Criminal Law Flashcards
What is actus reus?
physical act, voluntary, cannot be committed by omission, defendant must cause outcome in fact and law
Exceptions to omission
Statue- Children and Young Persons Act
Contractual- Pitwood
Voluntarily undertaken- Stone and Dobinson
Professional- NHS V Bland
Limit Damage property caused by accident- Miller
Family Relations- Gibbons v Proctor
Causation Tests
in law Cheshire operating and substantial and Kismey more than slight or trifling link. in fact but for white(poison) Padgett (hunter)
NAI
Medical Treatment- Jordan, thin skull- Blaue, Victims Own Act- Roberts
Direct Intention
Mohan intending so far as possible within their powers for the consequence
Indirect Intention
Woolin was consequence virtual certainty, did d realise. Nedrick (petrol letterbox)
Recklessness
Cunningham subjective recklessness unjustified risk taking, did d foresee risk of harm and take risk
Transferred Malice
Latimer d took belt hit woman, applied. Pembilton intended to break window hit v, not apply property offence
Coincidence
Church (lake), must be coincidence. Fagan v Metropolitan Police continuing act. Thabo Meli court decided act was continuing
Strict Liability
need only prove ar, created by statute
Harrow Borough where a statute is intended to regulate an area of social concern the court will impose strict liability
Assault
cja s39 6months or £5000 An act by d intentionally or recklessly causes a person to fear immediate unlawful violence
AR of Assault
No need for physical contact- Logden. Threatening Letters- Constanza. Silent Phone Calls- Ireland and Burstow. Apprehend- Lamb. Immediate and Personal- Smith
MR of Assault
Mohan, cunningham
Battery
d intentionally or recklessly inflicts unlawful personal violence
AR of Battery
R v Thomas touching of skirt sufficient
Haystead D punched woman, she dropped baby, D guilty indirect battery
Wilson v Pringle ordinary josling in a crowd not amount to battery since it is consented to
DPP v K placing acid in a hand dryer used by next person indirect battery
DPP v Santana Bermudez officer asked if D had sharp objects in his pockets, D said no, during the search police injured with needles, battery
Fagan v Metropolitan Police continuing act
MR of Battery
Intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force. Mohan, Cunningham
Assault occasioning ABH
s47 OAPA maximum 5 years. any assault or battery occasioning actual bodily harm
AR ABH
d must assault which must cause abh in fact and law
ABH
Miller- hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health. Chan Fook- need not be permanent but must be trivial. T v DPP momentary loss of consciousness. Smith paint on hair
MR ABH
Mohan, Woolin, Cunningham. Savage not necessary to prove intention of abh
S20 GBH conditions
Max 5 years, intention or reckless as to some harm, triable either way summary
S18 GBH conditions
Max life, intention as to serious harm only, triable on indictment only Crown Court
What is the AR of S20 malicious wounding or inflicting GBH
Whoever unlawfully wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon another with or without a weapon
What defines GBH
Sanders- serious harm. R v Ireland and Burstow serious psychiatric harm can amount to GBH. Brown and Stratton several injuries amounted, even if individually it wouldn’t constitute. Bollum where the victim is young or old injury regarded as more serious. Dica giving aids is biological GBH. Ireland and Burstow- not necessary to assault or battery, all that needs to be shown is D’s actions caused GBH/wounding
What defines wounding?
R v Eisenhower injury to eye not wound since 2 layers of skin not penetrated
What is the MR of S20?
Intention or reckless as to some harm. Direct Mohan, Reckless Cunningham. R v Parameter D threw baby in air, not reckless- needs to be asked if D foresaw the risk and took it. R v Mowat for S20 not necessary to foresee serious harm, just some harm. R v Grimshaw no need to foresee GBH, just injury
What is the AR of S18 wounding and causing GBH with intent
Whoever unlawfully wound or cause GBH upon another with or without a weapon. R v Burstow inflict and cause the same
MR of S18
Direct Mohan or Oblique Woolin virtual certainty test, intention to cause gbh. R v Taylor V had scratches to his face and stab wounds to his back, court decided the intention to wound alone not sufficient for S20. Nedrick demonstrates how the virtual certainty test can be used in relation to a fire starting
What is the AR of theft
Appropriation of property belonging to another
What is the MR of theft
Dishonesty and intending to permanently deprive
What is appropriation
‘Any assumptions of rights of an owner’. R v Morris not all rights need to be assumed. Lawrence v Met, R v Hinks, R v Gomez held appropriation can occur even with the consent of the owner where the defendant is dishonest at the time received. R v Pitman and Hehl selling even if not physically moved is appropriation. R v Mcpherson placing bottles in shopping bag with intention to steal is appropriation
What is property
4(1) money, real, personal, things in action. 4(2) land can’t be stolen except by deed. 4(3) growing wild land unless for personal gain. 4(4) cannot steal wild animals
Belonging to another
R v Turner garage possession, control at time. Webster court decided MoD had equitable interest. R v Woodman V had right to move metal, left it so D moved it theft. Moynes v Cooper did not have mens rea at time of appropriation no theft so acquired mistake R v Davies opposite above. Hall paid general bank account, bankrupt, not guilty as no obligation to deal with money in certain way. Hineburg customers told it would be put in a certain bank account. Davidge by not performing purpose of paying bills guilty of theft
Dishonesty
Gosh test- reasonable honest person believe act dishonest,d aware of this, avoids robin hood defence- replaced with Ivey. DPP v Gohill not dishonest according to reasonable person. R v Small since the belief of the car owner being traced subjective, not guilty
Holden D’s belief must be genuine
ITPD
‘ a person has the intention to permanently deprive if they have the intention to treat the thing as his own to dispose of’ R v Lloyd no itpd as borrowed, Vymul itpd as didn’t replace the same £5, Easom conditional intent only wanted to steal if saw something worth stealing, DPP v Lavender door still belonged to council so itpd
What is the AR of robbery S8(1)
Use of threat/force of threat in order to steal. Use of threat in order to steal R v Dawson D nudged V in order for wallet to be accessible. R v Clouden snatching even if the victim doesn’t resist is robbery, R v DPP use of physical force unnecessary unless threat of force. Used in order to steal Cocoran touching handbag is sufficient, Shendley force not used in order to steal, Hale must be coincidence of force and stealing
What is the MR of robbery S8(1)
Intention to use force or put another in fear force will be used, intending to steal. R v Zenai must be a completed theft
What is self defence/prevention of a crime S3 Criminal Law Act
Complete defence all or nothing
Self defence/ prevention of a crime force necessary
Subjective test. Williams judged subjectively on what he believed the facts to be. S148 Legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders act 2012 a person is not under a duty to retreat when acting for a legitimate purpose
Self defence/ prevention of a crime amount of force reasonable
Force must be reasonable and proportionate in relation to threat, a question for the jury to decide. Palmer a person must use as much force as reasonable. Farrell v Sec of state jury must be satisfied a reasonable person in the position of the defendant and with the time reflected in the case would consider the use of violence used justifiable. R v Scarlet force used as retaliation or revenge not reasonable. R v Martin excessive force, the boys were unarmed
