Exam prediction questions Flashcards
What is the actus reus of murder
unlawfully causing the death of another person
The actus reus of murder includes the word ‘unlawful’ what does this refer to?
- Not self defence
- not wartime enemy
Can foetus or an unborn child be a victim of murder?
NO
- the actus reus refers to “another person” neither of which are regarded as a person under the law
What was abolished by the Law Reform (Year and Day rule) Act 1996, and what did this act propose instead?
- Abolishment of the rule that a defendant could not be liable for their action of causing murder after one year and one day had passed
- New rule is that if a death occurs within 3 years as a result of injury caused by the defendant can be liable
- if after 3 years the AGs consent is needed.
Is withdrawl of treatment to which prolongs someones life causing death?
- Airedale National Health Service Trust v Bland [1993]
- Bland in persistent vegetive state
- Could breath on own but needed life support via feeding tube
- HOL expressed that it is unlawful to cause or accelerate death but in this case it was lawful to withhold the life support treatment as there was no room for further improvement on the part of the victim and was in his best interests.
What is the mens rea of murder?
The intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm to the victim
What did the case of R v Woollen 1999 establish?
Woollin Direction
- Where a defendant does not intend to kill or cause GBH
- the jury will be directed by the trial judge that there is intention if the acts of the defendant were “virtually certain” in causing death or GBH and the defendant ought to have known this (subjective)
What did the Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide 2006 Report propose?
1st Degree murder
- Intent to kill
- intent to cause SERIOUS injury and aware that such injury could cause death
- carries mandatory life sentence
2nd Degree Murder
- intent to cause serious injury
- intent to cause some injury or fear/risk of injury coupled with some awareness of serious risk of causing death
- killing where partial defence of what would otherwise be 1st degree murder
- carried discretionary maximum life sentence
What is the difference between voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter?
Voluntary
- Defendant still has actus reus and mens rea for murder BUT some extenuating factor lessens their sentence e.g. loss of control
Involuntary
- Defendant lacks the mens rea for murder
- No intention to kill or cause GBH
- Still enough fault to satisfy criminal liability.
Under the Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide 2006, what should the crime of manslaughter be redefined as?
- Killing through a criminal act where intended to cause injury OR had an awareness the act involved serious risk of causing injury
- Killing through gross negligence as to risk of causing death
What may be excluded under inadmissible evidence?
- Where a witness is not competent
- Prejudicial effect outweighs probative values
- where trial is made unfair
What were the FACTS in R v A (No 2) 2002?
- Case where complainant alleged she had been raped by the defendant
- The complainant averred that she was walking to hospital with the defendant to visit her boyfriend
- He slipped over and she proceeded to help him up
- The claimant alleged that the defendant pulled her to the ground and raped her
- Defendant argued that the sex was consensual
- Defendant submitted that the two were engaged in a sexual relationship with the most recent sexual arrangement having occurred one week prior
- Defendant sought leave under s.41 of the YJCEA 1999 as he wished to cross examine claimant on previous sexual relationships to support defence
What was the JUDGEMENT in R v A (N0 2) 2002
JUDGEMENT
- UKHL unanimously stated that the application of s.41 of the Act provided any evidence relating to previous sexual relationships would be inadmissible.
- They also believed that to exclude such evidence may breach defendant’s right to a fair trial
- The Lords made no declaration of incompatibility and instead utilised obligation under s.3 of the HRA to give effect to convention rights as far as possible
- Lords stated there to be a test of admissibility of sexual evidence
- This test is whether such evidence is “so relevant to the issue of consent that to exclude it would endanger” right of defendant under article 6
- Lords stated discretion was on the trial judge on whether to allow evidence
What was the alternative feminist judgement of the case of R v A (No 2) 2002?
- Clare McGlynn gave her own judgement of the case believing the Lords to be fundamentally wrong in their judgement
- She stated there to be no contravention of the defendant’s right to a fair trial
- The defendant’s defence may be belief in consent, but McGlyn argues that consent must be given afresh on every occasion under which sexual intercourse occurs
- She disregarded the argument that because the complainant had consented in the past did not mean there could be belief in her consenting in the future ( on that basis no breach of Article 6)
- McGlynn states that the evidence put forth by the defendant would be irrelevant to the proceedings and therefore should be inadmissible
- If for some reason the evidence was deemed relevant then she argued it would be of little probative value and outweighed by the risk of prejudice on the complainant.
What happened in A v UK 1999?
- Stepfather was charged with assault occasioning ABH for caning step son
- Stepfather pleaded defence of reasonable chastisement on the grounds that the son was a difficult boy who did not respond to parental or school discipline
- Judge directed jury that it was perfectly good defence that the alleged assault was merely correcting of child by a parent providing it was reasonable
- He was acquitted
APPEAL TO ECHR - A argued english law failed to protect him in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR
- Caning was held to reach severity prohibited by Art. 3
- the law did not provide adequate protection to the applicant against treatment or punishment contrary to Article 3.
- Stepfather was charged with assault occasioning ABH for caning step son
- Stepfather pleaded defence of reasonable chastisement on the grounds that the son was a difficult boy who did not respond to parental or school discipline
- Judge directed jury that it was perfectly good defence that the alleged assault was merely correcting of child by a parent providing it was reasonable
- He was acquitted
APPEAL TO ECHR - A argued english law failed to protect him in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR
- Caning was held to reach severity prohibited by Art. 3
- the law did not provide adequate protection to the applicant against treatment or punishment contrary to Article 3.
