Homocide and inchoate offences Flashcards
Murder
D causes V, a human being, to die in peacetime
Intention to kill or cause GBH
Three defences for voluntary manslaughter
Diminishes responsibility
Loss of self control
Suicide pact
Diminished responsibility
Abnormality of mental functioning that arises from a recognised medical condition that caused D to act or significantly influenced the way D acted
And
It substantially impaired Ds ability to either:
Understand the Nature of his conduct
Form rational judgement or
Exercise Self control
Is causation required for demonised responsibility
Yes must prove mental impairment cause Ds ability to be impaired in one of three ways
Does demolished responsibility cover intoxication
Might cover alcoholism but not voluntary intoxication
If voluntarily intoxicated abnormality must be main or significant factor
Loss of control
D killed V due to loss of self control with a qualifying trigger
A person of Ds sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint would act in the same way
Qualifying triggers for loss of self control
Something said or done of such a grave nature D had justifiable sense of being seriously wronged - but cannot incite this as an excuse to use violence
Attributable to Ds fear of serious violence from V against D or other
Does loss of control need to be sudden
No
Can intoxication and infidelity be relied on for loss of self control
No
Who is the burden of proof on for loss of self control
D must raise defence and P must disprove beyond reasonable doubt
Types of involuntary manslaughter
Gross negligence
Unlawful act aka constructive
Reckless
Reckless manslaughter
D caused V to die.
D was reckless as to (foresaw) the serious risk of harm to V
Causation needed
Unlawful act manslaughter
Prove AR and MR of unlawful act which must be dangerous and must have caused the death
Does unlawful act need to be aimed at another person
No
What does dangerous mean regarding unlawful act manslaughter
All sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise the act would subject V to at least the risk of some physical harm, albeit not serious harm
Gross negligence manslaughter
D owes V a duty of care
Duty of care breached
Obvious that breach involves risk of death
The breach causes the death
The jury finds the breach serious enough to be a crime
What is an obvious risk of death regarding breach for gross negligence manslaughter
A reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death- objective, no need for D to have seen it
Three types of assisting or encouraging offences
Intentionally assisting or encouraging
Assisting or encouraging believing offence will be committed and that his act will encourage or assist offence
Encourage or assist believing one or more offences will be committed but not sure which and his act will encourage or assist one of them
Two types of conspiracy
Statutory- agreement about course of conduct. Intend to be party to agreement and intend a party to agreement will commit offence
Common law- conspire to corrupt public morals or outrange public decency
Attempts to commit crimes
Intend to commit full offence and recklessness if that is part of MR of full offence
More than merely preparatory steps taken
If it is impossible to commit full crime can you still be guilty of attempting to commit offence
Yes
What is an accessory to a crime
Assists or encourages the principle before or during the crime
What is an accessory charged with
Charged as if committed crime but particulars say:
Aided, abetted, counselled or procured
Can there be accessory liability if p doesn’t commit crime
No
What is assistance to a crime
Giving help. Must actually help and P doesn’t need to know someone helped
What is encouraging a crime
To advise or solicit, usually before crime. No need for causal connection between encouragement and crime
What is joint enterprise liability
A and P agree to commit crime X bit during X P commits crime Y. Then A is accomplice to Y
What is an accomplice
When A intends to assist or encourage P to commit crime
P must have MR for full crime
Can A be liable as an accomplice for a lesser crime than P committed
Yes if A encouraged p to commit a lesser offence than P actually committed
Can A be liable as an accomplice even if P is not guilty
Yes if AR of principe offence is proved but P had a defence, A can still be guilty
Can A and P be liable of different offences
Yes where they share same AR but have different MR
Can A be liable as an accomplice where P does something completely different to that which A intended
A not liable if completely different. Still liable if only slightly different
Can A be guilty of a lesser crime than P
Yes where A satisfied the MR and AR for that lesser crime as an individual
Can A withdraw from a crime
Yes but must be communicated with others. The more A contributed to the plan the more than must be done to withdraw
Is there any vicarious liability for crimes
Only where statutory construction allows
How is state of mind of company established for corporate liability
State of mind of directors and managers is state of mind of company fee
Crimes a corporation cannot commit
Rape and murder
Corporate manslaughter
The way the activities are organised by senior management caused death and amounts to gross breach of duty
what is AR and MR of murder
killing of a human (born) with intent to kill or cause GBH
what type of intent is needed for murder
direct or indirect intent
3 types of voluntary manslaughter
diminished responsibility, loss of self control, suicide pact
define diminished responsibility
an abnormality of mental functioning which arises from a recognised medical condition and substantially impaired Ds ability to understand conduct, rational judgement or self control and provides an explanation for crime (causation between illness and crime).
who is burden of proof on for diminished responsibility
P must prove AR and MR of murder beyond reasonable doubt then D must prove diminished responsibility to balance of probabilities.
what is a substantial impairment for diminished responsibility
this is a question for the jury
loss of self control - voluntary manslaughter
D loses self control (not RP) and loss of control has qualifying trigger and a person of same sex and age with normal tolerance would have acted the same.
what are loss of self control qualifying triggers
fear of serious violence against D or identifiable other
thing said or done of extremely grave nature causing D to have sense of being justifiably (objective) wronged.
does loss of self control need to be immediate
no - can build up over a long period of time
who is burden of proof on in loss of self control
D raise some evidence of loss of control and then burden reverts to P to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. if P cannot do this then the defence applies.
2 types of involuntary manslaughter
gross negligence and unlawful act
elements needed for unlawful act manslaughter
AR of murder but not MR
AR and MR of unlawful act (intention or recklessness crime, not negligence)
unlawful act must also be dangerous - RP would foresee some risk of harm
unlawful act cannot be omission
elements needed for gross negligence manslaughter
duty, breach, causation death, grossly negligent breach.
can gross negligence be committed by omission
yes
when is a breach gross
risk of death such that a RP would foresee a serious and obvious risk of death
standard of care for gross negligence manslaughter
RP or if special knowledge then RP with expertise
what is needed to find someone guilty of an attempted crime
intent to commit the crime (direct or indirect intent)
does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence
can you be liable for an omission regarding an attempted crime
no
for which offences can you be liable for an attempt
almost all indictable but not summary unless statute specifies
can you be guilty of an attempted crime even if full crime was impossible
yes - judge D on facts as they believe them to be
who is the principle offender
commits AR of substantive criminal offence with MR
who are joint principles / co-principles
2 or more people perform AR and MR together
who is a secondary party / accomplice / accessory
assist in offence but don’t commit AR themselves
to which offences can you be an accomplice
only indictable and either way offences
what are you tried for if you are an accomplice
the principles offence
what is the AR of accomplice liability
aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of the principle offence
what is aiding
helping, assisting, supporting.
when is aiding committed
at time of offence but sometimes earlier. not after offence
to have aided the offence does it matter if P would have done it anyway
irrelevant - no causation needed
what is abetting
encouraging to commit offence. words, actions, need to be physically present at the scene but presence alone isn’t enough. need active and willful encouragement.
when is abetting committed
at time of offence
to have abetting the offence does it matter if P would have done it anyway
irrelevant - no causation needed
what is counselling
instigating, soliciting or encouraging (even threatening)
when is counselling committed
before the offence
to have counselled the offence does it matter if P would have done it anyway
irrelevant - no causation needed
what is procuring
set out to achieve the crime / cause the crime
when is a crime procured
before commission
do you need prior contact between P and A for procuring liability
no
to have procured the offence does it matter if P would have done it anyway
this matters - causation is needed - procuring must have caused P to commit offence
MR of accomplice
intended to do the act that aided, abetted, counselled, or procured. Knew that a crime might be committed (don’t need to know details of what crime)
when can P and A be liable for difference crimes
when crimes have same AR but different MR. possible for A to be liable for less or more serious crime than P
can you have an accessory without a principles
principle crime must have occurred to have an accessory but possible for A to be convicted and P not convicted if P is missing or has a defence
when can the accessory become the principle
if P carried out AR but is innocent agent due to lack of MR and A procured them then A becomes principle
when does joint enterprise liability apply
when A and B join together to commit crime X but it escalated into crime Y they are liable for Y if they had the MR for it
or
when A and B join to commit crime X but A does Y then B is liable for Y if they foresaw that in the course of X their partner might do Y.
is it possible to withdraw from the participation of a crime
yes but withdrawal must be effective. It must be before the offence, timely and communicated and unequivocal. failing to turn up is not enough
can you withdraw from the participation of a crime after it has begun
they must do more than merely communicate their intention to withdraw. would need some form of physical intervention
