Criminal Law - Paper 1 Section B Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

actus reus

elements of a crime - actus reus

A
  1. act
  2. ommision
  3. state of affairs - r v larsonneur - french lady being deported but didnt vlentary come to england
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

no obligations to act but expectations…..

elements of a crime - actus reus

A
  1. statutory duty to act
  2. duty arising from a relationship
  3. where a duty has been taken on
  4. duty as public officer
  5. where you have created a dangerous situation
  6. contractual duty to act
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

case for duty arising from a relationship - omission

elements of a crime - actus reus

A

gibbson and proctor (1918)
father neglected 7yr old daughter - died of starvation

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

case for where duty has been taken on - omission

elements of a crime - actus reus

A

r v instan (1893)
lived with aunt who had taken ill an didnt get help or didnt feed
died

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

case for where you have created a dangerous situation - omission

elements of a crime - actus reus

A

fagan v metropolition police commissiorner (1969)
drove on police officers foot and refused to move off of it

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

case for contractual duty to act - omission

elements of a crime - actus reus

A

r v pittwood (1902)
failed to close gate at train crossing and train collided with hay cart

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

case for duty as a public officer - omission

elements of a crime - actus reus

A

r v dytham (1979)
police officer stood and watched a man get beaten to death - left without calling for assisantance or ambulance

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

causation

elements of a crime - actus reus

A
  1. factual causation
  2. legal causation
  3. chain of causation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

factual causation

elements of a crime - actus reus

A
  • but for test
  • if the result would have happened if the defendant hadnt acted
  • if something else caused it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

factual causation - but for test cases

elements of a crime - actus reus

A
  • white (1910) - put poison in mothers drink but died of heart attack - he technically didnt cause her death
  • pagett (1983) - used girlfriend as a human sheild and she died
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

legal causation

elements of a crime - actus reus

A
  • defendants actions were more than minimal
  • de minimis
  • must have legally caused the consequence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

legal causations cases

elements of a crime - actus reus

A
  • r v hughes (2013) - drove a van without insurance and not full licencse , car swerved into him and someone died
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

intervening act

elements of a crime - actus reus

A
  • novous actus interveniens
  • must be a direct link from defendants actions to consequence - chain of causation
  • can be broken by: third party , victims own actions, natrual but unpredictable event
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

intervening act case

elements of a crime - actus reus

A

** r v malcherek (1981)**
* attacked woman
* put on life support
* doctors switched life machine off as she was brain dead
* tried to argue doctors broken chain of causation

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

medical treatments that break the chain of causation

elements of a crime - actus reus

A
  • r v jordan (1956) - patient got stabbed and given antibiotics died from alergic reaction - not guilty as stabbing was more than minimal
  • r v cheshire (1991) - shot vitum , died with complications due to breathing tube - but found guilty as wounds were bad
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

victums own actions

elements of a crime - actus reus

A
  • if actions were reasonable or unreasobale
  • **r v roberts ** - jumped out car to get away from rape and got injured from speed of car - gulity
  • r v williams (1992) - jumped out car though wallet was being stolen, wasnt a reasonale action so d found not guilty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

thin skull rule - causation

elements of a crime - actus reus

A
  • take your victum as you find them
  • law doesnt take any particualr characteristic into account
  • r v watson (1989) - victum was old man and had heart attack - defendant has no exucse
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

mens rea

elements of a crime - mens rea

A
  1. direct intention
  2. oblique intention
  3. recklessness
  4. gross negligence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

direct intention

elements of a crime - mens rea

A
  • where the defendant wanted the specific outcome
  • case - mohan - drove a car at a police officer to purposly hurt the,
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

oblique intention

elements of a crime - mens rea

A
  • when the defendant wants a different outcome but knew the outcome was virtually certain
  • case - woolin - throuh baby to bed but hit wall and died
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

recklessness

elements of a crime - mens rea

A
  • subjective test
  • when the defedant was aware of the risk and takes it anyway
  • carelessness
  • case - cunningham - tried to break mother in laws gas meter to get money and poisned mother - bot guilty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

gross negligence

elements of a crime - mens rea

A
  • where the negligence to a duty of care is so great the jury see it as a crime
  • only relevant to manslaughter
  • case - adomako - anaethtist didnt notice the oxygen tube wasnt working as they walked away
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

transferred malice

elements of a crime

A
  • occurs when the defendants mens rea is transferred from the intented victum to the actual (uniteneted) victum
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

transferred malice cases

elements of a crime

A
  • r v mitchell (1983) - pushed eldery man who fell into old woman and she died - guilty
  • ags refernece (No 3 of 1994) - stabbed girlfreind while pregnant baby born early and died later, not guilty for murder bc foetus is not alive but guility of manslaughter
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

coincidence rule

elements of a crime

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

coincidence rule cases

elements of a crime

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

strict liability

elements of a crime - strict liability

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

strict liability case

elements of a crime - strict liability

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

gammon test

elements of a crime - strict liability

A
  • d was charged with deviating from approved plan for building
  • decide wether they knew they broke the law or strict liability
    *
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

requirment of actus reus

elements of a crime - strict liability

A
  • must prove that the actus reus was volentary
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

absolute liability

elements of a crime - strict liability

A
  • if act was involentarty then it is absolute liability
  • state of affair cases
  • larsonneur - no volentary act
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

no fault

elements of a crime - strict liability

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

due diligence

elements of a crime - strict liability

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

honest mistake

elements of a crime - strict liability

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

what is assault?

non fatal offences - assault

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

actus reus of assault

non fatal offences - assault

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

mens reu of assualt

non fatal offences - assault

A
  • either when the defendant intentionally causes the victum to fear physical violence or is reckless about causing them to fear violence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Assault cases

non fatal offences - assault

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

what is battery?

non fatal offences - battery

A
  • applying force onto a person
  • common assault
  • section 39 criminal justice act 1988
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

actus reus of battery

non fatal offences - battery

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

mens reu of battery

non fatal offences - battery

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

cases for battery

non fatal offences - battery

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

what is abh?

non fatal offences - abh

A
  • triable either way offence
  • max 5 years
  • section 47 of offence against the person act 1861
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

actus reus of abh

non fatal offences - abh

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

mens reu of abh

non fatal offences - abh

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

abh cases

non fatal offences - abh

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

what is gbh s20?

non fatal offences - gbh 20

A
  • section 20 of the offecnes against the person act 1861
  • unlawfully wound and cause gbh
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

actus reus of gbh 20

non fatal offences - gbh 20

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

mens reu of gbh s20

non fatal offences - gbh 20

A
  • intentionally cause some level of harm (not gbh) or recklessly inflict gbh on another person
  • cunningham
  • mowatt (1968) - punched person bc he was threatened
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

what is gbh section 18?

non fatal offences - gbh 18

A
  • 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
51
Q

actus reus of gbh s18

non fatal offences - gbh 18

A
  • 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
52
Q

the mens reu of gbh s18

non fatal offences - gbh 18

A
  • 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
53
Q

gbh cases

non fatal offences - gbh

A
  • 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
54
Q

evaluations of assault

evaulations of non fatal offences

A
  • 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
55
Q

evaluations of battery

evaulations of non fatal offences

A
  • 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
56
Q

evaluations of abh

evaulations of non fatal offences

A
  • 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
57
Q

evalauations of gbh

evaulations of non fatal offences

A
  • 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
58
Q

what is murder?

fatal offences - murder

A
  • intention to kill or cause gbh
59
Q

actus reus of murder

fatal offences - murder

A
  • 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
60
Q

mens reu of murder

fatal offences - murder

A
  • 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
61
Q

loss of control

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - loss of control

A
  • 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
62
Q

section 54 of coroners and justice act 2009

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - loss of control

A
  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
63
Q
  1. loss of self control

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - loss of control

A
  • 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
64
Q

, 2.qualifying trigger (s55)

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - loss of control

A
  • 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
65
Q

things that wouldnt be a qualifying trigger

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - loss of control

A
  • sexual infidelity - clinton - wife taunted d about his drepressiona nd cheating on him , suciide websites ect , killed wife , guilty
  • relationship breakup -hatter
  • revenge
66
Q

, 3. standard of self control

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - loss of control

A
  • 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
67
Q

diminished responsibility

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - diminished responsibility

A
  • 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
68
Q

, 1. abnormality of mental functioning

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - diminished responsibility

A

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’

69
Q

, 2. arsing from a recgonised medical conditions

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - diminished responsibility

A
  • must have medical evidence
  • covers psychological and physicical condtiitons
  • gittens - depression
  • squelch - paranoid personality
  • ahluwalia - battered spouse syndrome
  • campbell - eplilepsy
  • conroy - autism
70
Q

, 3. substantially impairs

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - diminished responsibility

A
  • 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)
71
Q

, 4. the abnormality must provide an explanation for the ds conduct

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - diminished responsibility

A
  • 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
72
Q

diminshed responsibility and intoxication

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - diminished responsibility

A
  • 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
73
Q

unlawful act mansluaghter

fatal offence - involuntary manslaughter - unlawful act

A

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

74
Q

ar - d commits an unlawful act

fatal offence - involuntary manslaughter - unlawful act

A
  • 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
75
Q

ar - the act must be dangerous

fatal offence - involuntary manslaughter - unlawful act

A
  • 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
76
Q

ar - the act has caused the death

fatal offence - involuntary manslaughter - unlawful act

A
  • 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
77
Q

mens rea for the unlawful act

fatal offence - involuntary manslaughter - unlawful act

A
  • 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
78
Q

gross negligence manslaughter

fatal offence - involuntary manslaughter - gross negligence

A
  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

79
Q

, 1. duty of care

fatal offence - involuntary manslaughter - gross negligence

A
  • 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
80
Q

, 2. breach of duty that causes death of the victum

fatal offence - involuntary manslaughter - gross negligence

A
  • 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
81
Q

, 3. gross negligence

fatal offence - involuntary manslaughter - gross negligence

A
  • 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
  • misra and srivastava - two surgeons , patient go infected under their care and left untreated
82
Q

theft

theft

A

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

83
Q

, 1. appropriation

actus reus - theft

A
  • 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
84
Q

, 2. property

actus reus - theft

A
  • section 4(1) included money , all other property , actions and other intagible property
  • 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
85
Q

, 3. belonging to another

actus reus - theft

A
  • section 5 - a person having possesion or control , having any proprietary right or interest
  • 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
86
Q

, 1. dishonesty

mens rea - theft

A
  • 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
87
Q

, 2. intention to permontanly deprive

mens rea - theft

A
  • 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
88
Q

robbery

robbery

A
  • 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
89
Q

, 1. steals

actus reus - robbery

A
  • 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
90
Q

, 2. force or threat of force on victum

actus reus - robbery

A
  • 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
91
Q

, 3. immediantly before or at the time of the theft

actus reus - robbery

A
  • 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
92
Q

, 4. dishonesty

mens rea - robbery

A
  • 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
93
Q

, 5. intention to permonantly deprive

men rea - robbery

A
  • 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
94
Q

burglary

burglary

A
  • 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
95
Q

entry

actus reus - burglary

A
  • 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
96
Q

, 2. buliding or part of a building

actus reus - burglary

A
  • 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
97
Q

, 3. as a trespasser

actus reus - burglary

A
  • 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
98
Q

mens rea

burglary

A
  • 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)
99
Q

attempted offence

attempted offence

A
  • 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
99
Q

, 1. more than merely preparatory

actus reus - attempted offence

A
  • 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
99
Q

test for more than merely preparatory

actus reus - attempted offence

A
  • (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
100
Q

intention to commit offence

mens rea - attempted offence

A
  • 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
101
Q

impossibility

attempted offence

A
  • 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
102
Q

defence of consent

defence of consent

A
  • used for non fatal offences
  • court must concider ;
  • (1. can a person consent to this level of injury?
  • is the consent genuine/valid?
103
Q

, 1. what offence can a person consent (and not consent) to ?

defence of consent

A
  • 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
104
Q

what somebody can consent to

defence of consent

A
  • 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
104
Q

what you cant consent to

defence of consent

A
  • 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
105
Q

, 2. is the consent genuine?

defence of consent

A
  • 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’
106
Q

evaluation of defence of consent

defence of consent

A
  • (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
107
Q

self defence

self defence

A
  • 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
108
Q

, 1. did the d think it was necessary?

self defence

A
  • 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
109
Q

, 2. was the force reasonable

self defence

A
  • 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
110
Q

negtaives of self defecne

self defence

A
  • 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
    *
111
Q

positives of self defence

self defence

A
  • gov made it a partial offence - loss of control manslaughter
  • households can protetc themselves
  • pre-emptive strike
  • complete defence - upholds justice for innocent people
112
Q

specific intent offence

intoxication defence

A
  • offences which require a specific intention
  • muder , 1.18 , theft , buglary , robbery
  • is a defence
113
Q

basic intent offence

intoxication defence

A
  • offences where recklessness is a mens rea
  • mansluaghter , s.20 , s.47 , assault , battery
  • is not a defence
114
Q

voluntary intoxication

intoxication defence

A
  • 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
115
Q

involentary intoxication

intoxication defence

A
  • 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
116
Q

intoxicated mistake

intoxication defence

A
  • 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
117
Q

cases to help evaluate intoxication defence

intoxication defence

A
  • 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
118
Q

evaluations of intoxication defence

intoxication defence

A
  • 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?
119
Q

reforms for intoxication

intoxication defence

A
  • 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
120
Q
A