Offences against the Person Flashcards
Define murder - 4 elements for AR, 1 for MR.
- Unlawful
- Killing
- Of a reasonable person in being
- Under the Queen’s peace
MR - Intention to kill or cause GBH
Test for novus actus? Think about Pagett, Blaue and Mackie.
New act from the victim or third party or nature which breaks the chain of causation, which must be unforeseeable, and not a natural and/or foreseeable consequence of D’s own acts.
Pagett - human shield
Blaue - thin skull rule
Mackie - child ran away and fell down stairs
What is the scope of loss of control and diminished responsibility?
- Apply only to murder
- Apply as partial defences only, reducing liability to voluntary manslaughter where otherwise liability for murder would lie.
Three requirements for loss of control?
- Killed as a result of LOSING CONTROL.
- Loss of control caused by QUALIFYING TRIGGER: (i) fear of serious violence or (ii) things said or done, constituting circumstances of an extremely grave character, causing Df to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. CANNOT consist of (i) something D incited to be done; or (ii) sexual infidelity alone.
- A REASONABLE PERSON, i.e., a person of D’s age and sex in D’s circumstances but with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint might have acted in a similar way, EXCLUDING intoxication (reasonable person is not intoxicated).
What is the impact of delay on the loss of control defence?
The court will be less likely to accept that the killing resulted from a loss of control (although strictly speaking, the loss of control need not be sudden) - see Ahluwalia.
4 requirements for diminished responsibility.
- D suffered from an ABNORMALITY of mental functioning
- Which arose from a recognised MEDICAL condition
- Which SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED the Df’s ability to (i) understand the nature of his conduct; (ii) form a rational judgment; or (iii) exercise self-control
- and provides an EXPLANATION (i.e., is a significant contributory factor in causing) D’s conduct.
Is intoxication consistent with the defence of DR (2 yes, 1 no)?
Yes - if D
(i) had a separate qualifying abnormality of mind which had effect on the killing (and was capable of having effect independently of the intoxication); or
(ii) had a qualifying abnormality of mind which indicates that being drunk was not voluntary (i.e., abnormality caused the drunkenness) - i.e., Alcoholism.
NOT if the abnormality was CAUSED by the voluntary intoxication rather than a recognised medical condition
4 relevant factors in considering whether alcohol or drug dependency constitutes a qualifying abnormality of mind for purposes of DR?
R v Stewart -
- Seriousness of dependency
- Extent to which D’s ability to control drinking was reduced
- Whether and for how long D was capable of abstinence
- Whether D chose to drink more than usual for a particular reason
Distinguish unlawful act manslaughter and GNM
MR -
Unlawful act manslaughter = intention
GNM = need only be negligent
AR -
Unlawful act manslaughter - requires a prior unlawful act
GNM - can consist of doing a lawful act, negligently
Elements of unlawful act manslaughter (1 MR, 4 AR)
- MR - intention to do the death causing act
- AR - must be
(i) a POSITIVE act
(ii) which is CRIMINALLY UNLAWFUL (i.e., not just a tort, but a crime (a) the elements of which are fully made out and (b) to which there is no applicable defence)
(iii) which is DANGEROUS - i.e. (a) a reasonable man foresee the risk of some harm and (b) D actually foresaw physical harm, taking into account any special facts known to D
(iv) and CAUSES death
D supplies V with heroin. V dies
(i) from self-administration; or
(ii) from self-administration with D’s assistance; or
(iii) when D administers the drug to her.
Manslaughter committed?
(i) No, since V chooses to administer it as a fully-informed and responsible adult - Re v Kennedy (No. 2)
(ii) Depends on extent of assistance and whether this makes D’s actions administering rather than merely supplying (R v Byram)
(iii) Yes - S.23 OAPA provides the requisite unlawful act (administering, causing to be administered or causing another to take a poisonous or noxious substance)
Elements of GNM (4 AR)
- D owes a DOC - ordinary negligence rules
- D breaches DOC - ordinary negligence rules
- Breach causes V’s death
- Breach amounts to gross negligence, i.e. amounts to a crime against the state and is deserving of punishment (requires a foreseeable risk of death; in the medical context, requires a serious and obvious risk)
What if a doctor is accused of GNM but nurses and other doctors also contributed?
He will still be liable so long as he is personally responsible (Singh); but if others were wholly responsible, D will not be (Prentice & Sullivan)
Elements of assault (2 MR and 3 AR)
MR:
1. Intentionally or possibly, recklessly
AR:
- Doing any act which (including words or silence)
- Causes another person to reasonably apprehend (note words spoken may negate an assault)
- immediate and unlawful personal violence (i..e at some point not excluding the immediate future)
Elements of battery (2 MR and 2 AR)
MR:
1. Intention or recklessness
AR:
- Actual use of force (can include an omission to remove force or warn of the risk of force which D created; can be indirect)
- Which is unlawful
