Week 1 - Evidence Flashcards

Question 1

Q

What is specific and basic intent

Answer

A

Crimes of specific intent:
only committed when defendant is shown to have had a particular intention to bring about a specific consequence at the time of the criminal act.

Other criminal offences require nothing other than the basic intention to bring about the given circumstances (i.e burglary 91b only requires proof that person entered the building and then went on to commit prohibited act)

Question 2

Q

Murder.. Specific or basic intent?

Question 3

Q

Burglary 91a.. specific or basic?

Answer

A

Specific (entering with intent)

Question 4

Q

Burglary 91b.. specific or basic

Answer

A

Basic (did not enter with intent to cause prohibited act, that was decided once alreadg inside)

Question 5

Q

Common feature of crimes with specific intent?

Answer

A

Intention. Without that intent the offence does not exist.

Question 6

Q

What is intent?

Answer

A

If a defendant intends something to happen, he wishes to bring about a certain consequence

(I.e entering a house intending to steal)

Question 7

Q

What if person did not intend certain consequences??
Concept of foresight…

S8 criminal justice act 1967

Answer

A

S8 Crim just act 1967 says that a court/jury when determining wether a person has committed an offence…

1) shall not be bound in law to infer he intended or foresaw a result of his actions only because the consequences were probable

But they shall decide if he intended/foresaw the consequence by looking at the evidence and drawing inferences from it

Question 8

Q

Foresight of the probability of a consequence does not….

Answer

A

Mean there was an intention to bring about that consequence (but may be evidence of it).

The jury considers:

at the time of the criminal act was there a probability of a consequence
the greater the probability , the more likely it is that the defendant foresaw that consequence
if the defendant foresaw that consequence, the more likely it is that the defendant intended it to happen

Question 9

Q

Foresight.
You cannot claim that a person intended a consequence of a persons behaviour just because it was virtually certain to occur

Answer

A

Evidence of the defendants foresight of the probability of a consequence is put to the court, who may draw an inference from it…

I.e…
If at the time of the act there was a consequence…
- The greater the probability of the consequence the more likely the defendant foresaw it

and if the defendant saw the consequence then the more likely it is they intended it to happen

Question 10

Q

Recklessness

Answer

A

Is subjective.

Subjective recklessness is satisfied where the defendant foresees the consequences as being probable or even possible.

The fact the consequences ‘ought ‘ to have been foreseen is not enough.

Question 11

Q

Malice

Particularly relevant to which offences?

Answer

A

S18
S20
S23
S24
Offences agains persons act

Question 12

Q

Malice. Requires what?

Answer

A

Either
The actual Intention to cause the relevant harm

Or

At least foresight of the risk of causing ‘some’ (not full extent) of the harm

I.e…. X throws a coin at Y intending to cause small cut to Y. The coin hits Y’s eye and Y loses his sight.
X has commited GBH as he has behaved maliciously - he saw ‘some’ risk of harm and took the risk anyway

Question 13

Q

Wilfully

Mentioned in offences such as child cruelty

Answer

A

Taken to mean intentionally or recklessly (recklessly being subjective)

Wilful is not to be understood literally as being deliberate or voluntary

Question 14

Q

Dishonestly

Answer

A

Identify the state of mind required

And the ways that can be proved/disproved

Question 15

Q

Knowing

Relevant to several offences such as handling stolen goods

Answer

A

One knows something if they are absolutely sure that it is so.

As it is difficult to absolutely be sure of anything it is accepted that a person who feels virtually certain about something can be regarded as knowing it.

Question 16

Q

Belief

The difference between belief and knowing

Answer

A

Same degree of certainty however

Knowing something implies correctness of belief..
Whereas a belief could turn out to be mistaken

(In handling stolen goods cases it has been stressed there is a need to distinguish belief from recklessness or suspicion, as it is not sufficient that an accused believed it to be probable that goods were stolen)

Question 17

Q

Negligence

Answer

A

Generally concerned with the defendants compliance with the standards of reasonableness of ordinary people.

Negligence focuses on the consequences of defendants conduct rather than proving his state of mind.

Most important common law offence that can be committed by negligence is manslaughter (by gross negligence).

Question 18

Q

Strict liability

Answer

A

Generally means that there is Little to prove beyond the act itself. (I.e. no need to prove mens rea- eg: in offence of drink driving)

Question 19

Q

Transferred mens rea

Answer

A

The state of mind for an offence can be transferred from one victim to another.

ONLY IF THE CRIME REMAINS THE SAME

Question 20

Q

Transferred mens rea in relation to the liability of an accessory to a crime

Answer

A

If the intentions were contemplated and accepted by the accessory then the accessory is liable. Even if the mens rea was transferred to another victim inadvertently.

Eg… if in an assault where X and Y agree that X will assault Z…
X then decides to assault a different person then Y not liable as they didn’t agree to that.
But if X assaults Z and in doing so X injures a third party inadvertently then transferred mens rea may mean that Y is also liable.

Question 21

Q

Wyen considering criminal liability

What is the ‘but for’ test??

Answer

A

But for X’s actions, would Y have happened?

Question 22

Q

Actus reas. Criminal conduct.

To be found guilty of an offence you must show that he / she:

Answer

A

Acted in a particular way
Failed to act in a particular way (omissions)
Or
Brought about a state of affairs

This is the actus reas of an offence (the behavioural element)

To prove the required actus reas you must show

The the defendants conduct was voluntary and
That it has occurred while the defendant still had the requisite mens rea (state of mind)

Question 23

Q

Voluntary act

Answer

A

I.e if pushed into a window and it breaks, the person cannot be said to be guilty of criminal damage even though they were the immediate cause.
The person being pushed was not acting of their own free will and therefore could not perform the actus reas (criminal conduct)

Question 24

Q

Ommissions
Criminal conduct most often associated with actions , but occasionally liability is brought about by a failure to act - mostly where a DUTY to act has been created… the main circumstances being…

Answer

A

D - dangerous situation created by defendant.
U - under statute, contract or persons public
office.. eg:
- Statute - driver who fails to stop of scene of
accident
- Contract - crossing keeper omitted to close
the gates at a level crossing
- Public office - police officer failed to
intervene to prevent an assault
T - taken it upon himself to carry out a duty and then fails to do so (i.e acepted duty to care for someone and then they die of neglect)
Y - young person - where defendant is parent of young person (obligation exists for parent to look after health and welfare of child and they dont)

Question 25

Q

Actus reas…

Omission where a duty to act has been created.
Must also show that the defendant has voluntarily ommitted to act as required or not done enough to discharge their duty…
Unless…

Answer

A

Someone else has stopped them from discharging their duty
Or
They are incapable of doing more because of their own personal limitations (i e inability to swim)

Question 26

Q

Causal link?

Answer

A

You must prove the consequences would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendants act or omission

Question 27

Q

Intervening act??

Answer

A

The causal link (but for) can be broken by an intervening act provided the new act is free, deliberate and informed.

However the basic rule is that an intervening act will not generaly break the causal link

Question 28

Q

Defendants must take their victims as they find them

Answer

A

So if a victim has a very thin skull or some illness which makes the consequences of the act against them more acute, this is the defendants bad luck. These things will not break the causal link.

Question 29

Q

Victims actions can sometimes be significant in the causal link/chain…

Answer

A

I.e
If a victim is injured when jumping from a car to get away from their assailant … their behaviour will not necessarily be seen as a new and intervening act as the victims actions can be seen as reasonably anticipated from any victim in such a situation… therefore the defendant will be responsible for the outcome.

However if the victims actions are done entirely of their own violition , or their actions are daft, then this will amount to a new and intervening act and the defendant cannot be held responsible for them.

Question 30

Q

A principle or an accessory to criminal liability

Answer

A

Principle - offender whose conduct has met all the requirements of the particular offence

Accessory - someone who helped or brought about the commision of the offence.

If an accessory aids/abets/counsel’s or procures the commission of an offence he/she will be treated by a court in the same way as a principle offender (under the accessories and abettors act 1861 for indictable offences , or the magistrates court act 1980 for a summary offence)

Question 31

Q

Aid, abet, counsel, procure meaning

Answer

A

These are not seperated out into seperate elements when charging a defendant, They are looked at in theie entirety

Aid -giving help, support, assistance

Abet - inciting, investigating or encouraging

Counsel - advise or instruct
Procure - bringing about

Question 32

Q

If accessory is present at acene of crime when committed… their presence amounts to to..

Answer

A

Their presence amounts to encouragement

Which supports a charge of aiding or abetting if they were there are part of an agreement re the principle offence.

(Not the case if they were just walking by)

Question 33

Q

What if accessory not present at scene when crime is commited?

Answer

A

Necessary to prove intentional assistance.. by proving:

An act done by the accessory which assisted the later commission of the offence
That the accessory did the act deliberately realising it was capable of assisting the offence
That they contemplated the commision of the offence by the principle offender
And that when doing the act they intented to assist the principle offender

Question 34

Q

Vicarious liability??

Answer

A

General principle is that liability is personal however there are occasions where liability can be transmitted vicaiously to another….

I.e where statutory duty is breached by an employee, or where a duty is placed into an individual (such as a licensee) who then delegates some of their functions to another.

Question 35

Q

Incomplete offences

Answer

A

Ones where defendants are interrupted or frustrated in their effort to commit an offence…

Incomplete offences cannot be mixed and most cannot be attempted (i.e you cannot conspire to aid and abet and you cannot attempt to conspire)

Question 36

Q

Legislation around encouraging or assisting crime

Answer

A

Serious crime act 2007

S44 - Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence

S45 - encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be commited

S46 - Encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed

ALL TRIABLE ON INDICTMENT AND ALL LIABLE TO SAME PENALTY AS PER OFFENCE THEY ARE ENCOURAGING OR ASSISTING

Question 37

Q

S47 serious crime act 2007?

Answer

A

Sets out what must be proved in order to establish guilt for S44/45/46

In respect of each offence D must merely do an act which is capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence.

Question 38

Q

S49 serious crime act 2007

Answer

A

Stares that offences can be committed regardless of wether or not the encouragement or assistance has the effect that was intended or beleived it would have.

Question 39

Q

An act of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence may take a number if different forms such as…

Answer

A

A course of conduct
Failure to discharge a duty
Threatening another person or
Putting pressure on another to commit the offence

Question 40

Q

Can a person be convicted of more than one of the offences of S44/45/46 serious crime act (encouraging/assisting in commision of offence) in relation to the same act?

Question 41

Q

What is a defence to s44/45/46 serious crime act?

Encouraging/assisting in commission of offence

Answer

A

S50 sets out that it will be a defence if the person acted reasonably
(that in the circumstances they were aware of, or reasonably believed existed, it was reasonable to act as they did)

Question 42

Q

S51 serious crime act says a person cannot be guilty of s44/45/46 if it is in relation to a protective offence where the person who does the act is the person that the offence was designed to protect… example?

Answer

A

A 12yr old child encouraging an adult to have sex with her. The child cannot be liable for encouraging rape as she is considered the victim of the actual offence

Question 43

Q

Does S44/45/46 serious crime act apply to corporate manslaughter?

Question 44

Q

Conspiracy

2 types…??

Answer

A

Statutory

Common law

Question 45

Q

Statutory conspiracy

Legislation ?
Triable?
When is this offence committed?

Answer

A

S1 criminal law act 1977…

If a person agrees with any other person that a course of conduct will be pursued which will either:
A) amount to or involve the commission of any offence(s) by one or more of the parties or
B) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence impossible
He is guilty of consipracy to commit the offence(s) in question

Triable on indictment (regardless of if the offence consipred to commit is summary or indictable)

Offence is committed at the time of the agreement, it is immaterial whether or not the substantive offence is ever carried out

Question 46

Q

What must there be for a Conspiracy?

Answer

A

An agreement - A meeting of minds. Therefore at least 2 people involved.

Person A cannot be guilty of consipracy with person B if B intends to thwart or sabotage it (as there would not be a meeting of minds i.e an agreement to carry out the offence)

Question 47

Q

Each conspirator must be aware of the overall common purpose.

If one enters into seperate agreements with different people then each agreement is a seperate consipracy.

Question 48

Q

Can a person be convicted of consipracy even if the actual identity of the other person is unknown?

Question 49

Q

When can a defendant NOT be convicted of consipracy?

Answer

A

If the ONLY other party to the agreement is:

Their spouse/civil partner (a civil partner is a same sex partnership registered under the civil partnership act 2004)
A person under 10 yrs old
The intended victim (crim.law act 1977. s2)

Question 50

Q

Can a company be party to a Conspiracy?

Answer

A

Yes.

But not if the only ‘parties ‘ are the company and a director, as there would be no meeting of minds.

Question 51

Q

Who must carry out the offence in a consipracy?

Answer

A

One or more of the parties to the agreement.

Once agreed upon, any failure to bring about th3 end result or abandoning the agreement altogether will not prevent the statutory conspiracy being committed.

Question 52

Q

For a true consipracy, all parties must intend to go through with r their agreemrnt

Answer

A

If an under cover copper is one of the parties, with no intention of going through with the agreement then the offence of encouraging or assisting an offender may be more appropriate

Question 53

Q

Common law consipracy

Answer

A

Conspiracy to defraud.

An agreement by 2 or more persons by dishonesty to deprive a person of something which is his or to which he would be entitled,
Or
An agreement by 2 or more by dishonesty to injure some proprietary right of the victim (no requirement to prove an end result would comission an offence, only that it would result in depriving a person of something injuring his proprietary right)

10 yrs prison and/or fine.

You MUST show INTENT to defraud a victim

You MUST show a defendant was dishonest

Question 54

Q

Examples of common law consipracy to defraud …

Answer

A

Bufet car staff selling own homemade sandwiches on trains therebg depriving the company of the opportunity to sell their own products

Directors concealing details of banks trading losses from its shareholders

Making unauthorised copies of films for sale

Marketing devices to falsify gas/elec meters enabling customers to defraud their gas/elec suppliers

Question 55

Q

S1, Criminal attempts act 1981

S2

Answer

A

S1 - if with intent to commit an offence, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of an offence , he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence

S2 - states that a person may still be guilty of attempt even if the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible

Question 56

Q

What kind of offences are excluded from the attempts act…

Answer

A

Conspiracy (statutory and common law)

Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring

An offence under s2 (1) suicide act (assisting suicide)

Offences under s4(1) (assisting offenders) criminal law act 1967

Question 57

Q

Attempt offences are triable by same means (indictable or summary) as per the offence attempted.

Can a summary only offence be attempted??

Answer

A

No.
Not unless the only reason it is summary only is because of a statutory limit imposed on the offence… i.e low value shop theft/ crim dmg to low value property… in these cases the offences can be attempted.

Question 58

Q

Attempts…

An act which is more than merely preparatory

Answer

A

An attempt requires an act (an ommission to act would not create liability for an Attempt)

Actions must be shown to have gone beyond mere preparation towards commission of the substantive offence.

Courts accept questioning if the defendant has embarked on the crime proper, but there is no requirement to have passed a point of no return leading to the commission of the substantive offence.

Question 59

Q

Mens rea for attempt

Answer

A

To prove an Attempt you must show an intention on the part of the defendant to commit the substantive offence.

A higher level/ degree of mens rea may be required to prove an attempt.

I.e the mens rea for murder is the intention to kill or cause GBH. Whereas the intention for attempted murder is nothing less than but the intent to kill.

Question 60

Q

Attempted rape… recklessness

Answer

A

In cases if attempted rape, courts have accepted that recklessness as to whether the victim was consenting is sufficient mens rea, because it is sufficient for the substantive offence (r v khan)

Question 61

Q

General defences.

Automatism

Answer

A

It is where there is an absence of actus rea… criminal conduct.. i.e criminal conduct needs to be willed or and voluntary, automatism is where a person may have total loss of control over their actions… e.g a swarm of bees flew in a car and caused the driver to have a reflex action which caused an accident. The drivers actions were involuntary and not sufficient to support a criminal charge.

Or sneezing/cramping causing a firearm to be discharged as a result of the sudden involuntary movement

Question 62

Q

General defences.

Intoxication…. voluntary and involuntary

Answer

A

No general defence of intoxication. But it potentially removes the mens rea required for committing an offence

Voluntary- got self intoxicated.
Involuntarily- you are not responsible for getting in that condition… i.e spiked

Question 63

Q

Gen. Defences.

Voluntary and involuntary intoxication and specific / basic intent

Answer

A

Voluntary intoxication can be raised as a defence for an offence of specific intent only.

Involuntary intoxication can be raised for both basic and specific .

Specific intent (i.e murder /crim dmg)… voluntary intoxication at time of offence may be able to show they were incapable of forming the mens rea required.

Basic intent… voluntary intoxication is NOT a defence as courts decided a person still capable of forming basic intent when inebriated (dpp v majewski)

Basic intent (i.e s46 assault)… defendants who were INvoluntary intoxicated at time may be able to say they lacked the mens rea for the basic intent offence

Question 64

Q

If defendants mis judge the amount/strength of intoxicants… is this involuntary intoxication?

Answer 59

A

Drunken intent is still intent.

R v kingston

Answer 60

A

Can be raised as mistaken belief… Crim dmg. If dmg property thought was their when drunk.

Can’r be raised… murder, rape, manslaughter

Answer 61

A

No. Even if one of specific intent. Because they have formed the intent before getting intoxicated and just got intoxicated for Dutch courage to carry it out.

Answer 62

A

Rests with the defence

In law there is a presumption that all people are sane.

Answer 63

A

To establish defence on grounds of insanity it must be clearly proved that at the time of commiting the act the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing,
Or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong .

The question if whether a condition amounts to a disease of the mind is a question of law and NOT medical opinion (r v Sullivan)

Answer 64

A

Hypoglyceamic episode in a diabetic

An epileptic fit.

Answer 65

A

Trial of lunatics act 1883.

A special verdict can be returned under the criminal procedure (insanity) act 1965… under this act a range of orders are available (i.e hosptial order, supervision order, even absolute discharge)

Answer 66

A

A person commits an offence if
A) he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting in the commission of an offence and
B) he intends to encourage or assist its commision

But he is not to be taken to have intended this merely because such encouragement or assistance was a foreseeable consequence of his act

Answer 67

A

A person commits an offence if
A) he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting in commision of an offence and
B) he believes that
i) the offence will be committed and
ii) his act will encourage/assist its commission

Answer 68

A

A person commits an offence if
A) he does an act capable of encouraging/ assisting the commission of one or more of a number of offences and
B) believes that
i) one or more will be committed (but no belief as to which one) and
ii) his act will encourage/ assist the commission of one or more of them

It is immaterial whether a person has any belief as to which offence will be encouraged/assisted

Answer 69

A

Only an effective defence if the defendant negates the mens rea for that offence.

I.e theft - if wandered out with item without paying- need to negate any mens rea of dishonesty.

It doesn’t matter if the mistake was reasonable, the appropriate test is whether the defendants mistaken belief was an honest and genuine one

Answer 70

A

I.e people under arrest are not entitled to inform a view on the lawfullness of the arrest, they have a duty to comply with police and hear the charge against them
(Therefore it is not defence to resist arrest based on believing you are innocent !)

Answer 71

A

Where a peraon is threatened with death or serious harm unless they carry out a criminal act, then they may have a defence of duress.
R v graham.

Threat of serious harm/injury does not include psychological injury. R v baker.

Where intent in relevant to the offence, it has to be shown that any intent was only formed by reason of that duress

Answer 72

A

Threat must have driven defendant to commit the offence

Defendant must have acted as a sober and reasonable person of same characteristics would

Threatened death/injury must be anticipated at or near the time of the offence (not sometime in distant future)

Answer 73

A

When defendant failed to take advantage of opportunity to neutralise the effects of the threat (perhaps by escaping from it)

(I.e not gone to police when had opportunity)

If person knowingly exposes self to risk of threat then cannot claim duress as a defence (i.e person joins a violent gang or active terrorist organisation)

Answer 74

A

Mau be raised where a WIFE maintains she commited an offence in the presence and ubder coercion of her husband

Apart from in treason or murder

No need for threats of death/serious injury. It is enough that the wife acted because of the dominating influence of husband .. she was forced unwillingly to participate.

Answer 75

A

No alternative but to commit offence due to circumstances….

I.e wife says gonna commit suicide if husband doesn’t drive son to work. Husband is disqual driver but drives son to work so wife doesnt commit suicide (she had attempted suicide previously.

With duress of circumstances there is a threatening situation or set of circumstances the defendant wishes to escape, and in doing so feels impelled to commit offence as the lesser of 2 evils

The threat is situational … if i dont do this then the consequence will be death or serious injury

Answer 76

A

Were they impelled to act as they did because, as a result of what he reasonably beleived, he had good cause to fear he would suffer death/injury if he didnt do so

If so, would a sober person of reaosnable firmess and sharing the same characteristics have responded to the situation in the same way?

If yes to both then the defence is made out.
R v cairns

Only need an honest beleif, without reasonable grounds . No need for threat to be real.

Defendants actions must however be reasonable and proportionate to the threat presented

Answer 77

A

Everyone’s right to life protected by law.

Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of article 2 when it results from use of force, which is no more than absolutely necessary, in defence of any person from violence, to effect arrest or prevent escape of someone lawfully detained or in quelling a riot or insurrection

Answer 78

A

S43 crime and courts act 2013..

Use of disproportionate force can be regarded as reasonable in the circumstances as the accused beleived them to be when householder acting to protect self, or others from trespassers in their home (self defence)

The use of Grossly disproportionate force is not permitted.

Answer 79

A

A person may use such force as reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting and assisting in lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders, or of persons unlawfully at large

Answer 80

A

10

S50 children and young person’s act 1933

Answer 81

A

If a legal rule.requires a fact (an issue) to be proven then a judge/jury must decide whether it happened.

The fact in issue falls into 2 categories…

Prosecution bear the burden of proving/disproving in order to establish the defendants guilt
The facts which, in exceptionally circs, the defence need to prove to show the defendant is not guilty

Answer 82

A

Defences relating to alibis, self defence, accident and provocation

Answer 83

A

No.

These are exceptions to the criminal attempts act

Answer 84

A

Attempt assault on A and actual assault on B

Answer 85

A

Negligence is concerned with the defendants compliance with the standards of reaosonableness of ordinary people

Answer 86

A

The defendant is shown to have had a PARTICULAR INTENTION to bring about a SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCE at the time of the act

Murder ia such a crime
As is burglary with intent

Answer 87

A

Whether a defendant intends a particular consequence will be a question of fact left to the jury or magistrate

Answer 88

A

In cases involving subjective recklessness it is the state of mind of the defendant which is important (and not what they ought to have foreseen)

Answer 89

A

There are occasions where courts will accept that the knowledge of certain employees will be extended to the company

Companies HAVE been prosecuted for;

offences of strict liability
For offences involving mens rea
As accessories

Answer 90

A

That the defendant’s conduct was voluntary and it occurred while the defendant had the required mens rea (state of mind

Answer 91

A

.Accessory

The state of mind that an accessory must possess is proof of intention to aid the offence as well as knowledge of the circumstances

(Recklessness and negligence are not enough)

Answer 92

A

Only available in answer to a charge of murder

Answer 93

A

Must show a causal link between their conduct.and the offence

Answer 94

A

Will usually involve the presence of the accessory at the scene of the offence

Answer 95

A

A person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence to which this section applies even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible.

Answer 96

A

1) involves deceiving another into acting in a way that is contrary to their duty

Or

2) an agreement by 2 or more persons by dishonesty, to deprive a person of something which is his or would or might be entitled, or an agreement by 2 or more by dishonesty to injure some proprietary right of the victim

Answer 97

A

As per the test laid out in R v Gosh 1982.

Not as per the theft act!

Answer 98

A

The criminal justice act 1987 s12 makes provisions for such circumstances and allows the prosecution to choose which charge to prefer

Answer 99

A

S43 crime and courts act 2013

Amends s76.crim just and imm act so that the use of DISPROPORTIONATE force can be regarded as reasonable in the circumstances as the accused BELIEVED them to be when householders are acting to protect themselves or others from trespassers in their homes (self defence)

Answer 100

A

Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more then absolutely necessary:-

A) in defence of any person from unlawful violence

B) in order to effect a lawful arrest or prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained

C) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection

(Defending property is not included in the circumstances where property alone is being protected)

Answer 101

A

In respect of an offence of murder (r v howe) or attempted murder (r v gotts).. as a principle or secondary offender

Answer 102

A

Actus reas
Mens rea

Identity if the defendant will be a fact in issue where relevant (so not always)

Answer 103

A

On the balance of probabilities

Answer 104

A

A.variety of situations: statute (eg diminished responsibility) or common law (defence of insanity)

Answer 105

A

Whether it is fair to allow the evidence

Not whether it was obtained fairly or not!

Answer 106

A

Allegations made whereby it is incapable of identifying specific individuals is immaterial when the defendant intends that the allegation be taken seriously.

Making a false allegation of an offence means that person has committed the offence of perverting the course of justice

There is no requirement to show that a great deal of police time and resources were expended on the investigation (this is only associated with giving false details to police on arrest)

Answer 107

A

Half of the original offences maximum sentence

Answer 108

A

The serious and organised crime and police act 2005…. sets our witness protections arrangements and extends to people involved in the criminal justice process (including people who are or have been jurors).

Answer 109

A

Cosent of the DPP is required before a prosecution is brought
(Director of public prosection)

Answer 110

A

Suspicion (however strong) that the person commuted the offence is not enough

Answer 111

A

Intimidatory acts by the offender towards the victim when the offender knows or believes the victim is assisting in the investigation of an offence or is a witness or potential witness or a juror or potential juror in proceedings for an offence

The threat can be made otherwise than in the presence of the victim or to a person other than the victim

The harm can be towards a persons property

Answer 112

A

People detained under the mental health act are in lawful custody

Answer 113

A

Triable on indictment only.

Unlimited punishment.

Offence applies to both police custody or custody following conviction

Answer 114

A

Negligent medical treatment will NOT normally be regarded as an intervening act that will break the chain of causation

Answer 115

A

H - His/her spouse (or civil partner)
A - A person under 10yrs old
T - The intended victim

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Week 1 - Evidence Flashcards

State of mind. Criminal conduct. Incomplete offences. Issues in evidence. Offences agains the administration of justice and public interest.

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM