient for a s.20

138
Q

Assaults: Actus Reus of s. 20 and s.18 OAPA 1861: JCC v Eisenhower (1983)

A

There must be a cut of the external skin to constitue a wound

139
Q

Assaults: Actus Reus of s. 20 and s.18 OAPA 1861: DPP v Smith (1961)

A

GBH means really serious harm

140
Q

Assaults: Actus Reus of s. 20 and s.18 OAPA 1861:Ballom (2004)

A

The age and health of the victim must be considered in deciding the seriousness

141
Q

Assaults: Mens Rea of s. 20 and s.18 OAPA 1861: Mowatt (1967)

A

Maliciously for s. 20 means an intention to injure or taking the risk of some injury

142
Q

Assaults: Mens Rea of s. 20 and s.18 OAPA 1861: Parmenter (1991)

A

affirmed Mowatt - there is no need for D to realise that serious injury could be caused

143
Q

Assaults: Mens Rea of s. 20 and s.18 OAPA 1861: Morrison (1989)

A

In s. 18 where the ulterior intent is to resist arrest maliciously means taking the risk of injuring V

144
Q

Assaults: Assault and Battery: Ireland (1998); Smith v Chief Superintendent of Waking (1983)

A

Putting V in fear of the possibility of immediate force is sufficient

145
Q

Assaults: Assault and Battery: Collins v Wilcock (1984)

A

the slightest physical restraint can be battery

146
Q

Assaults: Assault and Battery: DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003)

A

an omission is sufficient for the actus reus

147
Q

Assaults: Assault and Battery: mens rea: Venna (1974)

A

subjective recklessness is sufficient

148
Q

Assaults: Assault Occasioning ABH: T v DPP (2003)

A

Momentary loss of consciousness can be ABH

149
Q

Assaults: Assault Occasioning ABH: Chan Fook (1994)

A

Psychiatric injury can be ABH

150
Q

Assaults: Assault Occasioning ABH: mens rea : Savage (1991)

A

There is no need to prove any intention to injury

151
Q

Sexual Offences: Rape: Wiliams (1923)

A

Consent reduced by fraud as to the nature of the act is not a defence

152
Q

Sexual Offences: Rape: Jheeta (2007)

A

s. 74 Sexual Offences Act 2003 consent must be a free choice

153
Q

Sexual Offences: Rape: R (1991)

A

A man may be prosecuted for raping his wife

154
Q

Sexual Offences: Bigamy: Tolson (1889)

A

Where D has honest and reasonable belief in mistaken fact then the fefence of mistake is available

155
Q

Sexual Offences: Other Offences: H (2005)

A

(1) Touching can include touching clothing (2) There is a two-stage approach in deciding whether a touching is sexual under s. 78(b)

156
Q

Sexual Offences: Other Offences: Heard (2007)

A

a drunken inten is still intent for touching

157
Q

Sexual Offences: Other Offences: C (2010)

A

s.30 Sexual Offences Act 2003 D is liable if V’s inability to refuce sexual activity is because of or for a reason relating to a mental disorder

158
Q

Theft: Mens Rea: Ghosh (1982)

A

Two-part test for dishonesty (1) is it dishonest by ordinary standard? (2) if so did D know it was dishonest by those standards

159
Q

Theft: Mens Rea: DPP v Lavender (1994)

A

Disposal can include dealing with property

160
Q

Theft: Mens Rea: Lloyd (1985)

A

Borrowing can be equivalent to an outright taking where the property is kept until the goodness or the value has gone

161
Q

Theft: Appropriation: Lawerence (1971)

A

There can be an appropriation where V does not genuinely consent to the taking

162
Q

Theft: Appropriation: Gomez (1993)

A

Appropriation is the assumption of any right of an owner

163
Q

Theft: Appropriation: Hinks (2000)

A

Appropriation is a neutral word. There is no differentation between cases of consent induced by fraud and onsent given in any other circumstance

164
Q

Theft: Belonging to Another: Turner (No 2) (1971)

A

Property is regarded as belonging to any person having possesion or control

165
Q

Theft: Belonging to Another: Davidge v Bunnett (1984)

A

property handed over by another to be retained and dealt with in a particular way belongs to that other

166
Q

Theft: A-G’s Ref (No 1 of 1983) (1984)

A

where property is obtained by a mistake and there is a legal obligation to make restoration to another, then that property is regarded as belonging to that other

167
Q

Robbery: Robinson (1977)

A

All the elements of theft must be present for the offence of robbery to be committed

168
Q

Robbery: Clouden (1987)

A

Only minimal force is needed

169
Q

Robbery: Hale (1978)

A

Theft is a continuing act for the purposes of robbery. Force used to escape is still at the time of the theft and in order to steal

170
Q

Burglary: Collins (1972)

A

(1) D must know he is a trespasser or be reckless as that fact (2) the entry must be effective and substanstial

171
Q

Burglary: Brown (1985)

A

The entry must be effective there is no need for it tobe substantial

172
Q

Burglary: Ryan (1996)

A

The entry need not be effectie as to the ulterior offence

173
Q

Burglary: Walkington (1979)

A

any clearly defined area of a building can be part of a building

174
Q

Burglary: Smith and Jones (1976)

A

If D goes beyond the permission given for entry he may become a trespasser

175
Q

Handling: A-G’s Ref (No 1 of 1974) (1974)

A

The goods must be stolen goods: if they have been reduced into police possession they may no longer be stolen.

176
Q

Handling: Pitchley (1972)

A

Retention means ‘keep possession of, not lose, continue to have’

177
Q

Handling: Kanwar (1982)

A

Assisting in retention can include representations such as lying about the origin of goods

178
Q

Taking a conveyance without consent: Bogacki (1973)

A

There must be some movement of the vehicle for a taking

179
Q

Taking a conveyance without consent: McKnight v Davies (1974)

A

If D goes beyond the permission for use, he can be guilty of this offence

180
Q

Taking a conveyance without consent: Marsh (1997)

A

For aggravated-vehicle taking there is no need for D to be at fault in respect of any injury or damage store

181
Q

Going Equipped: Doukas (1978)

A

these items must be for use in an offense

182
Q

Going Equipped: Eiames (1974)

A

for use applies ony to future offences. There is no offence if D has completed the offence

183
Q

Blackmail: Treacy (1971)

A

the offence is committed when the demand is made

184
Q

Blackmail: Clear (1968)

A

It is not necessary to prove that V was actually intimidated by the threats

185
Q

Black: Garwood (1987)

A

a threat which would not affect a normal person can be menaces if D was aware of the iikely effect it would have on the specific victim

186
Q

Black: Bevans (1988)

A

Any propert can be the subject of the gain or loss

187
Q

Making off without Payment: Vincent (2001)

A

it has to be proved that payment on the spot was required or expected

188
Q

Making off without Payment: Allen (1985)

A

there must be an intention to evade payment altogether

189
Q

Making off without Payment: McDawitt (1981)

A

D must have made off from the spot

190
Q

Fraud Act 2006 S4: Fraud by abuse of position

A

Must occupy a position in which he is expected to safeguard the financial interests of another, Must dishonestly abuse that position, Intend to make a gain or cause a loss; can be committed by an omission or an act s.4(2)

191
Q

Fraud Act 2006 S 11: Obtaining services dishonestly

A

Must obtain services Sofroniou (2003), The services must be available on the basis tht payment will be made for them, D must pobtain them without paying or paying in full, make know payment is expected and intend not to pay or not to pay in full, must be dishonest

192
Q

Fraud Act 2006 S.3: Fraud by failing to disclose information

A

Must be under a legal duty to disclose information, intend to make a gain or cause a loss

193
Q

Fraud Act 2006 S.2: Fraud by Fals Representation

A

Representation can be as to fact or law or state of mind, it can be express or implied Barnard (1837), Lambie (1981), Gilmartin (1983), false means untrue or misleading, D must know represetation is or might be untrue or misleading, must be dishonest (Ghosh (1982)) , intend to make a gain or cause a loss

194
Q

Criminal Damage: Mens Rea: G and another (2003)

A

D must have been aware of the risk of damage occuring the test is objective

195
Q

Criminal Damage: Damage: Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon (1986); Roe v Kingerlee (1986)

A

The damage does not need to be permanent. The expense and trouble of removing it can be considered

196
Q

Criminal Damage: Endangering Life: Steer (1987)

A

The danger must come from the damage and not from the act

197
Q

Criminal Damage: S.5 Defences: Kelleher (2003)

A

To have a defence under s 5(2)(b) the act of damage must be done from the immediate protection of property of another

198
Q

Criminal Damage: S.5 Defences: Jaggard v Dickinson (1980)

A

S 5(3) requires the court to consider D’s actual state of mind intoxication is irrelevant

199
Q

Criminal Damage: S.5 Defences: Crosswell v DPP (2006)

A

Defence not vailable if the item is not property as defined in s 10

200
Q

Public Order Offences: Racially Aggracated Offences: Taylor v DPP (2006)

A

R is enough to prove someone was near enough to hear the racist language. It is not necessary to prove anyone had actually heard

201
Q

Public Order Offences: Racially Aggracated Offences: Rogers (Philip) (2006)

A

A phrase such as bloody foreigners comes within the definition of racial group

202
Q

Public Order Offences: Violent Disorder: NW (2010)

A

present together means being in the same place at the same time

203
Q

Public Order Offences: Affray: Dixon (1993)

A

An act such as encouraging a dog to attack can be conduct for the purpose of affray

204
Q

Public Order Offences: Davison (1992)

A

(1) an affray can be committed on private property (2) it is not necessary for a person of reasonable firmness to hae been at the scene

205
Q

Public Order Offences: I, M and H v DPP (2001)

A

(1) carrying dangerous weapons can be the threat of unlawful violence for affray (2) Thee must be someone present at the scen who was threatened with unlawful violence for affray

206
Q

Public Order Offences: Insulting Behaviour: Brutus v Cozens (1972)

A

Whether words, behavior or written etc are threatening absuive or insulting under s. 5 is a question of fact

207
Q

Public Order Offences: Intentionally Causing Harassment etc: R v DPP (2006)

A

There must be evidence that someone had been harassed alarmed or distressed by the behaviour

!st Year Law (3 decks)

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