Criminal Law Tests

Question 1

But For Test

Answer 1

But for…the intervention of the D defendant would X have occured?

Question 2

The Harm Principle

Answer 2

We could criminalise things that cause harm to others

Question 3

The Woolin Test

Answer 3

a. The defendant committed murder or GBH…which was foreseen by him as a likely result of his act
b. that he was deemed to have foreseen the risk, a reasonable person in his position would have seen

Question 4

Feinberg (1984)

Answer 4

“Harm to others” identifies harm as set-back to interests that is the consequences of qrongful acts of others

Question 5

The Principle of legality

Answer 5

Parliament must confront what it doing and accept the political cost

Question 6

Adomako Test

Answer 6

1. Duty of care owed to the deceased
2. It was breached by the accused (D)
3. The breach resulted in death
4. The breach can be characterised as gross negligence and therefore a crime

Question 7

The Correspondence Principle

Answer 7

The different elements of a crime must correspond with one another. You should be responsible for what you do and what you choose/aim to do

Question 8

The ‘thin ice’ principle

Question 8

The ‘thin ice’ principle

Answer 8

Citizens skate on thin ice when they engage in conduct that has been arguably been prohibited by the legislature, so they should not complain if they are ultimately convicted or prosecuted

Question 9

Fair Labelling Principle

Answer 9

The label applied to an offender, should relate directly to what he has done (The symbolism of the law)

Question 10

R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273 - Casuation

Answer 10

Legal causation requires that the harm must result from a culpable act

Question 11

Cancels Dalloway - R v Williams [2011] 1 WLR 588

Answer 11

The Dalloways principle of legal causation requiring a culpable act for harm is cancelled where the offence is one of strict liability (Williams)

Question 12

R v Benge (1865) - Sole cause of the resulting harm

Answer 12

The defendants actions need not be the sole cause of the resulting harm, but it must be more than minimal

Question 13

Novus Actus Interveniens

Answer 13

New intervening act which breaks the chain of causation. Different tests apply depending on the intervening party.

Question 14

Novus Actus Interveniens (1. Third party)

Answer 14

The act of a third party will generally break the chain of causation unless the action was foreseeable. R v Pagett (1983)

Question 15

Novus Actus Interveniens (2. The act of the Victim)

Answer 15

Where the act is of the victim, the chain of causation will not be broken unless the victims actions are disproportionate or unreasonable

Question 16

Novus Actus Interveniens (3. Medical Assistance)

Answer 16

Where medical intervention contributes to death, the courts have been inconsistent in their approach.
R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr. App
R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35
R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844

Question 17

Thin Skull Rule (Egg-shell-skull)

Answer 17

Under this rule, the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. this means is he has a particularly vulnerable, he is fully liable for the consequences to them even if an ordinary person would not have suffered such severe consequences, irrespective of whether D was aware or not. For example if D commits a minor assault, and V has a heart attack and in the event of death, D is still fully liable

Question 18

Thin skull rule also applies where the victim has refused…

Answer 18

…medical treatment which would have saved them. R v Holland (1841) and R v Blaue [1975]

Question 19

Causation Test - Factual/Legal

Answer 19

Factual: ‘but for’ D’s conduct would the consequence have occurred?
Legal: is the outcome one D should be considered responsible for?

Question 20

Moloney test for direct intention

Answer 20

Judge should avoid elaboration, leave jury to good sense

Question 21

Duff’s test of failure

Answer 21

“D intends a consequence of his action if he acts with the aim of producing that consequence”

Question 22

Hyam test for intention

Answer 22

Did the mens rea of intention require an intention to kill or only a foresight of a serious risk of death or serious bodily harm being caused?

Did Hyam have the requisite intention to commit murder?

Question 23

Woolin two stage test

Answer 23

• Objective: was the outcome a virtually certain consequence of D’s actions?
• Subjective: aware that the outcome was a virtual certainty of their actions?

Question 24

Tyrell Principal

Answer 24

R v Tyrell [1894] 1 QB 710, 712 Lord Coleridge; The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 was passed for the purpose of protecting women and girls against themselves. with the object…the Act of Parliament has made illicit connection with a girl [under 16] unawful.

Question 25

Old Law - Ghosh (1982) Test

Answer 25

Was the action dishonest?
Feely (1973) - “standards of ordinary decent people”
Did D realise what he was doing was dishonest by those standards?

Question 26

Stage 2 dishonesty test

Answer 26

What was D’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts; and
Was the defendants conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?

Question 27

aef