Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law: Y1 > Criminal S1 > Flashcards

Criminal S1 Flashcards

1
Q

Actus reus

A

Conduct of the defendant

  • must be performed in certain circumsrances
  • the conduct must cause prohibited consequences
  • conduct is normally an act
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Ommissions

A

Where D is under duty to act

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

Roberts (1972)

A

Reasonable forgeability test

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

Statutory duties

A

duty to act imposed by the state

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

Contractual duties

A

a duty that may arise due to contractual obligation

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

Pittwood [1902]

A

prosecuted for not fulfilling contractual duties of pulling a lever to change tracks, resulted in death, charged with manslaughter

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

Assumption of responsibility

A

a duty to act arises when the defendant has assumed responsibility for the wellbeing of the defendant

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

Evans [2009]

A

Assumption of responsibility

From a blood relationship eg parent and child

Little sister given heroin

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

Stone v Dobinson [1977]

A

Assumption of responsibility

victim living with brother

made inadequate effort to care for her and jury said they were obliged as she was helplessly infrirm

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

Creation of Danger

A

Where the defendant has created a dangerous situatuion and failed to prevent harm coming as a result.

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

Miller [1983]

A

sleeping vagrant who fell asleep with a cigarette woke up and found fire, did nothing, moved room, charged with arson

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

DPP v Santana-Bermudez

A

hypodermic needles in pockets and then told officer to search him without telling them about needles

assault occasioning ABH

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

Bowler [2015]

A

mummification due to fetish

V died of suffocation, although he consented it was clearly dangerous to leave him without checking if he could breathe

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

Fagan [1969]

A

parked car on officers foot and refused to move,

commission was held as continuous act of assault

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

3 elements of Automatism

A

defence
-total destruction of voluntary control (Coley [2013])

  • the conditions was caused by an external factor

the defendant was not responsible for his state of mind (coley [2013] and Bailey [1983])

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

Consequences of Finding Automatism

A
  • If self induced, no defence
  • Automatism is seen to be the result of legal insanity
  • if it is the result of external factors it will lead to full acquittal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Kennedy [2007]

A

Questions of causation cannot be boiled down to mathematical formulae,

need context

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

Guiding rule of causation

A

Cheshire [1991]

Prosecution must show that D’s acts was a substantial and operating cause of the harm

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

Cato [1976]

A

it doesn’t need to be the only cause but cannot be minimal - can also be used for CDA

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

Longbottom [1849]

A

convicted of manslaughter even though it was in part defendants fault for walking in the middle of the road

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

But For causation

A

White [1910]

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

Novus actus interveniens

A 
An intervening unseen event 
-acts by third parties
-medical treatments
acts and omissions of the victim
-acts of god
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

The relevance of mens Rea

A

if the defendant intends to produce a consequence, the law is likely to find him guilty of causing the event

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

Actus reds of murder

A

Unlawful killing

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

Mens Rea of murder

A

Cunningham [1982]

-intention to kill or cause GBH

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

How can murder be defended?

A
  • Loss of control
  • Diminished responsibility
  • Suicide pact
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Why does murder have partial defences?

A

Judges discretion due to partial defence

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

Haigh {2010]

A

Mother smothered a child

CoA held that it was impossible to tell the mother intended to kill

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

Smith v DPP

A

Definition of GBH - to cause really serious harm

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

If partial defence is granted….

A

Charge reduced to voluntary manslaughter

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

Steps toward Actus reus of murder

A

1) Was it unlawful?
2) Did it cause death?
3) Of a person?
4) Was it under the queens peace?

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

Steps towards Mens Rea of murder?

A

1) Intention to kill/cause GBH?
2) Partial defence?
- run through list

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

Clinton [2013]

A

loss of control due to wife describing intense graphic detail of an affair so he killed her

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

Coroners and Justice Act s.52

A

diminished responsibility

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

Coroners and Justice Act s.54

A

loss of control

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

Coroners and Justice Act s.55

A

Defines qualifying triggers

  • felt thereat of serious harm
  • was of extremely grave character
  • sexual infidelity should be disregarded
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Woolin [1999]

A

Convicted of murder due to inflicting injury on baby sons head appealed successfully

Jury can find intention if death or serious injury was fairly certain

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

R v Dowds [2012]

A

Voluntary acute intoxication cannot be capable of founding diminished responsibility

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

Four elements of CDA

A

1) Crime
2) Which is dangerous
3) Intentionally performed act
4) Causes the death of another

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

Franklin [1883]

A

Unlawful in the criminal sense of the word

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

Lamb [1967]

A

defendant messing with revolver, didn’t think there was a bullet, shot his mate, unlucky, no mens Rea and no acts reus, no base offence

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

Andrews v DPP [1937]

A

Crimes of negligence do not count

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

DPP v Newbury

A

All sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm” [1977] AC 500 p.507

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

Lowe [1973]

A

In CDA omission will not qualify it must be an act

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

Criticisms of CDA

A
  • Extremest constructive
  • Objective
  • Striven to hold D’s liable
  • Rule of law issues
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

4 steps of GNM

A

1) Owed a duty of care
2) Breach of that duty
3) Which is gross
4) Has to cause death

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

R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 (HL)

A

Anaesthetist who failed to notice a patients tube had been disconnected during app and he died

Trial judge could direct the jury to consider wether his actions were reckless.

GNM manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

s.47 Offences Against the Person Act

A

Deals with ABH

“Whoever shall be convicted on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable…to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding five years”

49
Q

Actus Reus of OAP s.47 offence

A

1) Assault or battery
2) Occasioning
3) ABH

50
Q

Definition of ABH

A

Donovan [1934] 2KB 498

We think that bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the prosecutor [v]. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent but must no doubt be more than merely transient and trifling

51
Q

OAP s.20

A

To “unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any GBH upon any other person, either with or without, any weapon or instrument”

52
Q

The two acts reus of s.20 OAP

A

Actus reus 1: Inflicting GBH

Actus reus 2: Wounding

53
Q

Actus reus 1 of s.20

A

Inflicting GBH;

DPP v Smith [1961] defines GBH as really serious harm

54
Q

Actus reus 2 of s.20

A

To wound

55
Q

Konzani

A

HIV Transmission

If the defendant had informed the victim about the illness then it would be lawful to transmit the illness.

56
Q

DPP v K [1990] 1 WLR 1067

A

Force need not be directly applied

57
Q

Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172

A

Police woman actions amounted to battery

so the assault on the officer was actually self defence

58
Q

R v Donovan

A

Any injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort providing it isn’t trivial

qualifies as ABH

59
Q

R v Brown

A

Consent cannot be a defence to ABH

60
Q

R v Jones

A

Defence of horseplay, two school boys thrown into the air with the intention of catching and missed resulting in serious injury eg ruptured spleen

61
Q

R v Aitken

A

RAF lighting Esch other on fire

Convicted of GBH but was horseplay between officers beforehand and victims

62
Q

Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 s.8

A

whoever shallop aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, wether the same be an offence ai common law or buy an act passed or to be passed is liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender

63
Q

Principle offender

A

The person in. the group who carries out the main offence

64
Q

Serious Crime Act 2007 s.44

A

1) a person commits an offence if:
a) he does an act that is capable of encouraging ir assisting the commission of the offence
b) he intends to encourage the offence
2) not to be taken to have intended to encourage or assist the commission of the offence merely because it was foreseeable

65
Q

Serious Crime Act 2007 s.45

A

1) a person commits an offence if:

he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission and he believes

that the offence will be committed and his act will encourage or assist its commission

66
Q

Serious Crime Act 2007 s.46

A

1) a person commits an offence if:

he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission and he believes

that one or more of the offences will be committed and his act will encourage or assist its commission

67
Q

R v Jogee

A

The element of conduct (encouraging or assisting the principle) must also be present along with the mens rea

68
Q

R v Jogee

A

The element of conduct (encouraging or assisting the principle) must also be present along with the mens rea when someone furthers an offence

69
Q

R v Gianetto [1997] 1 Cr App R 1 (CA).

A

The jury do not have to be sure which defendant in fact killed provided they are sure that both were there pursuant to a joint enterprise to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

70
Q

DPP of Northern Ireland v Maxwell [1978] 1 WLR 1350 (HL)

A

If the crime was committed by the principle offender……….

71
Q

R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22

A

Defendant could not have taken evasive action
His family was going to be harmed

Can claim duress

72
Q

R v Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294 (CA)

A

Did the defendant reasonably believe the king would harm him and was so impelled to carry out the acts.

If not then cannot claim duress

73
Q

R v Howe [1987] 1 AC 417 (HL)

A

Duress

The defence of duress is not available for murder

74
Q

Re A (Conjoined Twins) [2000] 4 All ER 961 (CA)

A

Duress

Operation to save one twins life as the other would have killed her

75
Q

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s 76.

A

Self defence

Reasonable force for the purpose of self defence

76
Q

Criminal Law Act 1967, s 3.

A

self defence

Force in making an arrest

May use such force as is reasonable in the circumstance of the prevention of crime

77
Q

Beckford v R [1988] AC 130 (PC).

A

self defence

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he honestly believes them to be in the defence of himself or another.

78
Q

R (on the application of Collins) v SoS for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin).

A

self defence

self defence of human rights??

79
Q

R v Martin [2001] EWCA Crim 2245.

A

self defence

personality disorder could not be considered for the purposes of self defence

conviction still quashed as psych report hadn’t been considered by jury

80
Q

Intoxication

A

NEVER A DEFENCE

81
Q

Allen [1988] Crim LR 698

A

argued he didn’t realise the strength of the alcohol

CoA doesn’t matter, ultimately he Wass drinking so he was voluntarily intoxicated

82
Q

Dangerous drugs for intoxication?

A

includes alcohol and controlled drugs

doesn’t medicines

if they formed MR then nothing changes

83
Q

Beard [1920] AC 479

A

Specific intent requires intention,

whereas basic intent can be satisfied by recklessness

84
Q

DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 142

A

D is reckless in having gotten drunk in the first place

MR satisfied by recklessness

85
Q

Kingston [1994] 3 all ER 353

A

Involuntary intoxication

tried to avoid alcohol
drugged by someone to get blackmail material when indecent assault took place

not voluntary into and as such acquitted

HOWever HoL restored conviction as he still formed MR

86
Q

Trial of Lunatics Act 1883, s.2

A

Defence of insanity

Can present not guilty verdict for reasons of insanity

87
Q

R v McNaughten (1843) 10 Cl & F 200.

A

Provides the legal definition of insanity

to rely on the defence they must:

1) laboured under a defect of reason
2) caused by a disease of the mind; so that
3) he did not know the nature and quality of hid act or that he did not know what he was doing was wrong

88
Q

R v Hennessy [1989] 1 WLR 287 (CA).

A

Diabetes caused hyperglycaemic state

insanity is the appropriate defence not automatism

89
Q

R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399 (Assizes)

A

Tried to argue automatism for bashing wife with hammer when unconscious due to hardening of arteries in brain

Hardening arteries was a disease of the mind

M’Naghten Rules mean he cannot rely on automatism

90
Q

Bratty v Attorney General of Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386 (HL)

A

Psychomotor epilepsy - terrible feeling unconscious as to actions

asked for automatism

trial judge said it was insanity and nothing else

91
Q

R v Quick [1973] 1 QB 910 (CA).

A

Hypoglacemia - too much insulin

insanity defence accepted

92
Q

R v Sullivan [1984] 1 AC 156 (HL)

A

kicked somoene when he had epilepsy

pleaded automatism - got insanity from the trial judge

93
Q

Define theft

A

Theft act 1968 s.1

Dishonestly, appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

94
Q

3 Elements of the Actus Reus of Theft

A

Appropriates
Property
Belonging ti another

95
Q

2 Mens Rea elements of theft

A

dishonesty

intention to permanently deprive (need not actually achieve this)

96
Q

Burglary

A

Theft Act s.9

Enters a building as a trespasser

then steals or attempts to steal

97
Q

Conviction for burglary sentences

A
  • Up to 14 years where the offence was committed in respect of a building
  • Up to 10 in any other case
98
Q

R v Morris [1984] AC 320 (HL)

A

switched labels in supermarket

There need not be an appropriation of all the rights of an owner

99
Q

DPP v Gomez [1993] AC 442 (HL)

A

Appropriation does not require absence of consent

100
Q

R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241 (HL)

A

appropriation exists even where the victim consents to the appropriation

civil unlawfulness is not a constituent of the offence of theft

101
Q

Oxford v Moss [1978] 68 Cr App R 183 (QB

A

Information cannot be deemed as tangible property and therefore cannot be stolen within the theft act

102
Q

R v Turner (No.2) [1971] 1 WLR 901 (CA)

A

took car without paying fire repairs

theft as although it was his property, the garage was in possession and control of it

103
Q

R v Hall [1972] All ER 1009 (CA)

A

Travel agents collapsed
lost the clients money
no obligation to deal with the money in a certain way under s5(3) of theft act

104
Q

R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299

A

took from companies safe and said it would be returned next week

convicted of theft, unless she returned the exact same notes he had the intention to permanently deprive

105
Q

R v Lloyd [1985] QB 829 (CA)

A

was genuinely just borrowing the films from work so could not intentionally permanently deprive

106
Q

R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 (CA)

A

Ghosh test for dishonesty

was it dishonest by ordinary standards?

if yes;

did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards

107
Q

Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67

A

New test for dishonesty

same as ghosh but includes subjective test of the defendants actual knowledge/belief of facts

108
Q

R v Smith and Jones [1976] 3 All ER 54

A

invited into house, stole and as such became trespassers

109
Q

R v Walkington [1979] 2 All ER 716

A

no requirement to have a physical separation
over counter was out of bounds
tresspasser in that part of building

110
Q

Theft Act 1968, s.8

A

Robbery I stealing with the use of force

can be liable to life imprisonment

111
Q

Fraud act 2006 s.1

A

guilty of fraud if they commit fraud by

false rep
failure to disclose info
abuse of position

112
Q

Fraud act 2006 s2

A

guilty if he dishonestly makes a false representation

intends to make a gain for himself

has to know false rep is utntrue/misleading

can be express or implied

113
Q

Fraud act 2006 s5

A

gain and loss extend to money for other property only

114
Q

Criminal Damage act 1971 s.1

A

without lawful excuse a person destroys or damages property even through recklessness

if it is their own and would endanger another life then it is still criminal damage

destroying by fire is arson

115
Q

Criminal Damage act 1971 s.5

A

without lawful excuse

lawful if believed the person who could consent to destruction had consented to destruction

or in order to protect property belonging to himself

Immaterial justification \

inclues land pirveleges

116
Q

R v Clouden [1987] Crim LR 56

A

grabbed shopping bag out of woman hand

robbery as force on the bag was sufficient to amount force on the person

117
Q

P v DPP [2012] EWHC 1657

A

robbery not committed

snatched a cigarette out of someones hand

not sufficient enough force

118
Q

R v Ray [1974] AC 370

A

discovered he couldn’t pay for a meal. but didn’t inform anyone of this, ran out when there were no waiters

theft through deception

119
Q

R v Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 2381

A

drunk in charge of a car an assaulting officer

blanket down toilet of cell and flooded cell said it couldn’t be damage as cell is waterproof

blanket and cell were damaged as they shouldn’t be used until they’d been dried

CD includes temporary impairment of value or usefulness

Law: Y1 (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions