Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law A Level > Paper 1: general elements of criminal liability > Flashcards

Paper 1: general elements of criminal liability Flashcards

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

What are the 2 main criminal courts?

A

Magisrates and Crown court

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

What offences does Magistrates court deal with?

A

Summary and Either way offences

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

What offences does Crown court deal with?

A

Either way and indictable offences

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

Examples of summary offences

A

Assault and battery

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

Examples of either way offences

A

ABH

GBH s.20

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

Examples of indictable offences

A

GBH s.18, murder and manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the burden of proof?

A

The basis for imposing liability in criminal law is that the defendant must be proved to have committed the guilty act whilst having had the guilty state of mind for the crime they they have been charged with

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

Who bears the burden of proof?

A

the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty

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

What is the ‘standard of proof’?

A

The prosecution must prove that the crime has committed ‘beyond reasonable’

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

What are the two elements that have to be proven for the prosecution?

A

Actus reus and mens rea

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

What are the 3 types of actus reus?

A

An act, an omission and a state of affairs

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

What was the held in Hill v Baxter?

A

An involuntary action does not form the acts reus of a crime. The court states examples of situations where a driver would not be acting voluntarily, e.g. being stung by a swarm of bees, sneezing or being hit on the head by a stone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is an omission?

A

A failure to act

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

What was held in R v Pittwood?

A

D was convicted- his omission had caused the death of the victim. Duty through a contract to close the gate

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

What was held in R v Gibbens and Proctor?

A

Guilty. Had a duty through a relationship to feed the child

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

What was held in Stone and Dobinson?

A

Guilty of manslaughter, D’s were convicted because they took on the duty voluntarily

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

What was held in R v Dytham?

A

Guilty, duty through an official position

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

What was held in R v Miller?

A

Guilty of criminal damage through setting in a motion chain of events. Duty to minimise the harmful effects of the fire

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

What is a state of affairs?

A

Very rare situations where the defendant is convicted even though they didn’t act voluntarily

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

What is the case for state of affairs?

A

Larsonneur

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

What is held in Larsonneur?

A

When she landed in the UK she was immediately arrested and charged with ‘being an alien’ of the state. She was convicted because she was an alien who had been refused leave to land and was found in the UK

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is factual causation?

A

The ‘but for’ test is used, but for the defendants act, would the consequence have occurred?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What is legal causation?

A

D’s act must be the ‘operating and substantial cause’ of the injury/death… or atlas there must be a more than ‘slight and trifling link’

24
Q

What is nous acts interveniens?

A

This means ‘new act intervening’- this breaks the chain of causation

25
Q

What are the 3 types of intervening acts?

A

1) Act’s by a 3rd party
2) Victims own act
3) Natural but unpredictable events

26
Q

What is the held in R v Pagett?

A

D was guilty as his actions had ‘caused’ her death. But for him using her a human shield, she would not have died

27
Q

What was held in R v Kimsey?

A

D did not have to be the substantial cause of death, as long as there is something more than a ‘slight and trifling link’

28
Q

What was held in R v Jordan?

A

Intervening act was ‘palpably wrong’ therefore no legal causation, the intervening act broke the chain of causation

29
Q

What was held in R v White?

A

D not guilty of murder as he had not caused her death. ‘But for’ his actions, his mother would have died anyway

30
Q

What was held in R v Hughes?

A

The SC quashed the conviction as D’s driving did not ‘cause’ the death because his driving was faultless

31
Q

What was held in R v Cheshire?

A

D still guilty for the death. The tracheotomoy was not seen ass being ‘sufficiently independent’ from the gunshot wounds

32
Q

What was held in R v Smith?

A

Despite the received treament which made him worse, D was guilty of murder as the stabbing was the ‘operating and substantial cause’ which was ‘more than minimal’

33
Q

What was held in R v Roberts?

A

D guilty of causing this, for the injuries (the result) were ‘reasonably forseeable’

34
Q

What was R v Williams?

A

This was not reasonable action and the chain of causation was broken- his act was an intervening act

35
Q

What was held on R v Malcherek?

A

Switching off a life support machine does not break the chain of causation

36
Q

What is the definition of the mens rea?

A

The guilty mind and is often the distinguishing factor between different crimes. It must be distinguishes from motive

37
Q

What are the types of mens rea?

A

Direct intention, indirect intention, recklessness

38
Q

What was the held in R v Mohan?

A

Intention is defined as a decision to bring about the accused’s desired consequence. It can be said it was defendant’s ‘main aim, purpose or desire’

39
Q

What are the two questions asked in R v Nedrick?

A

1) is death or serious injury a virtually certain result of the accused’s voluntary act? (was the consequence a virtually certain result)
2) Does the accused force that death or serious injury was the virtually certain result of his act? (Did D know the consequence was a virtually certain result)?

40
Q

What was the held in R v Woolin?

A

He clearly did not have the intention to kill his son so was found not guilty of murder. If the consequence is virtually certain and D knew this, then there was evidence on which the jury could find an intention

41
Q

What was held in Matthews and Alleyne?

A

The defendant’s foresight of consequence is no more than evidence from which the jury may find an intention

42
Q

Subjectiveness test- Cunningham

A

He was not guilty of harming her because he did not realise that there was a risk of gas escaping and hurting somebody. To establish recklessness you must show that D took an unjustifiable risk, and that the defendant knew this risk but took it anyway

43
Q

What was held in R v R and G?

A

On the basis of the Cunningham’s test, the defendants were unaware of the risk, therefore were not recklessness and were not guilty of causing criminal damage

44
Q

What was held in Fagan v Met Police Commissioner?

A

Fagan was found guilty of causing injury to the policeman as leaving the car on his foot was seen as a continuing act. Even though he did not have the mens rea, he formed it when he refused to move the car

45
Q

What was the held in R Thabo Meli?

A

The AR and Mr were present throughout, no need to separate them as there was a causal link.

46
Q

What was held in R v Church?

A

D’s conduct amounted to a series of acts, which was culminated in her death and thus constituted manslaughter

47
Q

What was held in R v Latimer?

A

The intention/mens rea to strike the man was transferred to V under the doctrine of transferred malice and the D was guilty

48
Q

What was held in R v Mitchell?

A

The intention to strike the man was transferred to V, the old lady under the doctrine of transferred malice and the D was guilty of manslaughter

49
Q

What was held in R v Pembliton?

A

His ‘malice’ in intending to strike another person could not be transferred to an intention to break the window. He was therefore not guilty of the criminal damage

50
Q

What is strict liability?

A

Crimes of strict liability are offences which do not require the mens rea with respect to some or all of the acts reus. Merely performing the act is sufficient to make them guilty

51
Q

What was held in Gammon v AG for Hong Kong?

A

The presumption can be removed only if the statute clearly excludes the mens rea, it is used for public safety or social concern type cases. Therefore, strict liability is used for encouraging greater vigilance

52
Q

What was held in Sweet v Parsley?

A

HL held that this offence was not of strict liability. The Lords felt that for such an offence, Sweet needed the MR to be guilty. Since she didn’t have this, her conviction was quashed

53
Q

What was held in Harrow LBC v Shah?

A

It was held that this offence was one of strict liability. The offence was not truly criminal but dealt with a matter of social control

54
Q

What was held in Alphacell v Woodward?

A

It was held that this offence was one of strict liability. They were found guilty and fined £20

55
Q

What was held in Smedleys v Breed?

A

It was held that this offence was one of strict liability. The D’s were convicted under the Food and Drugs Act 1955 despite taking reasonable care

56
Q

What was held in B v DPP?

A

The HL quashed his conviction as the mens rea was required for this offence- it was not one of strict liability

Law A Level (21 decks)

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