Elements Of Criminal Law Flashcards

Question

Special relationship

Answer 1

This is usually created in a parent-child relationship - a parent has a duty to care for their children

Answer 2

Drug dealer was found not have a duty of care to his clients and a manslaughter conviction was quashed

Answer 3

Gibbins and several of his children from a previous marriage, lived together with his parents. The 7 year old daughter was kept separate from the other children and starved to death. Court held the farther had a duty of care for his child and proctor the parent had also taken responsibility to take care of their child. Failure to feed her led them both being convicted of murder

Answer 4

This duty is often linked with the duty that can be imposed by a special relationship

Answer 5

Both d agreed to take care fit stones sister. Fanny, who came to live with them. Fanny was anorexic and eventually became bedridden and unable to care for herself. D were elderly and of low intelligence Although they tried to get help for Fanny, she eventually died. Court held them guilty of manslaughter as they owed Fanny a duty of care and failed in that duty

Answer 6

V aged 16 who was a heroin adict, lived with her mother and older half-sister the half sister brought some heroin and gave it to v to self-inject. Later it was obvious v had overdosed. Neither the mum or sister tried to help. They just put v in her bed hoping she would recover. Both the mother and d were convicted if gross negligence manslaughter, mother clearly bowed a duty of care to the v as she was her daughter. Legal principle - upheld conviction on the basis that they entered a state of affair which she knew, ought to have known was threatening to the life of V and therefore she owed her a duty.

Answer 7

This can be imposed where a person is guilty of misconduct Dytham 1979

Answer 8

An on duty police officer saw a man being thrown out of a nightclub and being kicked to death by 3 men. He didn’t intervene or get help and told a by stander he was going of duty. He walked away from the scene Found guilty of misconduct in a public office. He was guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty.

Answer 9

Miller 1983 Santana-Bermudez 2003

Answer 10

D fell asleep smoking a cigarette He woke up to find his mattress on fire instead of putting it out he moved to the next room and fell anchor to sleep Found guilty of arson Issue was not setting a fire but Lea I g the room when he discovered the fire

Answer 11

Police women was conducting a search of a suspect. She asked if he had any needles or sharp objects in his pocket. He said no she put her hand in his licked and straight into a needle He was convicted if ABH his failure to warn her was sufficient for the Actus reus of ABH as he knew he was creating a dangerous situation.

Answer 12

Treatment in the patients bed interest is not considered to be an omission so therefore not the Actus reus

Answer 13

Anthony bland had been crushed in the Hillsborough stadium disaster and was on life support machine with severe brain damage After 3 years the doctors applied to the courts for an order to follow them to stop feeding him which would obviously lead to his death. Held - it was in his best interest

Answer 14

Involuntary manslaughter cam be comminuted either unlawful and dangerous set or by gross negligence Unflawful and dangerous act manslaughter requires a positive act and cannot be committed by omission.

Answer 15

D was of low intelligence. He had a 9 week only baby who became ill and died. He said he told the mother to take the child to doctor but had done nothing further. Held was convicted of manslaughter but this was quashed on appeal because there was unlawful and dangerous act. Lowe should have been charged with gross negligence manslaughter which can be committed by an omission because he owed a child a duty of care.

Answer 16

There are different levels of men’s Rea. From highest to lowest they are - intention - recklessness - negligence

Answer 17

Intention is always subjective the court must believe that the defendant desired the specific consequences of their actions - d motive is irrelevant when deciding intention Defined by courts in Mohan 1975 A decision to bring about in so far as it lies within the accused power, the prohibited consequence. No matter whether the accused desired that consequence

Answer 18

-direct intention - indirect/oblique intention

Answer 19

The d wants a result and carries out an act to achieve it. -generally this is easier to prove based on the circumstances of the crime - this type of intention has been built up through case law largely based around the criminal justice act 1967 s 8

Answer 20

With indirect intention, the defendant intends one thing, but another thing happens. - issue has been whether the defendant foresaw the consequences of his actions - d doesn’t want the result that occurs but realises that in acting as he does that there is a possibility that it will happen (the outcome is virtually certain) - question of whether indirect/oblique intention exists is complicated, it has been confused by a variety of model directions from different judges - it is for the jury to decide whether oblique intention exists based on the evidence as presented to them - it is a subjective notion based on what the jury believe that the d knew or foresaw at the time of a crime.

Answer 21

D poured paraffin through a woman’s lettterbox and set it alight. A child died. D was originally convicted of murder but this was reduced to manslaughter on appeal The judge asked the jury to decide - how probable was the consequence which resulted from the defendants voluntary act. AND how reasonable was the consequence which resulted from the d voluntary act.

Answer 22

The jury should be directed that fgsg are not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless they feel sure that the death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty(barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendants actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case However in the case of woolin it was held the word infer intention should be changed to find intention.

Answer 23

The d threw his 3 month baby towards the pram near a wall. The baby suffered head injuries and died. The court dismissed the 2 questions from nedrick but used the model direction changing the word infer to find as Greg felt this would clarify the law. Legal principle - direction in nedrick should not use the would infer but the jury should be told they are entitled fi find intention.

Answer 24

Barring some unforeseen intervention

Answer 25

Barring some unforeseen intervention

Answer 26

D dropped the v 25 feet off a bridge into a river despair him telling them that he couldn’t swim. D left and the v died. Following woolin foresight of consequences is not intention but is evidence. Held - woolin meant that foresight of consequences is not intention. It is a rule of evidence

Answer 27

D shot step farther in quick on the draw incident Held - foresight of consequences is not intention, it is evidence of intention

Answer 28

Court held woolin made law that foresight of consequences is intention

Answer 29

Greater probability of a consequence, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and the greater probability that the consequence was intended

Answer 30

Greater probability of a consequence, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and the greater probability that the consequence was intended

Answer 31

A situation where the d knows that there is a risk that his actions will lead to harm but goes on to take the risk regardless. Recklessness arose where the accused has foreseen the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk regardless However there is a lower firm of mens rea from intention

Answer 32

D tore a gas metre off a wall to steel money from it. Gas leaked unri next door where his future mother in law lived. Women became very ill. Charged with maliciously administering a noxious thing under the offences against the person act 1861. Legal principle - He was released as he did not intend to cause any harm and didn’t therefore realise he was taking a risk Court of appeal looked at word maliciously and decided it ment intentionally or recklessly Question is whether Cunningham realised there was a risk of the has harming anyone and still when ahead with his plan The Cunningham case has become known as CUNNINGHAM RECKLESSNESS - this type of recklessness is subjective as it is based on what the defendant actually realised or foresaw was a risk at the time of the offence not on Edgar he ought to have foreseen Result of Cunningham - a by act which contained the word maliciously was taken to be reckless - in 1971 the criminal damage act was passed this act replaces the malicious damage act abd replaced the word maliciously with recklessness. No clear definition was given in the acts so the courts continued to apply the principles in Cunningham

Answer 33

Stephenson was a schizophrenic he was sleeping in his haystack and decided to light a fire to keep himself warm. He caused £300 damage. He was prosecuted Help - his schizophrenia prevented him from realising that he had created a risk that would have foreseen by a reasonable man The subjective test was therefore applied - I.e. based on what Stephenson actually foresaw.

Answer 34

Courts continues to apply the test until 1982 House of Lords decided two cases on the same day The decision in these cases caused a lot of confusion in this area of law for quite a number of years. Led to what is known as CALDWELL RECKLESSNESS

Answer 35

Caldwell was not happy about gavubg being dismissed from his job in a hotel. When he was drunk he broke a window on the ground floor and started a fire. Fire was put out very quickly and no one was harmed. Cakdwell was charged with criminal damage and was convicted. Lord diplovk stated That the only person who knows what rge accused mental processes were at the time of committing the crime is the accused hijsejf abd probably not even he can recall them accurately when the rage or excitement under which he acted has passed. Or if he has sobered up if he were under rge influence of drink at the time of the relevant time. Caldwell appeal abd the case finally reached the House of Lords. Cakdwell was applied - it was a precedent from the house of ,arcs- led to injustice

Answer 36

That the only person who knows what rge accused mental processes were at the time of committing the crime is the accused hijsejf abd probably not even he can recall them accurately when the rage or excitement under which he acted has passed. Or if he has sobered up if he were under rge influence of drink at the time of the relevant time. Lord diplock created a two stage test that someone is reckless under the criminal damage act 1971 if 1)He does an act which in fact causes an obvious risk that property will be destroyed or damage, (Objective test- based on what a reasonable man would have seen was a risk) 2) when he dies the act he either has not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or has recognised that tgphere was some risk involved and has nonetheless gone in to do it. (Subjective test from Cunningham)

Answer 37

D was a 14 year old girl with learning difficulties. She was playing with white spirit abd matches in the garden shed which was destroyed in the fire age caused. She gave no thought to think risk but was not capable of appreciating the rush anyway due to her learning difficulties She w as found guilty because rge court was bound by the decision in Caldwell

Answer 38

Changed the use of Caldwell Two boys ages 10 and 11 entered the back yard of a shop abd set fire to some newspapers, they put the bneesoaoers under a wheelie bun and left without checking if the fire had gone out. The fire spread abd caused £1m damage. Caldwell precedent was applied by crown court and court of appeal. However a further appeal was allowed to the House of Lords, this changed the use of Caldwell Held - changed the use of Caldwell Led to the abolishing of the objective fur on of recklessness. - personal characteristics of the d could therefore be taken into account. - cases like Stephenson and Elliot would not be decided as a result - to stop the confusion. Law commissions draft code provided a definition that a person acts recklessly with respect to 1) a circumstance when be is aware of the risk 2) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur and it is unreasonable hsbjbg regard to the circumstances known to him to take that risk

Answer 39

If a d attempts commit a crime against one person but in doing so actually commits a similar crime against Someone else, they can still be held guilty of the offence against the actual victim

Answer 40

Latimer 1886

Answer 41

D aimed to hit a man with his belt. Rge belt recoiled abd but a women in rge face. Both offences were similar the d was found guilty of the offence against the women - key case fur transfer malice

Answer 42

D had been involved in a fight and threw. A stone at his attacker. The stone broke a window. D intention was ri hit his attaxjaes this could not be transferred to the window Legal principle- the concept of transfered malice will on,h apply where the two offences are similar

Answer 43

We have already seen that fir a d to be guilty of a crime, actus reus and men’s rea must be proved to have been present stimultaneously, however in certain situation this can prove difficult. Thabo meli 1954 Church 1965

Answer 44

D attached a man abd threw what they thought his dead body over a cliff. In fact he wasn’t dead he died from exposure after. D were convicted of murder Held - ar and mr were combined in a series.

Answer 45

C took a women back to his van to have sex. He couldn’t satisfy her so she laughed. Fight outcome abd the women was knocked unconscious. Thinking she was dead church threw her body in a river where she actually drowned. Convicted of manslaugter Principle - ???

Answer 46

Where the ar is ongoing and the defendant has the necessary men’s Rea. The courts then have fi decide fast the two elements can coincide and the defendant will be found guilty Fagan v metropolitan police commissioner 1986

Answer 47

Fagan v metropolitan police commissioner 1986

Answer 48

Fagan drove onto a police officers foot. Despite being asked by the policeman to remove his car several times, he refused. Fagan was convicted of assaulting a policeman in the execution of his duty. When Fagan knew the car was on the policeman’s foot the mens Rea was present and the ar was still continuing ???

Answer 49

Where the crime is a result crime causation made also be shown for there to be criminally liability

Answer 50

D conduct was the factual cause of the consequence - but for test D actions where the legal causation of the consequence - substantial cause Cheshire 1991 - need not be sole or Main cause provided it is A cause pagett 1983 Both must be present to be criminally liable

Answer 51

The but for test But for the conduct if the defendant would the victim of died, as when they did R v White R v Pagett

Answer 52

D pit poison into the evening drink of the v, his mother with the intention of killing her The v drank a few sips of the drink and then fell asleep, she did not wake up Medical evidence was she died of a heart attack rather than a result of the poison Defendant was convicted of attempted murder Legal principle ??

Answer 53

Appellant shot at a police. Officer who was trying to arrest him he used a pregnant teenage women as a human shield to defend himself against retaliation by the other. Officer returned the shot N skilled the girl Legal principle - but for the boy using the teenage girl as a human she kid the police officer wouldn’t have shot her.

Answer 54

This test requires the original injury caused by the defendants actions to be more than a minimal cause of the death. - so the act must cause an injury that is the main cause of death - this was set out in R v Haughes (2013)

Answer 55

This is more focused on the actual, physical cause of death. This is normally identified during post modern. 1. The injury must be the operating and substantial abuse of death 2. The thin skin rule 3. Novus Actus interveniens (new intervening act) Case authority - r v kimsey 1996

Answer 56

1. The injury must be the operating and substantial abuse of death 2. The thin skin rule 3. Novus Actus interveniens (new intervening act)

Answer 57

R v Kimsey 1996

Answer 58

D was involved in a high-speed car chase with a friend. She lost control of her car and the other driver was killed in a crash. Held - Ds driving did not have to be ‘the principle, or the substantial cause of death, as long as you sure that it was a cause and that there must be something more than a slight, trifling link’.

Answer 59

- you need to take your victim as you find them - if the v dies of something unusual or unexpected you still may be responsible for their death. R v Blaue 1975

Answer 60

D stabbed a women who was a Jehovah’s Witness. As a result of her beliefs she refused a blood transfusion which would have saved her life. The d argued he should not be responsible for her death as the transfusion could not have saved her life and she refused it. Held - d must take the victim as they find them

Answer 61

- the intervening act must be unforeseeable and random - sometimes linked to an act of god - whose act may break the chain - an act of a third party - victims own act - a natural or unpredictable event R v smith

Answer 62

Solider stabbed his comrade during a fight. Victim was taken to receive medical attention. But was dropped twice by those carrying him. When he arrived at the hospital he received negligent medical treatment - medics failed to diagnose a punctured lung. V died of his injuries. D was charged with murder at first. D appealed on basis that the victim would have survived but for the negligence of those treating him.

Answer 63

The victim may break the chain of causation themselves if their acts weee extreme or unforeseeable R v Roberts 1959 R V William 1992

Answer 64

After a party the male d R gave the female v a life in his automobile. V and d had not met before. D. Egan making sexual advances towards the v which she reheated he then attempted to pull of her coat. V opened the door and jumped out if the moving vehicle and subs gained injuries by doing so. Held - d was charged with sexual assault and assault occasionijg actual bodily harm Reasonable as if someone is sexually assaulting it’s reasonable she wanted to escape

Answer 65

D picked up a hitchhiker. D then attempted to rob the victim who became agitated and afraid and in this mental state jumped out of the moving vehicle which was travelling at 30 mph. The victim hit his head and died of onjuries, D was charged with manslaughter Held- it wasn’t predictable he would launch himself out of the car.

Answer 66

- in these crimes only the AR needs to proved for liability - liability is imposed without fault on the part of the d - covers minor crimes - help society run smoothly - regulatory offences e.g. food hygiene, parking offences, polluting environment - no defence of ‘mistake’ (candy v Le Coc 2884) or due duiligence (harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999 Key case - pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v storkwain LTD (1986)

Answer 67

Key case - pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v storkwain LTD (1986)

Answer 68

D was charged under s58(2) of the medicines act 1986 which stated that no one shall supply certain drugs without a doctors prescription. D suppled drugs on a forged prescription. O finding that D had acted dishonestly,improperly or negligently. Forgery wa s sufficient to deceive the pharmacists. Despite this, the House of Lords held tgat the divisional court was right to magistrate to convict D. The pharmacist has supplied a drug without a genuine prescription. This was enough to make them guilty of the offence.

Answer 69

- proof of actus reus - not concerned where the AR was voluntary - aka- state of affair crimes Winzar 1983 Larsonneur 1933 R v prince 1875 R v hibbert. @869

Answer 70

Prince knew the girl he took was in Possesion of her father. But believed on reasonable grounds that she was 18. He was convinced as he had the intention to remove the girl from the possession of her father. Mens Rea was required for this part of the actus reus and he had and he has necessary intention. Held - knowledge of her age was not requires on this aspect of the offence there was strict liability

Answer 71

D met a girl aged 14. He took her to another place where they had sexual intercourse, he was released of the offence as it was not proved that he knew the girl was in custody of her farther. Although the age aspect of the offence was on of strict liability Mens Rea was requires for the removal aspect and in this case, the necessary intention was not proved.

Answer 72

Callow v tillstone 1900

Answer 73

A butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption. The vet sssured him that it was alright to eat so the butcher offered it for sale. It was unfit and the butcher was convicted of the offences and exposing unsound meat for sale. Because it was strict liability offence the butcher was guilty although he has taken reasonable. Are not to commit the crime. The butcher was not at fault in any way.