Statutes Flashcards
Theft is governed by …
S1(1) Theft Act 1968
Factual cause and legal cause
Pagget and smith
Medical treatment
Jorden
Victims own acts were reasonable
Roberts
Victims acts were unreasonable
Williams and Davis
Life support
Malcherek
Thin skull rule
Blaue
Drugs (2)
Kennedy no2 Cato
Direct intent causation
Mohan
Foresight of consequences
Woolin
Recklessness
Cunningham
Transferred malice person to person
Latimer
Transferred malice object to person
Pembilton
Words gestures and silence
Ireland
Fear Assault
Lamb
Words can cancel out assault
Savage
Assault doesn’t have to be able to reach victim
Smith
No time limit on assaults
Constanza
Battery and assault is governed by …
S39 criminal justice act 1988
More than the slightest touch battery
Wilcock
has to be more than the slightest touch
Wilcock
Can be a continuing act
Fagan
Battery can be caused indirectly
K
Battery can be an omission
Santana-Bermudez
ABH is governed by
S47 offences against the person act 1861
has to be transient/trifling
Miller
can be psychiatric harm
Chanfook
Hair being cut of can be battery
Smith
Consciousness only has to be lost momentarily
T
ABH can be indirect
K
ABH men rea it doesn’t matter if the defendant intended to cause the harm
Savage
GBH is governed by …
S18 or S20 offences against the person act 1861
Harm must be really serious harm
Smith
Harm only has to be serious harm
Saunders
Really serious harm and serious harm mean the same thing
Brurstow
The victims age and health are taken in to account when considering there injuries
Bollum
If there was a know risk of some harm and the defendant didn’t inform the victim
Dica
Indirect harm GBH
Martin
Direct intent to cause GBH
Mohan
Direct intent to cause some harm
Mowatt
Direct intent to resist arrest
Morrison
Wounding is governed by …
S18 and S20 offences against the person act 1861
S18 requires the D to cause the harm and S20 requires them to inflict the harm but ( ) shows cause and inflict mean the same thing
Bristow
Both layers of skin must be broken
Eisenhower
Wounding direct intent to cause GBH
Taylor
Direct intent to wound
Taylor
What is murder governed by…
Lord Justice coke
Taken one breath independent from mother
Poulter
Umbilical cord cut
Reeves
No brain activity
Malcherek
There is no time limit on death after the unlawful act
Law reform year and a day rule 1996
Killing out side kings peace
Black man
A person who did not intend to kill another, but intended to cause them grievous bodily harm
would have the required intent for murder
Vickers
What statute created three partial defences to murder
Homicide Act 1957 and Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Diminished responsibility governed by …
S2(1) Homicide Act 1957 as amended by S52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
so different to that of
ordinary human beings, the reasonable person will deem at the time they killed their
state of mind must have been abnormal.
Lord parker CJ
The abnormality doesn’t have to be permanent or have existed from birth
Gomez
Depression
Gittens
Irresistible impulses
Bryne
Battered wife syndrome
Ahluawalia
Alcohol dependency syndrome
Stewart
Need medical evidence for diminished responsibility
Bunch
Paranoia
Simcox
Substantial impairment does not have to be full impairment
Lloyd
There must be a causal link between the defendant’s abnormality of mental functioning
and the conduct or omission that led to the killing
(S2(1) Homicide Act 1957).
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond(Loss of control)
Martin
Loss of control is governed by…
S54 Coroners and
Justice Act 2009
Un able to think straight is not sufficient for loss of control
Jewell
The defendant does not have to lose control suddenly (immediately) in response to a
qualifying trigger
(S54(2) CJA)
What identifies the two qualifying triggers
S55 CJA
defendant’s fear of serious violence from the victim against defendant
or another identified person
S55(3) CJA
Things said or done which constitute grave circumstances or makes the defendant justifiably feel wronged
S55(4) CJA
fear of serious violence has to be to an identified person
Goodwin
circumstances of an extremely grave character
and the defendant must have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. (Loss of control)
Zebeede
A breakdown of a relationship will not normally be circumstances of an extremely grave
character or give a justifiable sense of being wronged
Hatter
Revenge is not a qualifying trigger
S54(4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
If the defendant incited the thing said or done so they can react
S55(6)(a)
S55(6) CJA restrictions Anything said or done in connection with sexual infidelity is to be disregarded
S55(6)(c)
Sexual infidelity can be considered if with other triggers
Clinton
Stander end of self control test is based on a normal person which is an objective test what defines this
S54(1)(c) CJA Whether a person of the ds own sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in the ds circumstances might have reacted in the same or similar way
Self control and tolerance
Mohammed
In the same circumstance as the D loss of control
Gregson
Same circumstance as D, Depression, epilepsy and unemployment
Gregson
Intoxication is not accepted in loss of control
Asmalash
React in a same and similar way if the same circumstance
Van dongen
The act must be a crime unlawful act manslaughter
Franklin
Must fear unlawful force unlawful act manslaughter
Lamb
The act must be positive
Lowe
sober and reasonable person would recognise the risk of some harm from the D’s conduct.
Lord justice Davies
It does not matter that the D did not realise their conduct was dangerous, as long as the reasonable and sober person would realise it UAM
Birstow
the victim’s frailty were obvious, a reasonable and sober person would be aware of it, and if they foresee some harm from the D’s act, it is objectively dangerous.
Watson
The objectively dangerous test does not take into account the age and mental capacity of the defendant UAM
JF and NE
The harm does not have to be specific harm
Jm and Sm
objectively dangerous act does not have to be aimed at the V.
Larkin
objectively dangerous act can be aimed at property
Good fellow
The D’s conduct must be the cause of the death. The usual rules of causation apply to UAM
Attorney General Reference (No 3)
Transferred malice applied to UAM
Mitchell
irrelevant if the D did not foresee or intend the harm caused from their unlawful act. All that matters is that they satisfy the mens rea of it
New berry and Jones
Self defence is governed by …
S3(1) Criminal law act 1967 (CLA)
Was the use of force necessary
Hussain and another
The D wrongly imagined a threat existed self defence
Williams
Alec defence not available if voluntarily intoxicated
S76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
The D does not have to retreat self defence
Bird
The D can prepare for the attack
Attorney general reference no2
reasonable is to be judged in the light of the circumstances as the D believed them to be (whether reasonably or not).
Palmer
the degree of force used by a person is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances, as they believed them to be, if it was disproportionate in those circumstances. The only exception regarding disproportionate force relates to the householder exception.
S76(6) Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008
Force was no longer Necessary as the threat has passed
Martin
Consent the V must know the nature of that act and also the quality
Tabassum
Consent is invalid if gotten through fear
Olugboja
his fraudulent conduct did not void the V’s consent, as she knew the nature and quality of the act.
Linekar
The victim must be informed of a known risk before engaging in sexual activity, otherwise their consent is invalid and the defendant will be liable.
Dica
Implied consent
Pringle
any harm that is greater than assault or battery will no longer be able to have the defence of consent.
Attorney general reference no6
What are the 4 public policy exceptions for consent
Horseplay sports body adornment dangerous exhibitions
In sports the actions must be sufficiently grave to be considered criminal.
Barnes
Children under 16 with sufficient intelligence to understand fully the implications of a proposed treatment can give effective consent
Gillick
In horseplay defendant can demonstrate an honest belief the victim consented to this type of play,
Jones
genuinely held the belief the victim was consenting to such horseplay, even if that belief was mistakenly held.
Aiken
Where the defendant makes a genuine mistake regarding horseplay when intoxicated, the defence of consent can still be available in relation to horseplay, where they can demonstrate they would not have realised the risk if sober
Richardson and Irwin
Husband and wife have extra consent conditions
Wilson
Body adornment
BM
Cannot consent to homicide
Pretty
Consent drugs
Cato
