Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law > Criminal Law Part 1 > Flashcards

Criminal Law Part 1 Flashcards

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

What element of a crime is actus reus

A

Physical

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

What are the 3 types of actus reus

A
  • voluntary act causing a consequence
  • voluntary omission resulting in a consequence
  • d being in a certain state of affairs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What must ds act/omission be for him to have actus reus

A

Voluntary

If d has no control over his actions then he is not at fault and has not committed the actus reus

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

In what type of offence can involuntary conduct occur in

A

Assaults

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

Example of involuntary conduct in assaults: person a pushes person b causing b to bump into the victim

A

Here bs conduct is involuntary and would not be guilty of assault

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

Example of involuntary conduct in assaults: where d hits v due to a reflex action or muscle spasm

A

Where d is not in control of his own body the defence of insanity/automatism may be available

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

Where the actus reus requires a consequence to be proved, what does the prosecution have to show that

A
  • ds conduct was factual cause of consequence
  • ds conduct was legal cause of consequence
  • there was no intervening act which broke chain of causation from ds conduct to consequence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

When will d be a factual cause of a consequence

A

If the consequence wouldn’t have happened ‘but for’ ds conduct

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

Which case illustrates factual cause

A

Pagett

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

Pagett

A

She would not have died but for him using her as a shield in the shoot out

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

When will d be a legal cause of a consequence

A

If ds conduct was more than a minimal cause of the consequence. Thus others may contribute to the consequence

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

Which case illustrates legal cause

A

Benge

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

Benge

A

D was still a legal cause of the deaths as his conduct was more than a minimal cause

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

What does it mean that there must be a direct link from ds conduct to the consequence

A

There must not be an intervening act which breaks this chain of causation

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

What is the rule on causation regarding a reasonably foreseeable action by a third party

A

The chain of causation will remain unbroken: pagett

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

What is the rule on causation regarding medical negligence

A

Unlikely to break chain of causation unless it is so independent of ds act and ‘in itself so potent in causing death’ that ds acts are insignificant

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

Which 3 cases illustrate medical negligence

A

Cheshire
Smith
Jordan

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

Cheshire

A

The medical complications were a direct consequence of the shooting and ds act was still a significant cause of vs death

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

Smith

A

If at the time of death the original sound is still an operating cause and a substantial cause, the chain of causation is not broken by medical negligence. D will only avoid liability for the death if the medical negligence is so overwhelming as to make the original wound party of the history

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

Jordan

A

The medical treatment was ‘palpably wrong’ and broke the chain of causation from ds stabbing to vs death. D had not caused the death and was not liable for it

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

What is the rule on causation regarding vs own conduct

A

Unlikely to break chain of causation unless it is so daft that a reasonable person would not have foreseen v reacting in that way: Roberts

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

Roberts

A

D was held to be liable for her injuries as her reaction was reasonably foreseeable

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

What is the rule on causation if v has something unusual about them which makes them more vulnerable

A

D must take v as he finds him-thin skull rule- Blaue

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

Blaue

A

He had to take his victim as he found her

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

What is the normal rule on omissions

A

An omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence

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

What is the exception to the rule that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence where a statute may require d to act

A

Omitting to do so will satisfy actus reus

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

What is the exception to the rule that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence where the common law may require d to act

A

Omitting to do so will satisfy actus reus

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

Case illustrating d being under a contractual duty to act under the common law

A

Pittwood

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

Pittwood

A

The keeper was guilty of manslaughter because of the duty to act arising from his contract of employment

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

Case illustrating d being under a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm resulting from a dangerous situation he has created under the common law

A

DPP v Santana Bermudez

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

DPP v Santana Bermudez

A

D was liable for abh because he had a duty to prevent the harm to the police officer by warning her about the needle and failed to do so

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

Case illustrating d being under a family duty to act under the common law

A

Gibbins and proctor

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

Gibbins and proctor

A

His failure to feed his own child was an omission which made him satisfy the actus reus of murder

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

Case illustrating d being under a duty to act because he has voluntary promised to care for v under the common law

A

Stone and dobinson

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

Stone and dobinson

A

Both ds were convicted of manslaughter. By allowing v to come and live with them they had promised to care for her and then had omitted to do

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

Case illustrating d being under a duty to act through his official position under the common law

A

Dytham

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

Dytham

A

The officer was guilty of neglecting to perform his duty as an officer of justice

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

What element of an offence is mens rea

A

Mental. It is the guilty mind

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

What does each offence have of its own

A

Mens rea

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

To be found guilty what does the prosecution need to prove

A

That d had the relevant mens rea for the offence charged

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

What are the only exceptions to the rule that prosecution must prove d had relevant mens rea for offence charged to prosecute

A

Offences of strict liability: don’t require proof of mens rea in respect of at least part of the actus reus

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

Where are there different levels of mens rea

A

So that the law can identify the deveee to which a person is at fault for his/her actions

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

What must d have to be guilty (MR)

A

At least the minimum level of mens rea required by the definition of the offence

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

Where does d directly intend a result

A

Where it is his aim/purpose. D actually desires the result that occurs and sets out to achieve it: MOHAN

45
Q

Where does d indirectly intend a result

A

Where that result is not desired but was virtually certain to occur and d knows this: woollin

46
Q

Where will d have acted recklessly

A

Where he knows there was a risk of the result happening, but takes that risk: CUNNINGHAM

47
Q

Cunningham

A

D was not Liable since he did not know there was a risk of gas escaping into vs house. He had not intended to cause the harm, nor had he taken a risk he knew about

48
Q

How can d still be guilty where his mens rea is directed at one person, hut he harms someone else

A

Ds state of mind is transferred to the actual victim: LATIMER

49
Q

Latimer

A

His intention to harm the man was transferred to the actual victim

50
Q

Where is the principle of transferred malice not available to make d guilty

A

Where ds mens rea is for a completely different type of offence: pembilton

51
Q

Pembilton

A

He was not liable for the damage to the window because his intention to hit people couldn’t be transferred to property

52
Q

What must usually be present at the same time for an offence to take place

A

The actus reus and mens rea

53
Q

How can d be guilty where there is a continuing act for the actus reus

A

At some point while that act is still going on d has the necessary mens rea, the two do coincide and d will be guilty

54
Q

Which case illustrates actus reus being continuing act

A

Fagan

55
Q

Fagan

A

The court held that once d knew the car was on the officers foot he had the required mens rea. As the actus reus was still continuing the two elements of the crime were present together

56
Q

What are the two main exceptions where d will still be guilty of an offence even though the actus reus and mens rea are not present at the same time

A
  • where AR is part of some larger transaction

- where d has voluntary been drinking and then goes on to commit a crime that can be committed recklessly

57
Q

What is the rule where the actus reus is part of some larger transaction

A

It will be sufficient that d forms mens rea at some point during that transaction: church

58
Q

Church

A

D was liable for involuntary manslaughter. The actus reus was part of a larger transaction and d formed mens rea at one point during that transaction

59
Q

What is the rule where d has voluntarily been drinking and then commits an offence that can be committed recklessly

A

His intoxication is not a defence. D seen as reckless in getting intoxicated in the first place so has the mens rea for the later offence: majewski

60
Q

majewski

A

the house of lords upheld his convictions for various assaults, all of which could be committed recklessly

61
Q

what does the exception to the coincidence rule involving voluntary intoxication ignore

A

the principle that AR and MR must coincide. the decision to drink may be several hours before D commits the AR of any offence

62
Q

what does IRELAND state that d must do to commit an assault

A

intentionally/recklessly cause v to apprehend immediate and unlawful force

63
Q

what is the actus reus of assault

A

where by an act/words of d causes v to apprehend immediate and unlawful force

64
Q

which case supports that there must be an act/words for an assault and that an omission is not enough

A

Fagan v MPC

65
Q

in what case did the courts hold that letters could be an assault

A

constanza

66
Q

in which case was it held that silent phone calls could be an assault, ie there is no need for any physical contact

A

Ireland

67
Q

what is it necessary that v apprehends in assault

A

unlawful force

68
Q

what does it mean to apprehend something

A

to be aware of it. v does not have to be scared, nore does v have to be in danger- LOGDON

69
Q

LOGDON

A

D was convicted of assault. V did not actually have to be in danger

70
Q

what must there be an apprehension of in assault as well as unlawful force

A

immediate force

71
Q

what type of threat by d cannot be an assault

A

a threat by D to inflict harm in the future

72
Q

smith v swps

A

v was terrified and did not know what d might do next. unlawful force could well have been imminent

73
Q

what can prevent an act from being an assault

A

words indicating that there will be no immediate and unlawful force: tuberville v savage

74
Q

tuberville v savage

A

his words ruled out the threat implied by putting his hand to his sword, so there was not assault

75
Q

mens rea of an assault

A

intention/recklessness as to causing v to apprehend immediate and unlawful force: VENNA

76
Q

what does the case of COLLINS state that d must do to commit a battery

A

intentionally/recklessly apply unlawful force to v

77
Q

actus reus of a battery

A

where ds act/omission applies unlawful force to v

78
Q

which case states that force can include the slightest touching but not the ordinary jostling of everyday life

A

collins

79
Q

why does battery not include the jostling of every day life

A

implied consent is given to all the touching which is inevitable in everyday life

80
Q

which case states that unlawful force does not have to be applied to vs body in battery

A

thomas

81
Q

thomas

A

the court held that touching a persons clothes while he/she was wearing them is equivalent to touching them

82
Q

which case states that unlawful force may be applied through an indirect act for a battery

A

haystead

83
Q

haystead

A

d satisfied the AR of battery by indirectly applying force to the child

84
Q

when can a battery be committed by omssion

A

only if D is under a duty to act: DPP V SANTANA BERMUDEZ

85
Q

what is the mens rea of a battery

A

intention/recklessness as to applying unlawful force to V- venna

86
Q

what is it an offence to commit under s47 OAPA

A

any assault occasioning ABH

87
Q

actus reus of ABH

A

there must be an assault/battery and this must occasion actual bodily harm

88
Q

how must the assault/battery have ‘occasioned’ ABH in s47

A

there must be no intervening act which breaks chain of causation from Ds conduct to injury

89
Q

what is ABH

A

any hurt/injury calculated to interfere with the health/comfort of V- MILLER

90
Q

what does the word ‘actual’ mean

A

the injury should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant- chan fook

91
Q

mens rea s47

A

either the mens rea of an assault/mens rea of a battery

92
Q

what does d not need to be for mens rea of s47

A

intend or be reckless as to whether ABH is caused to v- savage

93
Q

savage

A

ds satisfied mens rea of s.47 as she had mens rea of a battery

94
Q

what is it an offence to do under s20

A
  • unlawfully and maliciously inflict GBH

- unlawfully and maliciously wound

95
Q

what does the actus reus of s20 require d to do

A

inflict GBH on v or to have vounded v

96
Q

which case states that there appears to be very little difference between the two words ‘inflict’ and ‘cause’

A

burstow

97
Q

what does GBH mean and case

A

‘really serious harm’ DPP V SMITH

98
Q

which case states GBH can be psychological

A

burstow

99
Q

burstow

A

ds conduct caused v to suffer severe depression, insomnia and panic attacks. d was liable for maliciously inflicting GBH

100
Q

bollom

A

in deciding whether injuries amount to GBH, it is necessary to take into account vs age and health

101
Q

brown and stratton

A

a single minor injury, when added to other minor injuries inflicted on V can amount to GBH

102
Q

what does wounding require

A

a breaking of the whole skin, the injury must be deep enough to break the inner skin

103
Q

which case states that internal bleeding when there is no cut of the skin is insufficient for a wound

A

jcc v Eisenhower

104
Q

mens rea for s20

A

defined by the word maliciously

intention/recklessness that v might suffer some harm: mowatt

105
Q

what is it an offence to under s18 oapa

A
  • wound with intent to do some GBH
  • cause GBH with the intent to do some GBH
  • maliciously wound with the intent to resist/prevent arrest
  • maliciously cause GBH with the intent to resist/prevent arrest
106
Q

actus reus s18

A

similar to s20- requires proof of either GBH/wounding

107
Q

mens rea s18

A

d must either intend to do some gbh/intend to resist/prevent arrest

108
Q

how must d also act where d directly intends to resist/prevent arrest

A

maliciously- there must be intention/recklessness that v might suffer some harm- Morrison

109
Q

morrison

A

the court of appeal held that the prosecution had to prove that:
-d intended to resist arrest by jumping through the window
d either intended/was reckless that some harm might occur

Law (39 decks)

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