CL Flashcards

Question

importan!!!

Answer 1

INDIRECT INTENTION Only applies when intention is only form of mens rea available

Answer 2

For indirect intention to arise, the result of a defendant's act must be a virtually certain consequence of their conduct and be realised by the defendant as being virtually certain. The first part of the test is objective, and the second is subjective.

Answer 3

Indirect intention is available only for specific intent offences (where recklessness is not available as a form of mens rea). It never applies to basic intent offences.

Answer 4

RECKLESSNESS * Defendant foresees risk * Under circumstances known to defendant, risk is unreasonable one to take

Answer 5

The test for recklessness is that the defendant foresees the risk of the conduct, and it is unreasonable in the circumstances known to the defendant to take the risk.

Answer 6

The test for direct intention is whether it was the defendant's aim or purpose to bring about a particular outcome.

Answer 7

The test for indirect intention is whether the outcome was a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's conduct and whether the defendant realized that the outcome was a virtual certainty.

Answer 8

TYPES MURDER * Causing * Death of human being Unlawfully * With intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm

Answer 9

A2: Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the actus reus and mens rea of murder are present, but there are extenuating circumstances that amount to a partial defense, reducing the conviction from murder to manslaughter. The two most common partial defenses are diminished responsibility and loss of control. Example for Diminished Responsibility: A defendant suffering from a recognized medical condition, like severe depression, that substantially impairs their ability to form a rational judgment, acts in a way that causes someone's death. If a clear link between their abnormality and the act of killing can be established, the charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Example for Loss of Control: A defendant, after enduring years of severe abuse, reacts violently in a moment where they genuinely fear further violence, resulting in the abuser's death. If the loss of control can be linked to a qualifying trigger like fear of serious violence, it might lead to a manslaughter conviction instead of murder.

Answer 10

A1: To be guilty of murder, the following elements must be satisfied: causation (as per factual and legal causation tests discussed in Module 2), the death of a human being, the act must be unlawful (without any legal excuse), and the mens rea of murder, which is the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.

Answer 11

A3: Involuntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant causes someone's death without the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, but their actions are still blameworthy. The main types are unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter. Example for Unlawful Act Manslaughter: A defendant commits a dangerous act, like brandishing a knife to scare someone, which unintentionally results in someone's death. If the act was deliberate, unlawful, dangerous, and causally linked to the death, it could lead to an unlawful act manslaughter conviction. Example for Gross Negligence Manslaughter: A medical professional fails to notice obvious signs of a patient's deteriorating condition, leading to the patient's death. If there was a duty of care, a breach of this duty, causation, a serious risk of death, and the breach was grossly negligent, it could result in a conviction for gross negligence manslaughter.

Answer 12

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY * Abnormality of mental functioning From recognised medical condition * Substantially impairs defendant's ability to - Understand their conduct - Form a rational judgment or - Exercise self-control Abnormality explains the killing

Answer 13

B. The source of the defendant's abnormality of mental functioning must be a recognised medical condition.

Answer 14

D The defendant has the burden of proof for diminished responsibility, and the defendant must prove each element to the civil standard – on the balance of probabilities.

Answer 15

LOSS OF CONTROL * Defendant is unable to restrain themselves QUALIFYING TRIGGER * Fear of serious violence or * Things said or done which constitute circumstances of extremely grave character giving defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Answer 16

BURDEN OF PROOF * Loss of control must be disproved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt * Diminished responsibility must be proved by defence on balance of probabilities

Answer 17

UNLAWFUL ACT MANSLAUGHTER * Act that is - Intentional - Unlawful - Dangerous Causation

Answer 18

GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER * Duty of care * Breach * Causation * Serious risk of death * Gross negligence

Answer 19

Diminished responsibility requires an abnormality of mental functioning that substantially impairs the defendant's ability to: 1. Form a rational judgment 2. Understand the nature of their conduct 3. Exercise self-control 1. To form a rational judgment 2. To understand the nature of your conduct 3. To exercise self-control

Answer 20

The two qualifying triggers for loss of control are: 1. Fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another identified person. 2. Things said or done which constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character, giving the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. 1. Fear of serious violence 2. Things said or done that constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character that give the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Answer 21

For unlawful act manslaughter, the act must be dangerous, which means that there is a risk of some harm. For gross negligence manslaughter, there must be an obvious and serious risk of death. Unlawful act manslaughter requires the act to be dangerous, which means there is the risk of some harm. Gross negligence manslaughter requires there to be an obvious and serious risk of death.

Answer 22

ASSAULT * Intentionally or * Recklessly * Causing another person to apprehend * Immediate unlawful violence

Answer 23

Question: What constitutes an assault in legal terms? Answer: Assault is defined as intentionally or recklessly causing another person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. For example, if someone raises their fist to another person, making that person believe they are about to be hit, this could constitute an assault even if no physical contact is made.

Answer 24

Question: In an assault case, what does the victim need to experience for the act to be considered an assault? Answer: In the context of assault, apprehension equates to the belief that immediate unlawful violence will occur, not necessarily fear. For instance, if a person believes they are about to be struck by someone raising their fist, it qualifies as assault regardless of whether the potential victim is scared.

Answer 25

Question: Can a person commit an assault without saying anything? Answer: Yes, silence alone can constitute an assault. An example of this could be making silent threatening phone calls, where the silence combined with the context can cause the victim to apprehend immediate violence.

Answer 26

Question: What is the legal definition of battery, and how does it differ from assault? Answer: Battery is defined as the intentional or reckless application of unlawful personal force upon another person. Unlike assault, battery involves physical contact or force, however minimal. For instance, even a light push or a touch without consent could be considered battery.

Answer 27

Question: What are the key elements needed to establish Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)? Answer: To establish ABH, there must be an assault or battery that causes physical or psychiatric injury, which must be more than transient or trifling and interfere with the victim's health or comfort. An example could be causing someone to suffer bruising or psychological distress significant enough to require medical diagnosis.

Answer 28

Question: What is required in terms of mens rea for a conviction of ABH? Answer: The mens rea for ABH is the same as that for assault or battery, which is intention or recklessness regarding the application of force. The defendant does not need to have intended or been reckless about the resulting injury itself. For example, if someone intentionally pushes another person, causing them to fall and sustain an injury like a bruise or a cut, the pusher could be liable for ABH even if they didn't intend for the injury to occur.

Answer 29

BATTERY * Intentionally or * Recklessly * Applying unlawful force * On another person

Answer 30

The tests for intention and recklessness are as follows: Intention: Intention is when the defendant's aim or purpose is to bring about a specific result. It involves a conscious decision to achieve a particular outcome. An example of intention would be if someone plans and then deliberately hits another person with the aim of causing harm, their action is driven by the direct intention to injure. Recklessness: Recklessness occurs when the defendant foresees a risk associated with their actions but decides to proceed anyway, and it is deemed unreasonable to take such a risk in the circumstances known to the defendant. For instance, if someone throws a rock towards a crowded area knowing that there's a risk of hitting someone but does it anyway, they are acting recklessly because they foresee the risk of harm and unreasonably choose to ignore it. Intention = aim or purpose Recklessness = the defendent foresees the risk, and in the circumstances known to the defendant, it is an unreasonable risk to take

Answer 31

ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM * Assault or battery * Causation * Injury - Calculated to interfere with health or comfort - More than transient or trifling

Answer 32

ACTUS REUS FOR GBH OFFENCES * Cause a wound or * Cause grievous bodily harm

Answer 33

MENS REA OF S20 GBH * * * Intention or Recklessness Regarding some harm

Answer 34

(C) is correct. Both offences have a mens rea of intention. GBH s18 requires intention to cause serious harm or resist arrest. GBH s20 requires intention or recklessness regarding some harm.

Answer 35

GBH s20 can be committed recklessly. The required mens rea is intention or recklessness regarding some harm. GBH s18 requires intention to cause serious harm or resist arrest.

Answer 36

WHEN CONSENT IS DEFENCE TO INJURY Surgery * Body modification * Religious practice * Sporting activities

Answer 37

ABH involves causing lesser injury with intent or recklessness, GBH under Section 20 involves more serious harm without needing to intend such serious harm, and GBH under Section 18 requires specific intent to cause grievous harm.

Answer 38

ABH Underlying assault or battery Causation Actual bodily harm No additional mens rea requirement for the injury caused GBH s20 Injury causing a wound or serious harm Intention or recklessness regarding some harm (recklessness is enough - even without intention; the defendant does not need to foresee the type of injury that results) GBH s18 Injury causing a wound or serious harm Intention to cause SERIOUS harm or resist arrest Intention is the only form of mens rea, recklessness will not suffice

Answer 39

THEFT Appropriation of * Property * Belonging to another * Dishonesty * Intention to permanently deprive

Answer 40

Example Answer: Section 18 GBH requires specific intention to cause serious harm or to resist lawful arrest, making it a more culpable offense than Section 20 GBH. Recklessness does not suffice for Section 18 GBH. An example would be intentionally stabbing someone with the intention of causing serious harm.

Answer 41

Example Answer: Generally, a victim cannot consent to injury, with exceptions including surgery, body modification (like tattoos and piercings), religious practices (such as circumcision), sporting activities where there's implied consent to the type of contact expected in the sport, horseplay among individuals, and possibly for sexual gratification under specific circumstances. Consent must be informed, especially in cases involving the risk of transmitting sexual diseases.

Answer 42

Example Answer: The mens rea for Section 20 GBH is intention or recklessness regarding causing some harm, not necessarily serious harm. For instance, if someone throws a coin at another person intending to annoy them, but it results in serious harm like losing eyesight, it could lead to a conviction under Section 20 GBH due to the intention or recklessness of causing some form of harm.

Answer 43

Example Answer: The law allows for informed consent to the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease. If an individual discloses their HIV-positive status to a partner who then agrees to engage in unprotected sexual activity, there is a valid defense of consent. However, deliberately hiding a sexually transmitted disease from a partner, leading to infection, invalidates consent.

Answer 44

Example Answer: The challenge involves writing out the key characteristics of ABH, Section 20 GBH, and Section 18 GBH, focusing on what makes each offense unique. For ABH, an underlying assault or battery with causation and actual bodily harm is required, with no additional mens rea for the injury. Section 20 GBH involves causation with a wound or serious harm, where recklessness regarding causing some harm suffices. Section 18 GBH also requires causation and serious harm or a wound, but the mens rea is specifically the intention to cause serious harm or to resist arrest, with no room for recklessness.

Answer 45

To satisfy the appropriation element of theft, the defendant must assume **(C) at least one** rights of the owner.

Answer 46

PRESUMPTION OF HONESTY IF PERSON BELIEVES THEY * Are entitled to property in law, Would have owner's consent, or * Could not find true owner by taking reasonable steps

Answer 47

A A person commits burglary when the person knowingly or recklessly enters a building as a trespasser with the intent to commit theft, inflict grievous bodily harm, or cause criminal damage. This is burglary under s9(1)(a).

Answer 48

B The force must be used in order to steal. The force requirement can be satisfied by the infliction of force, causing an apprehension of force, or seeking to cause an apprehension of force. The defendant does not have to physically harm the victim or have the intent to commit a battery. Furthermore, the victim does not actually have to be in fear of being subjected to force. Finally, the force must be used before or at the time of theft.

Answer 49

1. Force - B 2. Appropriation - C 3. Property belonging to another - C 4. Putting victim in fear - B 5. Dishonesty - C 6. Intention to permanently deprive - C 7. Seeking to put victim in fear - B

Answer 50

Entry into a building or part of a building as a trespasser, where entry does not have to be substantial or effective and can be with any part of the body.

Answer 51

The defendant must know or be reckless about being a trespasser when entering the building or part of the building.

Answer 52

The defendant must enter with the intention to commit theft, grievous bodily harm (GBH), or criminal damage.

Answer 53

For 9(1)(b) burglary, the defendant must commit or attempt to commit theft or GBH after having entered the building, making the timing of the mens rea related to the point of committing the underlying offense rather than at the point of entry. Give an example of a situation that could be charged as either Section 9(1)(a) or Section 9(1)(b) burglary. A defendant smashes a jewelry shop window and leans in to take items from the display. This could be charged under 9(1)(a) if they had the intent to steal upon entry, or under 9(1)(b) if they attempted theft after entry.

Answer 54

Aggravated burglary occurs when a defendant commits burglary and, at the time, has in their possession a firearm, imitation firearm, offensive weapon, or any explosive.

Answer 55

To enter as a trespasser means the defendant enters a building or part of a building without permission or exceeds the permission granted (e.g., entering a restricted area of a building where they have general access).

Answer 56

BURGLARY * UNDER 9(A) (B) * After entering, defendant - Commits or attempts theft or - Commits or attempts bodily harm

Answer 57

C A person commits burglary when the person knowingly or recklessly enters a building as a trespasser and then after entry commits or attempts to commit theft or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm. This is burglary under s9(1)(b).

Answer 58

AGGRAVATED BURGLARY * At time of burglary, defendant possesses - Firearm or imitation firearm Weapon of offence or - Explosive

Answer 59

False - the defendant's dishonesty is judged objectively. The test is whether the defendant's actions were dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people.

Answer 60

True. A defendant can be guilty of fraud by misrepresentation even if the gain they make is for another person and does not benefit themselves

Answer 61

FRAUD BY FAILURE TO DISCLOSE * Legal duty to disclose information * Failure to disclose information * Dishonesty * Intention to make gain, cause loss, or risk loss

Answer 62

FRAUD BY ABUSE OF POSITION * Position with duty to safeguard other's interests * Abuse of that position *Dishonesty *Intention to make gain, cause loss, or riskloss

Answer 63

For **fraud by false representation**: 1. Making a false representation about fact, law, or state of mind. 2. Doing so dishonestly. 3. Knowing the representation is or might be untrue or misleading. 4. Intending by the representation to make a gain for oneself or another or to cause or risk loss to another. For **fraud by failure to disclose**: 1. Having a legal duty to disclose certain information. 2. Failing to disclose that information. 3. Acting dishonestly in failing to disclose. 4. Intending by the failure to make a gain for oneself or another or to cause or risk loss to another. For **fraud by abuse of position**: 1. Occupying a position in which one is expected to safeguard, or not act against, the financial interests of another person. 2. Abusing that position. 3. Acting dishonestly in abusing the position. 4. Intending by the abuse to make a gain for oneself or another or to cause or risk loss to another.

Answer 64

Fraud by false representation A person dishonestly makes a false representation, and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for themselves or another, or to cause a loss.

Answer 65

Fraud by failure to disclose A person dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and intends thereby to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause a loss.

Answer 66

Fraud by abuse of position A person is in breach if he occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person, and he dishonestly abuses that position, and intends, by the abuse of that position, to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause a loss.

Answer 67

CRIMINAL DAMAGE * Intentional or reckless * Destruction or damage * Of property belonging to another * Without lawful excuse

Answer 68

The test for recklessness, as described in the context of criminal damage, is that the defendant must be aware of a risk that property will be destroyed or damaged and, in the circumstances known to him, it is unreasonable to take that risk. This definition incorporates both an objective and a subjective element: 1. **Subjective Element:** The defendant must have actual awareness of the risk. This means the defendant must consciously recognize that there is some risk involved in their actions. 2. **Objective Element:** Once the subjective awareness is established, it must then be determined whether it was unreasonable to take that risk. This involves an objective assessment of the situation, considering what would have been reasonable under those particular circumstances. An example to illustrate recklessness could be a person throwing a rock towards a window just to see if they can hit it, knowing that there is a chance the window could break but deciding to throw the rock anyway. In this scenario, the person is aware of the risk of damaging the window (subjective awareness) and it would be considered unreasonable by most standards to take that risk for no substantial reason (objective unreasonableness).

Answer 69

DEFENCES TO CRIMINAL DAMAGE * Honest belief owner would consent * Honest belief property needs protection

Answer 70

B For aggravated criminal damage, the defendant must intend or be reckless as to the endangerment of life. The defendant does not have to actually endanger a life. The property belonging to a third party is an element of criminal damage but not aggravated criminal damage. The defendant must intend or be reckless as to the damage to property for both offences.

Answer 71

AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE Basic criminal damage plus * Intentional or reckless * Endangerment to life * By damage to property

Answer 72

AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE * No life needs to be endangered * Can damage own property * Special defences do not apply

Answer 73

ARSON Criminal damage by fire

Answer 74

Yes, this is criminal damage because the intentional act of spilling a drink on another's coat, requiring dry cleaning to restore it, incurs an expense and thus fits the definition of causing damage to property belonging to another.

Answer 75

No, this is not criminal damage because for an act to qualify as criminal damage, the property must belong to someone other than the perpetrator, and in this scenario, the damaged phone belonged to the person who smashed it.

Answer 76

The person may not be guilty of aggravated criminal damage based solely on the information provided because while they did damage property (the window), the aggravated aspect of the offense requires the defendant to have intended or been reckless as to the endangerment of life by the damage caused. In this scenario, the intention seems to be to harm the ex-spouse directly, not through the damage caused to the property (the window). Therefore, the specific mens rea for aggravated criminal damage — intending or being reckless about endangering life through the property damage — may not be satisfied. However, other charges, such as attempted murder or basic criminal damage, might be more appropriate based on the intent to shoot at the ex-spouse and the resultant property damage.

Answer 77

CHILDHOOD Children under 10 incapable of committing crime

Answer 78

UNFITNESS TO PLEAD Defendant unable to: * Comprehend court proceedings * Challenge jurors * Comprehend evidence

Answer 79

(D) is correct. For a defendant to be fit to plead, they must be of sufficient intellect: (1) to comprehend the course of the proceedings in the trial as to make a proper defence, (2) to challenge a juror to whom they might wish to object, and (3) to comprehend the details of the evidence.

Answer 80

ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY * Aiding *Abetting *Counselling * Procuring

Answer 81

A1: A person is criminally liable from the age of 10 and above. Example: A 12-year-old shoplifting at a convenience store can be held criminally responsible for their actions, unlike an 8-year-old who would not be criminally liable.

Answer 82

A5: An accessory aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of a crime. Example of abetting: Cheering on a friend to vandalize a public statue, providing encouragement at the scene of the crime.

Answer 83

A6: An attempt involves acts that go beyond mere preparation towards committing the crime, with the intent to complete it. Example: Breaking into a house with the intention to steal, even if the theft is not completed, is more than merely preparatory and constitutes an attempt.

Answer 84

A7: Factual impossibility does not negate liability for an attempt. Example: Attempting to steal a painting from a museum, not knowing it has been moved, still constitutes attempted theft despite the factual impossibility of stealing that specific painting.

Answer 85

A8: Legal impossibility occurs when the action attempted is not actually against the law, removing liability for an attempt. Example: Attempting to import snuff, mistakenly believing it to be an illegal substance, would not constitute an attempted crime since snuff is not illegal.

Answer 86

A4: An 'innocent agent' is someone who unknowingly assists in the commission of a crime. Example: A person who drives a friend to a store, not knowing the friend intends to rob it, and waits outside unknowingly as the getaway driver.

Answer 87

A3: The principal offender is the one who commits the actus reus of the crime with the requisite mens rea. Example: In a bank robbery, the individual who actually threatens the teller and takes the money is the principal offender.

Answer 88

A2: 'Unfit to plead' means a defendant lacks the capacity to understand the trial proceedings, make a proper defense, or comprehend the evidence. Example: An individual with severe cognitive impairments who cannot grasp the nature of the court proceedings might be deemed unfit to plead.

Answer 89

Being a party to an offense can involve aiding (providing help or assistance at the scene and time of the offense), abetting (offering encouragement or incitement at the scene and time), counseling (advising or encouraging the offense, usually beforehand), and procuring (producing the offense by endeavor or effort).

Answer 90

ATTEMPT * * Act more than merely preparatory toward commission of offence Intention to commit full offence The mens rea for attempt is to intend the completed actus reus of the offence.

Answer 91

An **attempt** involves engaging in actions that are more than merely preparatory toward committing a crime, with the clear intention to complete the crime, while **conspiracy** entails an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act, where the intent to achieve the agreed-upon illegal outcome is essential, regardless of whether any steps are taken towards its commission.

Answer 92

WHEN INTOXICATION CAN BE DEFENCE * Involuntary intoxication

Answer 93

A1: Intoxication can potentially negate mens rea if it is involuntary, caused by a non-dangerous substance, or if the offense is one of specific intent. Example: A person unknowingly drinks a beverage spiked with a drug and, as a result, commits an act they would not have done sober; they may argue involuntary intoxication to negate mens rea.

Answer 94

A3: The law may allow intoxication as a defense when it results from a non-dangerous substance (like prescription medication) taken as directed, but not from dangerous substances (like illegal drugs or alcohol). Example: A person takes prescribed medication according to the instructions but experiences unexpected side effects leading to abnormal behavior; this could potentially negate mens rea due to intoxication.

Answer 95

A2: Voluntary intoxication occurs when the individual knowingly consumes an intoxicating substance, while involuntary intoxication occurs without the individual's knowledge or against their will. Example of voluntary intoxication: A person decides to consume several shots of whiskey and commits an assault. Example of involuntary intoxication: Someone's drink is spiked with a drug without their knowledge, leading to unintended aggressive behavior.

Answer 96

A4: Basic intent offenses can be committed recklessly, while specific intent offenses require intentional action. Intoxication can sometimes negate mens rea for specific intent offenses but not for basic intent offenses. Example: A person, intoxicated, decides to cause serious harm (a specific intent offense); if the intoxication was involuntary or due to a non-dangerous substance, it might negate mens rea.

Answer 97

A5: Self-defense allows individuals to avoid liability if they honestly believe that the use of force was immediately necessary for protection (trigger) and the response was reasonable (amount of force used). Example: Believing an imminent attack, a person pushes an aggressor to prevent a physical assault; this could be justified as self-defense if the belief was honest and the force used was proportionate to the threat.

Answer 98

WHEN INTOXICATION CAN BE DEFENCE * Involuntary intoxication * Non-dangerous substance * Specific intent offence

Answer 99

A6: In householder cases (typically during a burglary at home), the law allows for a higher level of force in self-defense, as long as it is not "grossly disproportionate." Example: During a home invasion, a resident uses a heavy ornament to strike an intruder, which might be deemed acceptable in this context, given the heightened state of fear and urgency.

Answer 100

A defendant can potentially rely on intoxication to negate mens rea if the intoxication is involuntary, caused by a non-dangerous substance, or if the offense committed is one of specific intent. The three situations in which a defendant can potentially rely on intoxication to negate mens rea are: (1) involuntary intoxication, (2) intoxication caused by a non-dangerous substance, and (3) the offence committed is one of specific intent.

Answer 101

SELF-DEFENCE TRIGGER AND RESPONSE TEST * Did D honestly believe use of force was immediately required? Was amount of force reasonable?

Answer 102

B For self-defence, the amount of force the defendant used must have been reasonable. This amount is assessed objectively, by the standards of a reasonable person. In contrast, the defendant must have a subjective belief that force was immediately required; this is not an objective test. Self-defence is available if the defendant acted to protect themselves, another, or property; acted to prevent a crime; or effected a lawful arrest.