Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

A-Level Law > Criminal Law (Chapter 18-22) > Flashcards

Criminal Law (Chapter 18-22) Flashcards

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

What is actus reus?

A

-prohibited conduct of a crime.
-it can be an act, failure to act (omission) or a ‘state of affairs’

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

What two things are needed to be considered actus reus?

A

–the conduct must be VOLUNTARY.
-where a consequence is required for the offence to be completed, the prohibited conduct must cause that consequence.

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

What are conduct crimes?

A

-in some cases (e.g. theft), it is not necessary for any consequence to be proved, just that the defendant appropriated property belonging to another.

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

What is an example for ‘state of affairs’?

A

-having an offensive weapon in a public space.

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

What does the voluntary nature of actus reus mean?

A

-the act/omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant.
-an example of an involuntary act include where the defendant hits another person due to reflex.

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

CASE FACTS: Mitchell

A

-D pushed his way into a queue and punched a man who fell into another woman and she died.
-D was convicted.
-shows involuntary and voluntary act of actus reus.

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

CASE FACTS: Larsonneur

A

-D was ordered to leave UK but Irish police deported her back.
-D was convicted for not following orders.
-shows ‘involuntariness’

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

What is the Good Samaritan law and what are the problems with this?

A

-it makes a person responsible for helping other people in an emergency situation.
-problems are what if a rogue pretends to be seriously hurt?, an untrained person may intervene and make it worse?

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

What are the six exceptions to the omissions rule (omission cannot make a person guilty)?

A

-a statutory duty created by an act of parliament (failing to stop a road traffic accident)
-a contractual duty (failing to do their duty).
-a duty because of their relationship
-a duty which has been undertaken voluntarily.
-a duty through one’s official position
-a duty which arises because D set in motion a chain of events.

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

CASE FACTS: Gibbins and Proctor

A

-father of a young girl lived with this partner.
-he and his partner kept the girl separate from the father’s other children and starved her to death. Both convicted of murder.
-SHOWS FAILURE TO CARRY OUT THEIR DUTY

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

What are statutory duties?

A

-statutes impose duties in a wide variety of situations and make it an offence to fail to do something (many connected with vehicles (driving).
-normally, the prosecution do not have to prove that he/she had any mens rea. The justification for this is the greater good of society. If a driver fails to get insurance to drive, these injured will have difficulty getting compensation.

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

What is the rule for the duty of doctors?

A

-there can be cases where the doctors decide to stop treating a patient. If this discontinuance of treatment is in the best interests of the patient, then it is not an omission which can form the actus reus.

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

CASE FACTS: BLAND

A

-D had severe brain damage and was fed artificially through tubes.
-Court ruled that doctors could stop artificially feeding Bland even though it was known that he would die as a result.

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

What is a factual cause?

A

-the defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct.

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

CASE FACTS: PAGETT

A

-D took his pregnant girlfriend from her home by force.
-D held the girl hostage and police called on him to surrender.
-D came out, holding girl in front of him and firing at police.
-V was killed by police bullets.
-D was convicted of manslaughter.
-SHOWS FACTUAL CAUSE.

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

CASE FACTS: HUGHES

A

-D was driving a van faultlessly but without a full driving license.
-car crashed into D’s van and V (who was on drugs) was injured.
-D was convicted but this was quashed due to it not being a legal effective cause.
-SHOWS WHY LEGAL CAUSE WAS NEEDED.

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

What is legal cause?

A

-there may be more than one act contributing to the consequence. The defendant can be guilty if his/her conduct was more than a ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence. But the defendant’s conduct need not be a substantial cause.

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

CASE FACTS: KIMSEY

A

-D was involved in a car chase with V and lost control of the car.
-V died however evidence about what happened immediately before D lost control was not clear.
-D was convicted as although her driving was a substantial cause, it was still a more than ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence.
-DE MINIMUS RULE ESTABLISHED

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

What is the thin skull rule?

A

-if the victim has something unusual about their physical/mental state which makes an injury more serious, then the defendant is liable for the more serious injury.

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

CASE FACTS: BLAUE

A

-V was stabbed by D and told that she needed a blood transfusion to save her life.
-she refused due to religious reasons and died.
-D was convicted of manslaughter.

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

What is the chain of causation and intervening acts?

A

-there must be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence. This is known as the chain of causation. In some situations, something else happens after the defendant’s act/omission and if this is sufficiently separate from the defendant’s conduct, it may break the chain of causation.

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

What are the three things that the chain of causation be broken by?

A

-an act of a third party.
-a natural but unpredictable event.
-the victim’s own act.

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

What are the two main things needed in an intervening act to not make a defendant responsible for the consequence?

A

-the intervening act must be sufficiently independent.
-sufficiently serious

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

Can medical treatment break the chain of causation?

A

-medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the defendant’s acts.

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

CASE FACTS: SMITH

A

-two soldiers had a fight and one was stabbed in lung.
-V was carried to medical centre but was dropped on the way.
-poor treatment was given and he died.
-original attacker was guilty of murder.
-D was still an operating and substantial cause of death.

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

CASE FACTS: CHESHIRE

A

-D shot the victim in the thigh and stomach and V needed major surgery.
-D was given a tube to help breathe.
-V died from complications left by the tube, not diagnosed by the doctors.
-by the time V died, the original wounds were healed.
-D was still liable for V’s death.

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

CASE FACTS: MALCHEREK

A

-D stabbed his wife in the stomach.
-she was put on life-support machine and after finding out she was brain-dead, the machine was switched off.
-D was charged with her murder.
-switching off a life support machine by a doctor when it has been decided that the victim is brain dead does not break the chain of causation.

28
Q

How can a victim’s own act NOT break the chain of causation?

A

-if the defendant causes the victim to react in a ‘reasonably foreseeable’ way, then any injury to the victim will be considered to have been caused by the defendant.

29
Q

CASE FACTS: ROBERTS

A

-V jumped from a car to escape D’s sexual advances.
-girl was injured by jumping from it.
-D was liable, V’s actions were reasonably foreseeable.

30
Q

CASE FACTS: MARJORAM

A

-several people, including D shouted abuse and kicked the door of V’s hostel room and forced the door open.
-V then fell, jumped from the window and suffered serious injuries.
-D’s conviction was upheld for inflicting grievous bodily harm.

31
Q

CASE FACTS: WILLIAM AND DAVIS

A

-hitch-hiker jumped from D’s car due to D attempting to steal his wallet and died from head injuries.
-Court of Appeal said that the victim’s act had to be reasonably foreseeable and also had to be in proportion to the threat.

32
Q

CASE FACTS: DEAR

A

-D slashed V several times with a Stanley knife.
-V did not bother having the wounds attended for, opening the wounds further.
-V died from loss of blood.
-Court held that wounds were an operating and significant cause.

33
Q

What is mens rea and what are some of the levels?

A

-the mental element of a crime.
-highest level of mens rea is intention. This is also referred to as ‘specific intention’
-other main types are knowledge and recklessness.

34
Q

What was figured out through the case of Mohan?

A

-intention: a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused power the prohibited consequence.
-motive is not the same as intention and is not relevant in deciding whether the defendant had intention.

35
Q

What is direct and oblique intent?

A

-direct intent: they intend the specific consequence to occur.
-oblique intent: when the defendant does not necessarily desire an outcome

36
Q

What is the foresight of consequence?

A

-if D foresaw that they would also cause those consequences, then they may be found guilty. This is referred to as ‘foresight of consequences’.
-found in section 8 of CJA.

37
Q

CASE FACTS: MOLONEY

A

-D and his stepfather were playing a game, seeing who was faster at loading and firing a shotgun.
-D loaded it faster and aimlessly pulled the trigger and V died.
-D was not convicted of murder as there was only foresight of consequences, not intention.

38
Q

CASE FACTS: HANCOCK AND SHANKLAND

A

-Ds were miners on strike who pulled a concrete block on to a road to stop another miner going to work. Driver of car died.
-Ds were not convicted of murder.

39
Q

CASE FACTS: WOOLIN

A

-D threw his baby towards his pram against a wall.
-baby suffered head injuries and died.
-D was convicted.
-SHOWS THAT THE JURY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO FIND INTENTION.

40
Q

What is subjective recklessiveness?

A

-this is a lower levels of mens rea.
-recklessness is where the defendant knows there is a risk of the consequence happening but takes that risk.

41
Q

CASE FACTS: CUNNINGHAM

A

-D tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty house in order to steal the money from it.
-this caused gas to seep into the house next door, where a woman was affected by it.
-D was not guilty since he did not realise the risk of gas escaping next door. He had not intended to cause the harm, nor had he taken a risk he knew about.

42
Q

What are the offences for which recklessness is sufficient for the mens rea?

A

-assault and battery.
-assault occasioning actual bodily harm
-malicious wounding

43
Q

What are the two types of recklessness?

A

-subjective recklessness.
-objective recklessness (where an ordinary person would’ve realised the risk: the defendant was guilty even if they did not realise the risk)

44
Q

CASE FACTS: G AND ANOTHER

A

-two young boys set fire to a newspaper in a shop yard and threw it under a bin.
-they thought that the fire would go out by itself. The bin caught dire and caused about £1 million worth of damage.
-they weren’t convicted in the end, they could only be guilty if they had realised the risk and decided to take it.

45
Q

What is negligence?

A

-a person is negligent if they fail to meet the standards of the reasonable person. This may be enough to make a person liable in civil law but is not usually sufficient to make a person criminally liable.

46
Q

What is transferred malice?

A

-D can be guilty if he/she intended to commit a crime but against a different victim.

47
Q

CASE FACTS: LATIMER

A

-D aimed a blow with a belt at a man.
-belt bounced off the man and struck a woman in the face.
-D was guilty of an assault against the woman.
-SHOWS TRANSFERRED MALICE

48
Q

CASE FACTS: PEMBLITON

A

-D threw a stone, intending it to hit people with whom he had been fighting.
-stone hit and broke a window.
-the intention to hit people could not be transferred to the window.
-SHOWS MENS REA FOR A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPE OF OFFENCE THAN INTENDED

49
Q

What is general malice?

A

-defendant may not have a specific victim in mind, e.g. a terrorist who plants a bomb in a pub.

50
Q

What comes under common assault and what part of the CJA is this contained under?

A

-assault and battery.
-under Section 39 of CJA.

51
Q

What is assault and battery?

A

-assault: no touching, only apprehending the fear of immediate, unlawful force. It requires act/words.
-battery: there must be actual force

52
Q

CASE FACTS: CONSTANZA and IRELAND

A

-D had written many letters and made many phone calls to V.
-V interpreted some letters as clear threats.
-Court said there was an assault as there was a ‘fear of violence at some time’
-IRELAND: even silent phone calls can be an assault, just depends on context.

53
Q

CASE FACTS: LAMB and what does this show?

A
  • pointing an unloaded gun at someone who knows that it is unloaded cannot be an assault. This is because the other person does not fear immediate force.
54
Q

CASE FACTS: SMITH

A

-D broke into a garden and looked through V’s bedroom window.
-V was terrified and thought that D was about to enter the room.
-although no attack could be made in that moment, court upheld that fear of what he might do next was sufficiently immediate for the purposes of the offence.

55
Q

CASE FACTS: LIGHT

A

-D raised a sword above the head of his wife and said ‘if it were not for the bloody policeman outside, I would’ve split your head open’
-this is an assault as the WORDS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE WERE NOT ENOUGH TO NEGATE THE FEAR.

56
Q

CASE FACTS: WOOD

A

-police received report that man named Fraser was wanted.
-they questioned a suspect, W who struggled and pulled away after being grabbed by police.
-it was held that as the officer had not arrested W, there was a technical battery by the officers.

57
Q

How did the case of Thomas show an example of battery?

A

-touching a victim’s clothing is sufficient for a battery. in Thomas, D touched and rubbed the bottom of a woman’s skirt. Court said, ‘if you touch a person’s clothes while he is wearing them, that is equivalent to touching him’

58
Q

CASE FACTS: FAGAN

A

-D parked his car with one of the tyres on a police officer’s foot. He refused to remove it for several minutes.
-shows continuing act of battery.

59
Q

CASE FACTS: MARTIN

A

-D placed iron bar across doorway of a theatre and turned off lights. Several of audience was injured and unable to open door.
-shows indirect act of battery.

60
Q

How can someone commit a battery through omission?

A

-scenarios which make a defendant liable by way of omission is where the defendant has created a dangerous situation leading to force being applied to the victim.

61
Q

CASE FACTS: MILLER

A

-D accidentally set fire to his mattress but failed to do anything to prevent damage to the building in which he was sleeping. He would be liable for a battery if someone got injured.

62
Q

What is battery without assault?

A

-it is possible for there to be a battery even though there is no assault. This can occur when the victim is unaware that unlawful force is about to be used on them, such as where the attacker comes up unseen behind the victim’s back.

63
Q

What is the mens rea of assault ?

A

-the mens rea for an assault is either an intention to cause another person to fear immediate unlawful personal violence, or recklessness as to whether fear is caused.

64
Q

CASE FACTS: MAJEWSKI

A

-D had consumed large quantities of alcohol and drugs and then attacked the landlord of the public house where he was drinking.
-he also attacked the police officers who tried to arrest him.
-it was held that becoming intoxicated was a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the mens rea in battery cases.
-

65
Q
A

A-Level Law (2 decks)

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