Criminal Law - Paper 1 Section B Flashcards

Question

coincidence rule | elements of a crime

Answer 1

* general rule that the mens reu and actus reus must happen at same time * continuing act theory * court have modified it to when a series of ommisions or acts can be treated as one single continouting act

Answer 2

* **fagan** - drove on foot, no mens reu at start then formed one when didnt move * **thabo meli (1954)** - beat person up and killed them , rolled of mountain, survived both died later to exposure - guilty dont seperate events and there was a mens reu

Answer 3

* where the mens reas is not required and the actus reus is enough * gammon test * requirment of actus reas * absolute liability * no fault * due diligence * honest mistake

Answer 4

* **r v hibbert** - ran off with underage girl detained her for hours then returned her home * **pharmacetical society of gb v storkwain (1986)** - pharmists didnt know he supplied drugs for forged perscriptions - guilty

Answer 5

* d was charged with deviating from approved plan for building * decide wether they knew they broke the law or strict liability * a test to see if they need the mens rea or not

Answer 6

* must prove that the actus reus was volentary

Answer 7

* if act was involentarty then it is absolute liability * state of affair cases * **larsonneur** - no volentary act

Answer 8

* if the volenraty act inadvertently caused a prohibted consequence - was tottally blameless of actual consequence * **callow v tillstone (1900)** - butcher asked vet to see if cacus was safe (it wasnt) ut vet said yes - butcher was convited

Answer 9

* even if they have tried to stop it and it happens they can still have strict liability * **harrow lbc v shah and shah (1999)** - was owner of sop, told staff not to sell to under 16s, sold to 13 , shop keeper convicted

Answer 10

* genuine mistake can also be convicted * **cundy v le cocq** - sold alchol to person who was drunk ut had no clue bc he was quiet

Answer 11

* when the defendant recklessly or intentionally causes the victum to fear immediate and unlawful personal violence * section 39 of the criminal justice act 1988 * common law offence

Answer 12

* is to cause the vitum to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence * **logdon (1976)** - points fake gun and demands money - guilty bc victum was scared * victum doesnt have to apprehend violence * **lamb (1967)** - playing gun thought there was no bullets - friend got shot - not guilty no fear * words can stop actions * **tuberville v savage (1669)** - threatened a person with sword "if i were not assize time" - not guilty * immediate requirment of the violence is flexable * **smith v cheif superintendant woking police (1983)** - started at victum through window of house - tried to argue any violence wouldnt be immediate - guilty

Answer 13

* either when the defendant intentionally causes the victum to fear physical violence or is reckless about causing them to fear violence

Answer 14

* **lamb (1967)** - playing with gun thought there was no bullets , shot friend - not guilty * **logdon (1976)** - held fake gun to womens head and demanded money - guilty * **ireland (1998)** - number of silent phone calls for three montsh - guilty * **constanza (1997)** - sent 800 letters and stole things from washing line - psychiatric damadge - guilty * **tuberville v savage (1669)** - threatened with a sword but said wouldnt * **smith v chief superintendant woking police (1983)** - stared at woman through window in her garden * **cunningham** - gas meter broke trying to get money from it , poinsed mother in law

Answer 15

* applying force onto a person * common assault * section 39 criminal justice act 1988

Answer 16

* the application of unlawful force * any touching eithout consent * also includes a greater degree of physical force was used than necessary * **collins v wilcock (1984)** - d resisted arrest and was charged with battery - things in everyday life will be allowed * touching cloths * **r v thomas (1985)** - d grabbed 12 yr old skirt * comminted through continouing act * **fagan (1968)** - not getting off police officers foot - omission and indirect force * force can be indire * **DPP v K (1990)** - stole acid got scared and put it in handdryer - someone used it and burnt their hands - guilty

Answer 17

* defendant intends (firect or oblique) to apply force or is reckless * **cunningham** * **venna (1976)** - hit police officer when got arrested - knew the risk of flaling around

Answer 18

* **collins v willcox (1984)** - police officer grabbed d , resited arrest and hit officer - police offcier didnt do battery as everyday allowances * **thomas (1985)** - grabbed 12yr skirt * **dpp v k (1990)** - acid in hand dryer * **haystead** - punched woman and dropped her baby - battery on baby * **cunningham** * **venna (1976)** - hit police officer when resisitng arrest - should have seen outcome

Answer 19

* triable either way offence * max 5 years * section 47 of offence against the person act 1861

Answer 20

* the application of unlawful force wich occassions actual bodily harm * defendant commits assault or battery but the injuries are abh * test for abh - **miller test** - injury affecting health and comfort of victum

Answer 21

* the intention or recklessnes as to causing the victum to aprehend the aplication of unlawful physical force or apllication of unlawful physical force * **cunningham** * dont have to prove any intent for abh but just intent/recklessness of battery or assault

Answer 22

* **miller** - injury affecting health and comfort of victum * **chanfook (1994)** - jumped out window and broke both hips - psychatric damadge - guilty * **roberts (1971)** - jumped out of car to stop sexual advances - shows recklessness * **t v dpp (2003)** - kicked in head and lost conciousness - battery leading to abh * **smith** - chopped off ex gf ponytail - psychiatric damadge * **savage (1991)** - sees ex with new girl - throws drink but glass goes - reckless

Answer 23

* section 20 of the offecnes against the person act 1861 * unlawfully wound and cause gbh

Answer 24

* the unlwafully wound or inflict any grevious bodily harm upon another person * wound - break the continuity of the skin * **jcc v eisenhower (1983)** - pellet gun - no break of the skin so no gbh

Answer 25

* intentionally cause some level of harm (not gbh) or recklessly inflict gbh on another person * **cunningham** * **mowatt (1968)** - punched person bc he was threatened

Answer 26

* with intent to cause gbh * section 18 of offecne against the person act 1861 * if cant prove s18 mens reu then drops to an either way offence

Answer 27

* to unlawfully wound or inflict any grevious bodyily harm upon another person * wound - break the skin * **jcc v eisenhower (1983)** - pellet gun, didnt break the skin , no blood

Answer 28

* must find intention and cannot rely on recklessness * must rely on oblique intent but actions are virtually certain -**woolin** * **belfon** - waved razor around, sliced and caused deep wound - s20 as reckless * **morrison** - d runs away from the police officer - hsatters glass and police hurts himself - s18 runs away and sees virtual certainity

Answer 29

* **brown and stratton** - mutiple abh = gbh - beat up dad * **jcc v eisenhower (1983)** - pellet gun - no blood no wound * **dica (2004)** - slept with 2 women knowing he had hiv * **lewis (1970)** - victum jumped out window to get away - making an injury is gbh * **belfon** - waved around razer - reckless so not gbh * **morrison** - runs away from police - police officer cts hand on shattered glass - gbh with intent as runs away

Answer 30

* language is complecated, obscure and out of date - assault generally means physical attack - legal term is diff * same sentence as battery - 6months max * no statutory definstion - common law - what classes as assault - battery and assualy under s39 but tot diff things

Answer 31

* language is complicated, obsure and out of date - battery makes it sound worse * no statutory defintions - common law - no clear boundaries between assault and abh * max sentecne only 6 months - could be similar to abh

Answer 32

* mens reu - intent lesser offence - could get max 5yrs for something you didnt mean to cause - not good justice for defendant * sentencing - abh and gbh r very different but have the same 5 year max sentence * out of fate language (1861) - actual and occasosing - jury may interpet differently * case law - no actual defintion - made up of cases that differ * expanding law - constantly changing - law doesnt hvae certainity - psychatric damadge

Answer 33

* abh and s20 are very different offences but have the same max sentence 5yrs * defintion of wound - made by judges - have no medical knowledge - what about internal bleeding * actus reus is circularsefintion - no defintion - case made * s18 max sentence is life - is it the same as manslaughter and murder - s20 only 5yrs even tho same outcome as section 18

Answer 34

* intention to kill or cause gbh

Answer 35

* unlawful killing caused by the defendant of a reasonable creature of being under the kings peace * **killed** - an act or omission * **gibbins and proctor** - failed to feed 7yr old and died * **unlawful killing** - war, medical, self defence * **re a (2000)** - conjoined twins - wnt to court bc parents didnt want to - weaker one died * **causation** - factual - but for test **paget** and **white** - legal causation - more than minimal * **reasonable creature in being** * **ag reference (no3 of1994)** - stabs bay in stomache and dies in the womb - not murder * **malcherek and steel** - victum in permany vegitative state - brain dead - pulled plug - defendant tried to argue it was the doctors * **under kings peace**

Answer 36

* expressed malice aforethought (itention to kill) or implied malice aforethought (intention to cause gbh) * implied malice **vickers (1957)** - robbed shop and beat up old woman who died - thin skull rule * **oblique and dirent intent** * **woolin** - thrw baby * **mathews and alleyne** - thrw boy off bridge fter told he couldnt swim - drowned

Answer 37

* partial defence for murder * charge is changed from murder to voluntray manslughter (discretrionary sentence) * defence is found in section 54 and 55 of coroners and justice act 2009

Answer 38

1. acts resulted from the loss of control 2. had a qualifiying trigger (s55) 3. a person of d same sex and age might have reacted in a similar way

Answer 39

* the lost of control is for the jury to decide * the loss of controll does not need to be sudden (anymore) -**ahluwalia** - prolonged vitum of domestic violence (10yr) , poured petrol and set him alight , not guily * there must be a total loss of control - must have snapped - **jewell** -shot a victum and said loss of control , but found thinks to flew with in car

Answer 40

* **fear of serious violence** -subjective test , jury have to be conviced the fear was genuin, can be in fear for another -**ward** - ds brother was attacked so got axe and hit the v , not guilty * the d can not have incited the violence - **dawes** - came home to wife sleeping with someone, stabbed v after altercation , guilty * **things said or done** - must be extremely grave and a sense of seriouslt wronged (jury decide) * **hatter**- gf breaks up with him , kills her - guilty **zebedee** - father had alzhimers and kept shitting himslef , killed him - guiluty **bowyer** - 2 dating 1 prosetute , d went to bugarl home , v taunted him , beat up and killed - v could do what he wanted bc d was bugarlying him * **where d seeks to rely on both a fear of serious violence and a thing done or said** - is relveant where a person with the ds characteristics and circumstances would have not acted in the same way

Answer 41

* sexual infidelity - **clinton** - wife taunted d about his drepressiona nd cheating on him , suciide websites ect , killed wife , guilty * relationship breakup -**hatter** * revenge

Answer 42

* if someone would have acted a similar way * same sex and age , ordinary level of tolerance and self restraint , same circumstances * the jury isnt alowwed to consider any else (circumstances - depression , epilsepsy) * **rejmanski** - had ptsd from army , mocked about the ptsd and army , killed them , not guily * voluntary intoxication should not be taken into account - **asmelash**

Answer 43

* section 52 of coroners and justice act 2009 * (1. abnormality of mental functioning * (2. arsing from a recognised medical condtion * (3. substantially impairs... * (4. the abnormality must porvide an explanation for the ds conduct

Answer 44

a case that defines abnormality **byrne** sexal physcopath who mutilated women but he was unable to control himself so he got volentary mansluaghter 'ordianry person deem it abnormal'

Answer 45

* must have medical evidence * covers psychological and physicical condtiitons * **gittens** - depression * **squelch** - paranoid personality * **ahluwalia** - battered spouse syndrome * **campbell** - eplilepsy * **conroy** - autism

Answer 46

* must impar ds mental responsiblity * substaintail is defined in the case **llyod** , not total , not trival , somewhere inbetween * **golds** - killed parents and admitted it, found some psychiatric things , it was above trivial but not suffient enough * the ds ability to do these 3 things must be impaired - undersand the nature of his conduct (in a automatic state) , or form rational judgements, or to exercise self control (r v bryne)

Answer 47

* if the mental functioning doesnt have anything to do with the murder then they will not be used * needs to be a casual connection between the abnormality and the killing * section2(18) homicide act 'a significant contributory factor in causing the d to carry out that conduct' * important when the d is also intoxictaced at the time of the killing

Answer 48

* intoxication alone will not form a defence - **dowds** * could have a pre-exsiting abnormality but be drinking at the time of the killing - **dietschmann** - someone made fn of his dead aunt, killed him , porved he had depression (was intoxicated ta the time) , vol man * alchol dependancy syndrome - **wood** - vey drunk , went to freinds house fell asleep, friends tried to do oral sex , hit him with meat clever , vol man

Answer 49

AR 1. commits an unlawful act 2. the act must be dangerous 3. the act must have cause the death MR 1. the d only needs to have the mens rea for the unlawful act , nothing else

Answer 50

* the unlawful act must be a crimnal offecne - **lamb** - playin with gun didnt know had bullets in a shot freinds , couldnt be unlawful act man bc there was no unlawful act (no fear so no assault) * **franklin** - threw a box into water and hit a swimmer , no unlawful act * **goodfellow** - set fire to council house so he could get rehomed, spread killed family , porpert offecne * it must be an act not ommision - **lowe** - neglected child and died of starvation, he did an omission

Answer 51

* test for dangerousness **church** - 'such as all sober and reasonable person would recognise some level of harm' - subjective test for jury * **larkin** - threatened with raxer blade, women drunkenly fell on it * **jm & sm** - got in fight with a bouncer, collasped fue to heart issues, still a level of harm * can be aimed towards a property - **goodfellow** - set fire to council house * physical harm - **dawson** - threatened worker , they died of ha , not convicted as there was no phsyical harm * recognise vitims fraility - **watson** - old vitum got abused and died of ha , thin skull rule

Answer 52

* if there is an intervening act when the chain is broken and the d is no longer guilty * **cato** - administered drug into victum , died * **kennedy** - prepared a dose of heronin but victum did it himself , died of choking on his sick , interveining act

Answer 53

* they dont need to know about the dangerousness of their act or intend death or serious injury * mens rea for the unlawful act * **dpp v newbury and jones** - threw a paving slove into train tracks and hit a training killing train driving , had no intention to kill but intention for damadge

Answer 54

1. d owes the victum a duty of care 2. d breaches that duty of care 3. the breach causes the death of the victum 4. the breach is so bad that it is more than civil negligence and becomes criminal main case - **adomako** - an anaethsist , crucial tube comes disconnected , patent went into cariac arrest , guilty

Answer 55

* three stages for duty of care **caparo v dickman** - forsable harm , proximate , fair just & reasonable to impose a duty * **singh** - landlord , faulty gas that he didnt fix , tennants died * **litchfeild** - owner of a ship , sailed knowing the engines would fail , 5 sailers died * **wacker** - bought 60 illegal immagrants , in back of lorry with airvent lcosed , 58 died * **Zaman** - restraunant owner and customer - had nuts allergy , died (failed to check if there were nuts)

Answer 56

* jury must decide that the d breached their duty and that is caused the death * **stone and dobinson** - took in victum as a lodger, had serve diabilities , gave up looking after her, she died * **broughton** - "breach made a significant more than mininal contribution to the death"

Answer 57

* has to be gross , explained in the case **bateman** - medical practioner , baby came out dead and only took part of uterus out, refused to care for her after * gross - beyond a matter of mere compensation and showing such disregard for life that it becomes a crime * disregard for life - **Broughton** - "serious and obvious risk of death" * **misra and srivastava** - two surgeons , patient go infected under their care and left untreated

Answer 58

found in section 1(1) theft act 1968 AR 1. appropriation 2. of property 3. belonging to another MR 1. dishonesty 2. intention to permantly deprive

Answer 59

* defintion is found in section 3(1) - assumption of the rights of ownership * **innconent appropriation (section 3(2))** - transfered for value to a person acting in good faith (if A buys a book from D who stole it) * **appropriation by consent** * can appropriate property even where the owner consents to taking the property - **gomez** - pays for goods with check that doesnt work , 'shop keeper consented' * appropriation when there is a gift that has been obtained dishonestly - **hinks** - manipulated someone with limited intelligence to give them money * an assumption of any right of an owner will be appropriation - **morris** - switches the prices in a shop

Answer 60

* section 4(1) included money , all other property , actions and other intagible property or things in action (checks) * **oxford v moss** - found exam papers and read them , info isnt property * **kelly** - sculptor and asked for body parts , body parts arent under the act , but parts are for the bodys oownership * **welsh** - acussed of drink driving , poured urine down drain , polces property * land - cant be stolen expect , dealing with land in a special capcity , severs something from it , appropriates a fixture or structure on it * plants and flowers - not stealing unless used for selling * wild animals - cant steal

Answer 61

* section 5 - a person having possesion or control , having any proprietary right or interest * checks - even if the person has it , it still belongs to person who gave the check * stealing if its someone with a lower interest - **turner** - stole car the evening the repairs had finsihed , didnt pay * **webster** - sent another medal from army and dint send back * poses property even if they didnt know its there **woodman** - scarp metal take, tiny bit left, took it * abandoned property - cant steal whats not owned * property recieved for a particular reason - if its given for a certain purpose but using it in a different way , must be under legal obligation **hall** - travel agent, payed deposit in wrongaccount and never did tikcets * **davidge v bunnet** - given monye by flatmates for bills, spent it on presents * property recieved by mistake - should still be treated as belonging to the person who gave it **ag ref n1**- payed wrong wage and dint say anything * **gilks** - bet on a horse, got payed more than he should have

Answer 62

* section 2 * **barton and booth** - stole from elderly * not dishonest it; * he has the belief that he has in law the right of it - **holden** - took tyres from work bc they let him but ocntract said no * if they believe they would have the consent of the other * if they beileive the person of the property cant be found - **small** - saw cars with key in and took it * can be dihosnest if he acts with a view to casuing a loss to the owner , motwithstanding that he is willing to pay * jury decide wether it is dishonest

Answer 63

* jury decide * even long term or indefinite borrowing will not amount to theft - **warner** - took tool box and hid in car but was going to give it back * unless the goodness is taken out - **bagshaw** - took gas and used it but then gave it back , but took goodness out * its not a defence to claim that money that has been taken would have been repaid - **velumyl** - took monye from work his friend owned him and said he was going to pay it back * test - treat the thing as his own to dispose -**lavander** - took doors from one council house and put it on another , borwoning or lending for a period of time that is equavilant to taking it out right * borrwiing is not theft (unless goodness taken out) - **llyod** - given a film and made a copy - not theft * conditional intent is not enough - **eason** - took handbook , looked at it and gave it back

Answer 64

* s.8(1) theft act 1968 * (1. steals * (2. force or threat of force on victum * (3. immediantly before or at the time of the theft * (4. dishonesty * (5. intention to permonantly deprive

Answer 65

* theft must be complete , if an element missing there will be no offecne * **corcoran and anderton** - pushes v in back she drops her bag and screams , d runs off but empty handed , guilty

Answer 66

* a threat of force is suffiecent so no force has to be applied * definetion - **dawson and james** - nudged the victum and took wallet , force was minimal but enough * **clouden** - force applied to a shopping basket (taking it) , indierct force * **p v dpp** - snatched cigerate without touching the victum - not theft * they must seek to put the victum in fear even if the v doesnt feel it - **b and r v dpp** - surrounded boy and pushed him for money , bot was scared but still theft * the theft doesnt have to be from the person who applies force , silence can amount to theft and the use of weapons

Answer 67

* the force must occur either immediantly before or at the time of the theft * if the force is seprate there is no robbery * however theft can be a continuing act **hale** - tied up victum and then stole their jewerly * **lockley** - put beer under his jacket , shop keeper tried to stop but assaulted him

Answer 68

* section 2 * **barton and booth** - stole from elderly * not dishonest it; * he has the belief that he has in law the right of it - **holden** - took tyres from work bc they let him but ocntract said no * if they believe they would have the consent of the other * if they beileive the person of the property cant be found - **small** - saw cars with key in and took it * can be dihosnest if he acts with a view to casuing a loss to the owner , motwithstanding that he is willing to pay * jury decide wether it is dishonest

Answer 69

* jury decide * even long term or indefinite borrowing will not amount to theft - **warner** - took tool box and hid in car but was going to give it back * unless the goodness is taken out - **bagshaw** - took gas and used it but then gave it back , but took goodness out * its not a defence to claim that money that has been taken would have been repaid - **velumyl** - took monye from work his friend owned him and said he was going to pay it back * test - treat the thing as his own to dispose -**lavander** - took doors from one council house and put it on another , borwoning or lending for a period of time that is equavilant to taking it out right * borrwiing is not theft (unless goodness taken out) - **llyod** - given a film and made a copy - not theft * conditional intent is not enough - **eason** - took handbook , looked at it and gave it back * ALSO MUST BE AN INTENTIO TO USE FORCE OR THREAT FORCE

Answer 70

* section 9 theft act 1968 * section 9(1)(a) - the defendant enters a buliding or part of a bulidng as a trespasser, with the intent to steal , inflict gbh or cause criminal damadge * section 9(1)(b) - when someones steals or inflicts gbh (or attempts either) after having tresspassed * (1. entry * (2. building or part of a building * (3. tresspassing * (4. both need intent or recklessness * (a , intent at the time of entering the builfing * (b , get the intent once entering the bulding , but have mens rea for first crime they commited

Answer 71

* not actually defined in the theft act * first case to define it **collins** - entry must be effective and substaintial * effective entry * **brown** - smashed window , leaned in a stole (feet stayed outside) , guilty * **ryan** - got stuck in window had to be removed , guilty * the d inability to steal bc they were stuck is irrelavnt

Answer 72

* inhavited places (dwellings) , caravans and house boats * problems arise when the structure is not inhavited but used for storage * **leathley** - stole from trailor argued it wasnt a building , had been there for a long time and had electricity , guilty * **seekings and gould** - stole from lorry trailor on wheels , not guilty * part of a bulding - happens when they have permission for part of the buliding but not for another * **walkington** - went to shop , opnened till but no money , guilty * **laing** - stays in storage room after hours , caught , guilty

Answer 73

* civil law of trespassing * **collins** - drunk naked man climbs up ladder to window , has sex with girl , thinking it her bf , not guilty as had 'permission' * permission for limited purpose - when a d is acting within excess of their permission ' when you invite someone to walk on your stairs you dont invite them to slide down the banaster' * **jones and smith** - went to dads house and stole his tvs, had permission to be tere but not steal * permission obtained by fraud - no genuine permission

Answer 74

* both a and b need inetionally or recklessly trespass * **section 9(1)(a)** - must have the intention to commit one of the three offecnes **at the time of entering the building**, if they intent to steal but dont find anythign worthy this is condtional intent * **ag ref 1 and 2** - went to house to steal but didnt find anything worth taking , guilty * **section 9(1)(b)** - have the mens rea for the ulterior offence when commiting these offence (after they have entered they then see something they want to steal)

Answer 75

* section 1 criminal attempt act 1981 * the defendant must have the intention to commit the offecne and does an act which is more than merely preparotory

Answer 76

* the defendant doesnt need to have performed the last act before the crime or have reached the point of no return * **ag ref n1** - dragged v into shed with the intent of raping , only assaulted , but guilty as they got to a point of no return * embarked on the 'crime proper' - **guellefer** - d jumped into race tracks to get his monet back , he hadnt embarked on the crime proper so wasnt guilty

Answer 77

* (1. had the d moved from planning or preporation to excutuion or implemenation? * (2. has the d done an act showing that he was actually trying to commit the full offence, or had he only got as far as getting ready or putting himself in a postion or equipping himself to do so ? * **geddes** - found in boys school toleits in possesion of knife rope and masking tape , he hadnt spoken to any pupils , not guilty * **campbell** - outside post office with fake gun , action were not more than merely prarototy * **boyle and boyle** - found next to a lock that was broken , guilty * **tosti** - intenting to burgale , took metal cutting equipment but walked away and no damadge , guilty * **jones** - d gf left him for v , got gun and went to v car and pointed it at im , attempted murder

Answer 78

* must act with intention to commit the offence * **easom** - picked up handbag looked through it and out it back with nothing taken , had not intention to permontaly deprive , not guilty * **ag ref 1 and 2** - if he had contional intent that can be charged with attmepted * for attempted murder the prosecution must prove an intention to kill ( could still use oblique intent) * **whybrow** - wired up his wifes bath , attempted murder * **walker and hayles** - threw v off of three story building and didnt die , attempted murder

Answer 79

* s1(2) criminal attempts act 1981 * a person may be guilty of attempting to commit a crime even though the facts are such that the commision of the offence is impossible * **shivpuri** - thought he was carrying a suitcase of heronin and admitted to it but he was acc carrying dried cabbage , guilty

Answer 80

* used for non fatal offences * court must concider ; * (1. can a person consent to this level of injury? * is the consent genuine/valid?

Answer 81

* all offences expect murder * assisted suicide - illegal **nicklinson** * **pretty** - asked if husband could help her die , no * **airdale nhs trust v bland** - doctors can turn off life machine for those in permant vegetative state * can consent to accidenatal force - **wilson v pringle** - everyday justle * where the charge is s47 , 20 or 18 then consent is only valid for legally good reasons

Answer 82

* games and sports - **barnes** - nad tackle in rugny and boke leg * secual activity - **slingsby** - fisted wife with a ring and died of sepsis * tattooing and branding - **wilson** - branded wife with hot knofe and got infected * horseplay - **aitken**- set light to his friends fire proof suit * **jones** - throwing boys in air and got injured * lawful chastisements * surgery

Answer 83

* sado-masochistric activiety - **brown** - homosexuals , no injuries * some off the ball sporting -**johnson** - bit somebodies ear off * illegal sports( street fights , bare knuckle boxing) - **coney** - bare knuckle boxing , got injured * if not in public intrest - **leach** - did his own crussifiction

Answer 84

* the alleged victum must be able to give valid consent - **burrell v harmer** - tattoed a 13 and 14yr , to young to give consent * consent is obtained by fraud * **dica** - slept with people knowing he had hiv * **tabassum** - set up a breast clinic as a docotr just to grope women * **richardson** - suspened densit but still practised * submission is not that same as consent * **olugboja** - got rape , 'consented bc she took her cloths off'

Answer 85

* (1. **do you think we should allow consent for death?** * autonomy/self determination * lacking cacity/open to abuse * inconsistent * (2. **do you think the outsome of r v brown problamatic** * illogical distinction - wilson , dr evil * public policy ... discimination - dont want to condone * against freedom and autonmoy * (3.**how does the law of consent go against human rights** - governement deciding public policy - leach , brown * human rights = personal freedom * public safety * (4. **are there inconsistencies over how we are enforcing this defence ? sport/sex** * sado machinism - no list of whats allowed * distiniction between rules - mostly clear , how bad does the tackle need to be * dangerous sports like boxing , ice hockey * (5. **how informed does consent need to be?** * medical - all risks * contrast against implied consent - sports , horseplay

Answer 86

* section 3 criminal law act 1967 * (1. did the d think it ws neccasary * (2. was the degree of force reasonable ? * both were then expanded in section 76 criminal justice and immigration act 2008

Answer 87

* the d has to show they genually believed that it was necessary for them to act * d has made a mistake about the attack - allowed - **gladstone williams** - saw man attacking a boy , turnt out he wass robbing him * drunken mistake - no - **o'connor** - murdered someone drunk , belived he was under attack - guilty * no need to retreat - **bird** - got slapped , punched forgetting they had a glass in their hand * if the threat is over , no force allowed - **hussain** - taken captive with family , he escaped and went back to attack man * preparing for an attack is allowed - **ag ref** - owned a shop in riots , made petrol bombs incase

Answer 88

* need to make sure the force was used to prevent the crime not excessive * this created problems when - the use of force is necessary (justified) but no reasonable (proportionate) * **clegg** - soldier shot at a car 4 times , last one killed the man , to much * **martin** - two men broke into his house and he shot them , had mental issues but that is not taken into account * household cases - the degree of force is only unreasonable if it is grossly disproportionate * **collins v secretary state of justice** -man tresspassed so d put him into headlock giving him brain damadge - not guilty

Answer 89

* **jury decide wether force is necessary** - each case will have a different opionon , most of the time they are to genrous * **"all or nothing"** - if the defence doesnt work you will get a full sentence , no middle ground , what happens if you didnt mean to kill * **condtion of victum not considered** - if they think they are in more danger bc of their condition , says its based on how the d belived * **how imminent is imminent?** - how faie is the measure to protect yourself , should you wait until you are attacked , battered spouse syndrome cant use this defence * **who decides if grossly disproportiate** * **if you have time to prepare should you not call the police** *

Answer 90

* **gov made it a partial offence** - loss of control manslaughter * **households can protetc themselves** * **pre-emptive strike** * **complete defence** - upholds justice for innocent people

Answer 91

* offences which require a specific intention * muder , 1.18 , theft , buglary , robbery * is a defence

Answer 92

* offences where recklessness is a mens rea * mansluaghter , s.20 , s.47 , assault , battery * is not a defence

Answer 93

* certain circumstances are allowed for the defence * if it is a specific intent crime and they dont have the mens rea due to the intoxication they are not guilty * **dpp v beard** - killed and raped girls , said he was to drunk to form mens rea * **sheehan and moore** - set fire to a tramp , to drunk to form mens rea * **gallagher** - confirms that drunken intent is still intent - dutch courage - killed wife after getting intoxicated * if its basic intent the volentary drinking is seen as reckless therefore forfills mens rea - **majewski** - got drunk and attacked police officers

Answer 94

* spiked your drink or given you drugs with your knowledge * **kingston** - had history of liking little boys , got drugged and absued 15yr old , guilty bc he would have still had the intent if he was intoxicated * where a drug has done an unexpected effect **hardie** - took valium which is meant to calm you down , set fire to room where his daughter and ex gf were , not guilty

Answer 95

* if the mistake is about something that means the d cant have the specifc mens rea it is a defence * if it is basic offence then there will be no offence - **lipman** - took lsd and attacked gf bc she though she was a snake , manslaughter * if its about how much force to use in self defence , they wont hvae a defence - **hatton** - hit v with a sledgehammer bc v hit him with stick , guilty * except **jaggard v dickinson** - friend said you can use my house , tried to get in identical looking one , broke window to get in , not guilty bc they genurally belived

Answer 96

* **r v heard (vol , gulity)** - been self harming and depressed , police took him to hopsital , rubbed penis on his thigh , couldnt remeber anything * **richardson and irwen (not guilty , vol)** - was drinking about involved with horeplay , dropped v off 10ft balacony * **beckford (self defence , not guilty** - police officer shot someone who they thought had a gun , mistaken belief * **tandy (guilty of murder)** - alcholic (ads) , strangled daughter to death

Answer 97

* **sexual offences are specifc intent crimes** - means that people are either going to get fully acquited if to intoxicated (creates injustice) * howver they found heard was inconsicent and was found guilty * **it is a complete offence to basic intent but only partial defence for specfic intent** - unfair? * **rules of vol intoxication/basic intent** - fair/just but although drinking is reckless, they arent being reckless about the crimes mens rea, should the rule of richardson and irwen be followed * **kingston** - was guility despite invol intoxication , how is that fair? * however it does protect the public * **inconsitent over self defence** - if intoxicated mistake is not honest/genuine (o'connor) and defence wont work whereas a different type of mistake is fine (beckford) * **hardie** - the defence worked as invol/basic intent .... but was he being reckless by taking the valium?

Answer 98

* **codification with minor amendments** * **where the prosecution alleges any intentio or purpose , any knowledge or belief , or fraud and dishonesty** - evidence of intoxcition should be taken into account * **"would have been aware if not intoxciated"** - any mental element other than these, a d who was vol intoxicated should be treated as having been aware of everything * **automatism resulting from voluntary intoxication , or mistaken of fact resulting from vol intox** - a person who kills in a msitaken belief (resulting from vol intox) that circumstances exist that would reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter , should be guilty of only manslaughter

Answer 99

* we use the graham test

Answer 100

1. was the d impelled to act because the reasonably beleived (due to things said/done i.e threats) that if they didnt then death or serious injurt would result 2. would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the same charactertics of the defendant have acted in the same way?

Answer 101

* Threat must be really serious (**Valderamma Vega**) - sent threats of serious violence if he didnt import drugs to his family and him * Threat must be connected to the crime they commit (**Cole**) - owned money to loan shark and robbed places to make up for it , the threat had nothing to do with the crime ( didnt force him to do it) * The D must feel the threat is immediate/imminent ie. no time to escape or get help (**Hudson and Taylor**) - lied in court bc they were threatened , no defence as no immediate, (**Abdul-Hussein**)

Answer 102

* We include characteristics such as age, gender, tolerance but not low IQ (**Bowen**), or timidity (**Martin DP**)

Answer 103

* Self induced duress will not be considered a defence * e.g. knowingly joining a violent gang **(Sharp**) - wanted to leave then killed someone , no defence * but may be considered where the D didn’t know the gang was criminal **Shepherd** - didnt know they were armed robbers

Answer 104

* The **Graham** - as above (impelled to act and same characteristics) * The D feels impelled to act due to their circumstances / situation - but no specific worded threat **Willer** - gang forced him down a street * **Martin** - drove without license bc his with threatened suicide if he didnt * Circumstances must lead to same threat of serious injury/death (**Conway**) - drove to save him and his passanger * Same characteristics are considered as with duress of threats (**Bell**) - drove over friend who didnt get in car in time by accident - defence worked * Person must stop committing the offence as soon as possible (**Pommell**) - had loaded gun in bed and said he was going to give it to his brother

Answer 105

* The **M’Naghten** Rules test * .1. a defect of reason * .2. a disease of the mind * .3. causing the d to either not know the nature and qaulity of the act or not know what theyre doing is wrong

Answer 106

* the d's reasoning must be impaired * not just absent mindeness * **clarke** - went to supermarket and put something in her bag , could prove she had depression but was just her forgetting - no defence

Answer 107

* must be of the mind * can be mental or physcial * **kemp** - hardened artery , went uncouncious and attacked wife , defence * **sulivan** - epilepsy * **burgess** - sleepwalking * **hennessy** - hyper (not enough insulin) didnt take insulin - defence * **quick** - hypo ( to much insulin) - guilty bc they did it

Answer 108

* doesnt work * **coley** - took drugs, didnt know what was doing but got himself dressed - guilty

Answer 109

* proved that the d doesnt know what they are doing or are unconsious * **oye** - proved insanity episode * didnt know it was leggaly wrong * **windle** - gave wife drugs to help kill herself

Answer 110

* **bratty** - act done by the muscles without any control by the mind * actus reus wasnt volentary and there was no mens rea * must be from external causes - **hill v baxter** - blow to the head , attack of swarming bees , sneeze , effect of a drug * **R v T** - PTSD * **Ags ref** - tired lorry driver - no defence

Answer 111

* Self induced automatism can be a defence to specific intent crimes (**Hardie**) - took valium from gf , weird side affects , defence * but usually not basic intent crimes (**Bailey**) - forgot to eat diaetic , no defence , as bringing on the ‘automatic’ state is reckless so they’d have the mens rea and no defence. * This also applies to automatism caused by intoxication (**Coley**). - took cannabis - guilty