Partons law

Question 1

Murder

Answer 1

Murder is an example of unlawful homicide.
Homicide is the killing of one human being by another.
There is lawful or unlawful
unlawful homicides include voluntary/ involuntary manslaughter and murder with murder being most serious.

Definition of murder
Murder is a common law offence and is defined in the 17th century by Judge sir Edward coke.
“ the unlawful killing of an reasonable person in being under the queens / kings peace with malice aforethought express or implied.

Question 2

Year and a day rule

Answer 2

Before 1996 if a person died a year and day after the offence had been committed, you couldn’t be charge. However this was reinforced and passed
This allowed if you could prove that the original act was the operative and substantial cause that led to V death then the cps could prosecute for murder.

Question 3

Actus reus of murder.

1. unlawful killing

Answer 3

The unlawful killing
Exceptions can be made for it not to be an unlawful killing and it being a lawful killing which are recognised by the law as being justified.
Self defence - level of force considered needs to be reasonable.
prevention of crime
authorised killing - war, life support machine and death penalty.

Question 4

2. AR of murder

ommisions

Answer 4

Ommision-
if you can prove an ommision- where D had a duty which he failed to perfom leading to death of V then the AR of murder may exist.
duty of relationship
contractual duty
Duty arising from accidental creation of dangerous chain of events.

Question 5

AR of murder

3. Reasonable person in being

Answer 5

Question arises when a person can be classed as a human.
Foetus in the womb is not independent from its mother therefore by law is not considered as in being.
Only considered a reasonable person in being when its fully expelled from its mother;
Yet to be decided whether thats the first breath or cutting of ambilical cord.
However if a child is deliberately injured in the womb and then later dies when born then the attacker can be criminally liable.
This was decided in the Attorneys General Reference (no3 of 1994) 1997. The verdict is manslaughter rather than murder.
D stabbed women who was pregnant. 17 days later her child was born but died days later and D was the opreative and substantial cause therefore convicted of manslaughter.
Child destruction if baby dies in womb.

Doctors are permitted to turn off life support machine who are brain dead, therefore not considered a reasonable person in being and therefore its not unlawful homicide.

Malcherek and steel 1981
two appeals heard together
Malcherek stabbed V
Steel hit v over head with a stone
Both Vs were on life support machines which were turned off due to them being brain dead.
appealed saying there was an intervening act however they were brain dead so doctors not liable.

Question 6

‘Under the queens peace’

AR of murder

Answer 6

If you are a soldier in war and kill another solider then your not guilty of unlawful homicide. as such a person is not under the queens peace.
However if you kill a prisoner of war then you are.
(someone surrenders and you shoot them)

Question 7

Causation

Answer 7

Has to be proven that there was a direct unbroken link between d’s actions and the criminal consequence.
Vs death must be the direct result of Ds actions
There must no be no intervening act that breaks the chain of causation.
Factual causation; But for test
Death would’t have happened but for the actions of D
White (-)
intent to kill occured
no link between death and act
Paget (+)
actions were the factual cause of death

LEGAL CAUSATION:
required that the act was the operative and substantial cause of death
need to be more than minimal
can still be guilty of unlawful homicide even if you only contributed towards the act.
(more than slight and trifling link)
cato 1976
both D were injecting each other of herione
next morning one died
Survived one charged with friends manslaughter
as COA held that herione wasn’t only cause.
Other person helped it along
and the unlawful act was injecting one another. (more than minimal)

ACTIONS TAKEN BY VICTEM;
Have to consider the unknown circumstances such as ;
Thin skull where you can’t plead ignorance.
Where it wouldn’t matter if the physical or mental condition made it worse
e.g blaue

NEW INTERVENING ACT.
If the chain of causation has been broken by a new intervening act then D is no longer responsible proving hte New act is sufficently different and serious. 
e.g 
JORDAN 
SMITH 
CHESIRE

Actions taken by victim;
consider the nature and seriousness of threat and the reasonableness of act.
ROBERT
WILLIAMS

Question 8

MENS REA OF MURDER

Answer 8

Malice aforethought express or implied is the MR of murder and was defined by Sir edward coke.
1. Case law has since developed this definition
malice doesn’t need to be present for situations such as love and compassion - gray 1965
assisted suicide.
2. Aforethought- doesn’t need any previous planning aslong as the intention to kill was before and not afterwards.
3. Mens rea of murder = intention to kill or intention to cause GBH. Guilty of murder if you have either intentions as established in vickers.

Question 9

MR of MURDER;

Vickers 1957

Answer 9

D broke into a shop intending to steal money.
D attacked V and she fell down the stairs and died.
He appealed saying he didn’t intend to kill her.
However Intention to cause GBH was enough to imply the necessary intention for murder.
no intention to kill but intention to cause GBH constituted enough for a murder conviction.

Question 10

MR of MURDER;

cunningham 1982

Answer 10

D attacked V with a bar over his head
D died
Appealed saying he didn’t intend to kill him and challenged the judicial precedent in Vickers 1957.
H.O.L declined.
1966 practice statement is used by the supreme court- who use it to depart from precedent. can overrule precedent set by themselves or someone else in another case.
As seen in BRB v Herrington which overruled precedent set in addie v dumbreck 1929
A v D;
Child killed on somebody else property.
H.O.l trespassing so its their own fault and owner of property therefore did not owe a duty of care and so isn’t liable.
BRB v Herrington;
Boys trespassed onto railway- stumbled onto live wire track and were electrocuted.
H.O.L originally should have followed precedent set in A v D however they used the 1966 practise statement and overruled precedent by holding the railway company liable.

Question 11

MR of MURDER;

Foresight of consequences

Answer 11

1. Completes the Mens rea
2. usually expression of intention to kill is clear.
3. Implied intention - vickers 1957
4. problem occurs when intention wasn’t to kill nor cause GBH
5. A person commits murder when he kills another person with the necessary intent.
   Intent for murder is nothing less than intention to kill or cause GBH.
   Defendents foresight of consequence of his actions is no more than evidences from which the jury may find evidence.

Question 12

Moloney 1965

Answer 12

Drinking alcohol with stepfather- loaded gun and accidently shoots father.
Says he has no intention to kill
Trial judge said theres oblique intention.
Moloney appeals - substitued to manslaughter;
the foresight of probabilty of death wasn’t enough and wasn’t direct.

Question 13

Hancock and Shankland 1986

Answer 13

They were on a strike and wanted to block roads leading to mine - so they dropped large blocks of rock into road from the bridge.
hit a taxi and killed them
Prosecution held intended nothing but serious harm - enough for murder so convicted
Appealed
H.O.L ruled in such a case the degree of probability of death was most important
Said jury should be directed that
if there was a large probability of consequence then large probability that is was forseen
If it was forseen then large probability that it was intended
Judge realise its their decision by considering all evidence.

Question 14

Nedrick

Answer 14

Put parafin through letter box - blew up house and killed a child.
saying he didn’t intend to kill only wanted to frighten women.
Judge said high probability - enough for murder
COA suggested jurys consider the following
Do they feel the death/injury were a virtual certain result of the accused act.
Did the accused realise the death/ injury was a virtually certain result of act?
If yes then he intended it.

Question 15

Woolin 1998

Answer 15

D threw child against wall
Child died
Nedrick was a fine direct
Foresight of consequence amounts to intention

Question 16

matthew and ayleen 2004

Answer 16

V drowned when thrown into river
foresight of consequence was enough for intention
coa - FOC and intention is a rule of evidence

Question 17

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

opening

Answer 17

1. Happens when murder is tried and we satisfy the actus reus and mens rea of murder.
2. Under the law of murder you can try to plead two possible defences to reduce offence from murder to voluntary manslaughter on the grounds of
   diminished resposibilty
   loss of control
3. Both defences stated in the coroners + justice act and homicide act 1957.
4. Both are special defences as they’re only available for murder charge.

Question 18

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

LOSS OF CONTROL

Answer 18

Loss of control replaced the defence of provocation in the coroners and justice act 2009
defence of provocation allowed if you had a sudden loss of control due to provoking words or conduct and you acted like a reasonable person in that situation then they woud allow the idea that you had been provoked and use this defence.
NEW DEFINiTION;
When are person kills or is party to a killing they’re not to be charged with murder if;
1. D’s act or ommision resulted from Ds loss of control.
2. D’s loss of control was due to a qualifying trigger.
3. A person of Ds age, sex with normal degree of tolerance and self restraint in the same circumstance would have reacted in a similar or same way.

Question 19

1. the loss of self control

Answer 19

s54 (2) states loss of control doesn’t need to be sudden and there can be a time delay between the qualifying trigger and Ds reaction to killing V.
However there does need to be proof of loss of control
The longer the time delay the less likely the Judge are going to believe loss of control.
Ibrams v Gregory 1989
D and young women had been harrassed + threatened by V. So they hatched a plan to get v drunk and kill him.
Foud guilty but appealed on the grounds of being provoked and saying they had a loss of control.
Trial judge said they persued a plan and were masters of there own mind.
s54 (4) cleary expressly states that you cannot use defence of LOC if killing is for revenge.

The longer the time delay between the trigger + killing the less likely the defence is to succeed unless D can prove he remained out of control
Bailie 1995;
D found out that sons was threatend by drug dealers and given drugs.
So got a cut throat razor and went to his house
He got delayed by road traffics which should have made him regain control.
got to Vs house and killed him
Convicted but appealed= successful as between the trigger/loss of control and killing D never regained control even though there was a delay.

The main difference between L.O.C and provocation was the removal of suddeness - had to be temporary and sudden. The main reason for reform was this defence was difficult to plead for women who killed their husbands after suffering abuse = less likely to respond immediately.

Ahluwalia 1992 - where V killed D after suffering abuse by setting him alight.
Her appeal was successsful on the grounds of diminished responsibility because there was too long a delay between abuse + killing to use defence of provocation.

Thornton 1996
D abused V who killed him.
1st appeal = Convicted and defence of provocation failed as there was no sudden loss of control.
2nd appeal - COA said they recognised the final incident may not seem enough to lose control, but in her incident her husbands abuse was considered the final straw in build up to provocation.

Question 20

2. The qualifying trigger

Answer 20

D must prove that his loss of control was a result of one of the permitted triggers in the act. 3 qualifying triggers are;

1. Fear of serious violence from victime.
   D needs to establish that he lost control due to a genuine fear of serious violence
   - Doesn’t matter if it’s unreasonable aslong as it is present.
   - Doesn’t need to be actual violence- the judge needs to be convinced.
   - Threat of minor assault not accepted
   - Fear must be from someone you recognise
   - Even though there is no requirement for violence to be sudden, if it is anticipated at a much later date then the defence is likely to fail.
2. Things said or done which constituted circumstances of a grave character and caused D to have justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. also known as the anger trigger
   - Concerns that trvial acts and words could be cited as a reason to loose control.
   E.g Doughty 1986 - doesn’t constitute to anger
   killed a crying baby. Said that crying babies could amount to provocation
   D has to satisfy two aspects in order for defence to be available;
   That circumstances were of a grave character and D had a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

These are assessed objectively- for jury to decide what a reasonable person would think.
D may feel aggravated due to insults but this is insufficient if jury think it’s circumstances are not of a grave character and doesn’t think it was a justifiable sense of being wronged.
Anger trigger applies if D killed v who raped son/daughter

C = combination of triggers

Question 21

Restrictions of the qualifying trigger;

Answer 21

1. Incitement
   D’s fear of violence would be disregarded as a trigger if D himself deliberately incited the violence.
2. sexual infidelity;
   cannot be regarded as a trigger
   ( D who finds out about affair cannot use defence of l.o.c)
   can be other related grave circumstances
   ( if d found out about affair with underage kids)
   Could argue L.o.c wasn’t due to infidelity but due to criminal actions.

Clinton 2012;
Wife saw website on suicide and told D he didn’t have guts to do it aswell as all affairs she’s had.
D killed V
Argues that Vs other comments about not having guts could be sufficient for a second trigger as sexual infidelity couldn’t be regarded as a trigger.
retrial ordered

3. Revenge
   Defence is not available to D who acts out of motive of revenge even if D loses control as a result of one of the qualifying triggers.

Question 22

3. Objective test

Answer 22

1. A jury must consider whether a D’s age + sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint would have reacted in a similar way given the circumstances.
   Camplin 1978 -
   15yr old who was sexually abused by middle age man. It was decided that Ds age + sex were relevant in considering the objective test.
2. After all these years of being uncertain as to what characteristics were relevant under the law of provocation.
   The position now is that all of Ds circumstances are taken into account. All that is not is the capacity of self restraint and tolerance.
   This means a jury can now consider Ds history of abuse ahluwalia and thorntons
   However its insufficient if d is bad tempered or prone to violence. as illustrated in mohammed 2005

Mohammed 2005 was a strict muslim father and caughter her daughter in bed with a guy. he stabbed daughter serveral times.
His temper was irrelevant in deciding what a reasonable person with normal powers of restraint would do.

Holley 2005
concerned alcoholic with depression who killed her violent partner.
- a significant factor to objective test is that Ds alcoholism and depression couldn’t be considered as they affect a persons capacity of tolerance and self restraint.
However its a recognised medical condition so could be used to argue diminished responsibility.

Question 23

Burden of proof loss of control;

Answer 23

1. burden lies with the prosecution to prove your guilty.
2. When you raise the defence of loss of control then the burden of proof lies with the defence who have to prove that.
3. The trial judge has to believe there is enough evidence for the jury to consider.
4. if not then he can tell jury to discard the defence of l.o.c
5. If your using the defence of l.o.c its the prosecutions job to disprove that defence.
6. So if the evidence is put to the jury, the burden of disproving it beyond all reasonable doubt is on the prosecution.

Question 24

Diminished responsibility

Answer 24

1. The defence of Diminished responsibility was introduced in the homicide act 1957
2. If on trial for murder and you successfully plead defence of Diminished responsibility the verdict is changed to manslaughter.
3. New definition- The abnormality of mind was replaced with the words abnormality of mental functioning.
4. If a person kills or is party to the killing they are not to be convicted of murder if the D is suffering from an abornormality of mental function which
   a) arose from a recognised medical condition
   b) substantially impaired Ds ability to
   understand the nature of his conduct
   form a rational judgement
   exercise self control.
   c) provided an explanation for ds act or omission in doing the kill or being apart of it.

Question 25

An abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised medical condition.

Answer 25

1. Psychotic disorders e.g Bryne 1960
   D was a sexual psychopath who strangled women to death- substituted to manslaughter.
   D inabilty to control his sexual desires meant he could plead the defence of Diminished responsibility,
   the court said abnormality of minds means a state of mind so different to that of an ordinary person that a reasonable person terms it abnormal.
2. Clinical depression and epilepsy
3. Post natel depression
   e. g reynolds 1988 D killed mother with a hammer and said that post natel depression could use Diminished responsibility
4. Pre menstrual tension
   English 1981 - women who killed could bring evidence that her responsibility had been substantially impaired by PMT allowing her use to defence of Diminished responsibility
5. Battered wife syndrome
   Ahluwalia 1992 recognised medical condition which allowed defence.

These are the world health organisations classification of diseases- accepted physical and psychological conditions.
- There may be new or emerging conditions that are recognised but not on the accepted lists so in such cases the defence could call an acknowledged specialists whose work has been validated.
It is then up to the jury to consider the evidence.e.g Bryne 1960 examined issue of abnormality of mind.

abnormality of minds means a state of mind so different to that of an ordinary man that the reasonable person terms it abnormal.

Question 26

Substantial impairment

Answer 26

Homicide act 1957- required that a persons mental responsibility must be substantially impaired- didn’t specify how.
- coroners and justice act 2009 tried to clarify this
Must show abnormality of mental functioning substantially impaired Ds ability to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational judgement and exercise self control.
Bryne 1960- affects ability to exercise self control and suffering depression may unable them to form a rational judgement,

Question as to whether theres substantial impairment is up to the jury
Egan 1992
confirmed that the word substantial meant more than some trivial degree of impairment.
D killed while suffering abnormality of mind and intoxication.
issue was whether abnormality rather than drink has substantially impaired his responsibilty
Substantial doesn’t need to be total but more than trivial impairment.

Question 27

Abnormality must provide an explanation for the killing.

Answer 27

1. The Abnormality should cause or be a significant factor causing D to kill
2. The defence will fail if suggested by evidence that D would have killed anyway - irrespective of abnormality.
3. The issue as to what caused D to act is complicated- as mental Abnormality as a result of intoxication isn’t included in the defence.

ABNORMALITY + INTOXICATION;
If d is suffering from mental Abnormality and then takes alcohol and then kills V the defence may still be available even if voluntary intoxication plays a part in decision to kill.
Gitten 1984;
D killed wife and daughter while heavily intoxicated and suffering depression
D killed while suffering depression and taking drugs and alcohol. consideration was whether the depression alone was enough to impair his responsibility for the act.

Decision in Gittens was approved by h.o.l in dietschmann 2003.
D killed a man whislt suffering depression/ death of aunt
D had consumed large amounts of alcohol.
LORD HUTTON;
Has D satisfied you that despite the drink his mental Abnormality had substantially impaired his mental responsibility.
Drink and drug not enough but if the Abnormality is the cause and then add drink and drug then the defence is available.
However if the jury decide that without the drink or drug D wouldn’t have killed then it is unlikely to find that the Abnormality on its own was sufficient to impair responsibility.
ALCHOLHOL DEPENDENCY SYNDROME;
1. recognised as a medical condition that can be used for the defence of diminished responsibility.
2.Leading case on point is wood 2008.
D was an alcoholic who killed V while drunk in a frenzied attack with a meat cleaver.
3. Experts agreed he was suffering a alcohol dependency syndrome but unclear whether this caused damage
4. conviction reduced to manslaughter.
involuntary drinking if has an addiction
If voluntary effects cannot be considered question is whether this substantially impaired his mental responsibility.

Question 28

Burden of proof - diminished responsibility

Answer 28

A defendant who raises the defence of diminished responsibility has the burden of proving it on a balance of probabilities which is a much lower standard than beyond all reasonable doubt.

Question 29

3 criticisms of law of murder

Answer 29

1. meaning of intention unclear
2. mandortary life sentence
3. issue arising from unborn child

Question 30

3 critisms of law of voluntary manslaughter

Answer 30

1. fear of violence
2. sexual infidelity
3. diminished responsibilty.

Question 31

3 reforms

Answer 31

1. law of murder could be codified
2. discretionary sentence
3. removal of anger trigger.

Question 32

Involuntary manslaughter

Answer 32

There are key differences between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. For involuntary manslaughter you do not have to intend to kill or cause serious harm.
There are two types of involuntary manslaughter
a. gross negligence manslaughter
b. unlawful act manslaughter.

Question 33

gross negligence manslaughter;

Answer 33

occurs when someone dies as a result of negligence by another.
The degree of negligence by D must be sufficiently serious as to making them criminally liable for the death.

1. The case of bateman was a test used to prove GNM and made GNM the basis for criminal liability.
   - Here a doctor was charged with manslaughter after treating a woman in childbirth which led to her action.
   Judge said;
   ‘ does the conduct of accused show such disregard to the life and safety of others as to amount to crime against the state and conduct, deserving of punishment.
2. Firstly need to establish duty of care;
   In which donough v Stevenson was the key case in negligence in civil cases that established the principles of duty of care.
3. Further case was in Andrews 1937 where Lord atkin stated;
   that where there is a charge for gross negligence manslaughter, a simple lack of care that would constitute to civil liabilty as seen in D v S wasn’t enough.
   For the purpose of criminal law, a high degree of negligence is required to be proved.
   - therefore cases of Bateman and Andrews establish that degree of negligence amounting to manslaughter must be far greater than that in a civil case.

• 1. Duty of care;
• 2. gross negligence
• 3. risk of death
• 4. mens rea

Question 34

1. duty of care - GNM

Answer 34

1. Have to consider as to whether it was an omission or an act.
2. can be guilty of an omission
3. Lord Mkay stated that the ordinary principles is negligence in civil law as outlined in d v s should be applied when seeing whether a duty of care existed and if it was breached.
4. Cases illustrating these are;
   a) stone v Dobinson;
   - Voluntary agreed to look after V, giving them a duty of care. Failure to feed her meant that they breached the duty of care and so convicted.

B) Lichfield 1998;
highlights a breah in contractual duty.
- owner and master of a sailing ship owed a duty of care to the crew as he knew engine failure was likely by using contaminated fuel- 3 people died.

C) Singh 1998;
- established a duty of care towards tenants, who had a duty to manage and maintain property. Failure gas fire resulted in death.

D) Waker 2002;
lorry driver carried illegal immigrants. D shut the vent causing 58 people to suffocate.
- Although a civil action couldn’t arise as they were complicit, a duty of care existed for the purpose of a criminal case of manslaughter.

Question 35

2. Gross negligence

Answer 35

For criminal liability the negligence has to be gross and go beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects.
- the jury have to decide consider whether the breach was seriousness enough as to amount to GNM.

Cases;

1. Finlay 2001
   - D was a scout leader- on a trip a 10yr old fell and died.
   - There was evidence that health and safety procedures hadn’t been followed.
   - However when the jury weighed up evidence, it felt that Ds conduct hand’t shown disregard for life and safety and so therefore didn’t amount to GNM.
2. Edward 2001 ;
   - Couple allowed kids to play on a railway bridge - resulted in them being killed by an oncoming train.
   - they ignored an obvious and serious danger and decided to take the risk and therefore it amounted to GNM.

Question 36

3. Risk of death

Answer 36

In adomako 1994;
When lord mkay was giving his decision and when the ratio decandende was given the risk of death was unclear.

Misra and Srivastava 2004;

• Actions were so bad that they were seen as criminal.
• Judge confirmed that the risk of death is sufficient for GNM and as a matter of policy the CPS will not prosecute for anything less and only for risk of death.

Question 37

4. Mens rea;

Answer 37

For involuntary manslaughter- there is not need for intent to kill or cause gbh.

• For GNM- D is judged by his behaviour rather than state of mind therefore intoxication isn’t relevant.
• There must be obvious risk of death but this is judged objectively and so it doesn’t matter if D didn’t see the risk.

Question 38

Unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 38

Occurs when the D causes the V death while carrying out a criminal act that is deemed to be dangerous.

To prove UAM you have to prove that the act was;

1. unlawful
2. dangerous
3. it caused the death
4. prove that D had the mens rea for the act.

Question 39

1. Unlawful

Answer 39

1. it must be a criminal offence
2. state which offence it could be from OAPA s39 ect
3. civil wrong cannot amount to UAM
4. cannot have an act due to ignorance and foolishness as its not sufficient enough to give u criminal act.
5. providing no criminal offence involved.
   Cases;
   Lamb;
6. two boys playing with a gun who didn’t think it would fire; but he pointed the gun pulling the trigger and ended up killing the other boy.
7. it was argued there was no unlawful act as there was no assault and V didn’t apprehend any violence therefore no criminal offence and so not guilty of UAM.

Other types of unlawful acts other than assault
- burglary
- arson
- criminal damage
aslong as you can prove that they caused the death-injury.

• Cannot have an ommision;
  1. There must be an unlawful act.
  2. Omissions cannot be accepted and so won’t give rise to liability.
  3. Illustrated in Lowe;
• child died from neglect but found not guilty of UAM as the mental element hadn’t been established
• failure to call doctor was the cause and so they couldn’t be charged for UAM.

Question 40

2. Dangerous act;

Answer 40

Its up to the jury to decide what constitues as an unlawful act by using the objective test set out in Church 1966.

Lord chief justice edmond Davis said;
- ‘ the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise, and must subject the other person to atleast the risk of some har, resulting therefrom allbeit not serious harm.

KEY POINTS;
1. It need not to be the accused who has to forsee the harm, it can be any sober and reasonable person.
2. risk only needs to be some harm, need not to be serious harm.
3. Harm doesn’t have to be aimed at the victim.
CASES;

1. Mitchell
2. Dawson
3. Watson
4. Goodfellows

Question 41

3. Substantial cause of death;

Answer 41

UAM must be substantial cause of death.
- Chain of causation and thin skull rule apply and must be no intervening act.

1. Corion and Augiste 2004
2. Kennedy 2007

The unlawful dangerous act need not to be the sole cause of death, so long as it wasn’t trivial.

• Shohid
• carey
• lewis 2010

attorneys general reference

• this is used if theres a series of unlawful acts occuring in which you cannot prove which led to the death of V
• All you have to do it prove that one was the cause.

Question 42

4, Mens rea of UAM

Answer 42

1. to prove the UAM there must be a positive act- cannot be an omission
2. intent has to be present- must have the mens rea to commit a dangerous act.
3. need not have been intention to cause harm
   - NEWBURY V JONES
   - LE BRUN

Question 43

Assualt

Answer 43

1. ireland v bustow
2. Actus reus
   - act
   constanza
   turberville
   - apprehend
   lamb
   - immediate
   smith
   - unlawful act
   3 Mens rea
   savage

Question 44

Battery

Answer 44

AR

• ireland
• collins v willcock
• thomas

1. Unlawful physical force 
2 indirect bateries 
 - martin 
ddp v k 
haystead 
3. omissions 
- santana and burmudez 

4. mens rea
   - venna

Question 45

s47

Answer 45

1. AR
   - assault
   - occasioning
   - actual bodily harm
   miller
   smith
   chanfook
2. mens rea
   savge and parmenter
   roberts

Question 46

s20

Answer 46

1. wounding
   jcc v eisenhower
2. gbh
   - dpp smith
   saundars
   burstow

bollom
broom v stratton

clarence
wilson
burstow

dica

3. unlawfulness

4, mens rea
cunnigham
mowatt

Question 47

s18

Answer 47

actus reus
mens rea
morrison
nedrick