Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Eduqas A Level Law > Murder > Flashcards

Murder Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Until which year was murder punishable by death?

A

1965

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

Which statute abolished the death penalty?

A

The Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965

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

In order for somebody to be found guilty of a crime, what 2 elements are needed?

A
  1. Actus reus

2. Mens rea

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

What phrase do actus reus and mens rea come from? What does it mean?

A

‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ - the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty mind.

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

What is the general presumption of the courts when it comes to mens rea and actus reus?

A

The defendant has committed the guilty act with a guilty mind.

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

What are the 3 types of actus reus?

A
  1. A voluntary action
  2. An omission
  3. A state of affairs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are the 2 parts of actus reus?

A

The conduct and the result

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

What happens if the actus reus is done involuntarily?

A

The defendant is not guilty.

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

Which case gave examples of involuntary actions, and what were they?

A

Hill v Baxter [1958], reflexes or being stung by a swarm of bees.

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

True or False? : Omissions do not usually result in somebody being found guilty.

A

True - the defendant will only be guilty for an omission if they had a duty to act.

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

How many duties to act are there?

A

6

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

What are the 6 duties to act?

A
  1. Statutory duty
  2. Contractual duty
  3. Duty imposed by an official position
  4. Duty imposed by voluntarily accepting responsibility for another
  5. Duty imposed by creating a dangerous situation
  6. Duty imposed by a special relationship
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Which case demonstrates a contractual duty?

A

R v Pitwood [1902] - level crossing death.

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

Which case demonstrates a duty imposed by an official position?

A

R v Dytham [1979] - police officer watches bouncer kick man to death.

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

Which case demonstrates a duty imposed by voluntarily accepting responsibility for another person?

A

R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] - anorexic sister.

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

Which cases demonstrate a duty to act imposed by creating a dangerous situation?

A

R v Miller [1983] - tramp

DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003] - police officer and needle.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Which case demonstrates a duty to act due to a special relationship?

A

R v Gibbons and Proctor [1918] - parents starve child.

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

Which case does not demonstrate a duty to act due to a special relationship?

A

R v Khan & Khan [1998] - heroin dealers.

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

Which case stated that doctors could not be criminally liable for removing feeding tubes from patients in a PSV?

A

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]

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

Which case ruled that doctors can withdraw feeding tubes from patients in a PSV with the consent of their family without having to seek the courts’ approval?

A

A NHS Trust v Y [2018]

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

Which cases demonstrate a state of affairs?

A

R v Larsonneur [1933] - French woman comes to UK.

Winzar v CC Kent [1983]

22
Q

What are the 3 types of mens rea?

A
  1. Intention
  2. Recklessness
  3. Negligence
23
Q

What is intention?

A

Where the defendant desires a specific consequence of their actions.

24
Q

What are the 2 types of intention?

A

Direct intention

Indirect/oblique intention

25
Q

What is direct intent?

A

The defendant wants a result and carries out an act to achieve it. They have a clear foresight of the consequences.

26
Q

Which case defined direct intent?

A

R v Mohan [1975]

27
Q

Simply explain direct intent in 3 words.

A

Aim, want, desire

28
Q

What is indirect intent?

A

The defendant doesn’t want the result, but realises that in acting in the way they do there is a virtual certainty it will happen.

29
Q

What must the defendant have for indirect intent?

A

A foresight of the consequences.

30
Q

What case does our current definition of indirect intent come from?

A

R v Woollin [1998]

31
Q

What originally defined indirect intent?

A

s.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967

32
Q

What was the issue with the definition of indirect intent given in the case of R v Moloney [1985]?

A

There was no mention of probability.

33
Q

Which case added a reference to probability to our definition of indirect intent?

A

R v Hancock & Shankland [1985]

34
Q

R v Woollin [1998] confirms the definition of indirect intent from which case?

A

R v Nedrick [1986]

35
Q

Which case demonstrates indirect intent?

A

R v Matthews & Alleyne [2003] - throwing friend off bridge.

36
Q

What is contemporaneity?

A

Where the actus reus and the mens rea coincide (happen at the same time).

37
Q

What does contemporaneity dictate?

A

That actus reus and mens rea need not be simultaneous if they are part of a chain of events.

38
Q

What are the 2 ways that courts have applied contemporaneity?

A
  1. Continuing act

2. Unbroken transaction of events

39
Q

Explain contemporaneity in a continuing act.

A

The mens rea need not be present at the start of the actus reus, so long as it develops at some point.

40
Q

What case demonstrates contemporaneity in a continuous act?

A

Fagan v MPC [1969]

41
Q

Explain contemporaneity in an unbroken transaction of events.

A

As long as there is an unbroken transaction of events, the mens rea and actus reus need not occur at the same time.

42
Q

Which cases demonstrate contemporaneity in an unbroken transaction of events?

A

R v Thabo Meli [1954] - beats up victim and throws him over a cliff.

R v Church [1965] - white van man.

43
Q

What is the principle of transferred malice?

A

Mens rea may be transferred from the intended victim to the actual one where a crime of a similar nature is committed.

44
Q

Which case demonstrates transferred malice?

A

R v Latimer [1986] - belt

45
Q

Which case explained that transferred malice can only occur if the offences are of a similar nature?

A

R v Pembilton [1874] - throwing rocks.

46
Q

What is causation?

A

The relationship between the conduct of the defendant and the result.

47
Q

What are the 2 types of causation?

A

Factual and legal

48
Q

What re the 2 tests for factual causation?

A

The ‘but for’ test and the de minimis test.

49
Q

Which cases applied the ‘but for’ test?

A

R v White [1910] - poisoning. Failed

R v Pagett [1983] - armed police. Passed

R v Dalloway [1847] - horse and cart. Failed

50
Q

Which cases demonstrate the de minimis rule?

A

R v Pagett [1983] - armed police. Passed.

R v Kimsey [1996] - car crash. Passed.

Eduqas A Level Law (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions