Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law > Criminal > Flashcards

Criminal Flashcards

1
Q

What is a summary only offence?

A

Less serious crime

Offences must be tried in a magistrates court

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

What is an either way offence?

A

Middle range offence
Theft (low value ) or dangerous driving
Can be magistrates or crown depending on seriousness

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

What is an indictable only offence?

A

Most serious crime Murder rape or robbery will be tried in the Crown Court with a judge and a jury

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

Who is the burden of proof on?

A

Prosecution must prove that the defendant is beyond reasonable doubt

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

What is a conduct crime?

A

Defendant must have acted in a certain type of way

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

What is a result crime?

A

There must be a consequence of the act

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

What is basic intent?

A

Where intent or recklessness will suffice to be guilty

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

What is specific intent?

A

Crimes where only the mens rea of intent will suffice (Eg murder

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

What is ulterior intent?

A

Where the prosecution must prove an ‘extra’ element of mens rea against the defendant before they can secure a conviction (eg burglary has to shown intention to steal or cause GBH

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

What is the idea of coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?

A

As a general rule, the actus reus and mens rea should coincide in time

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

When does the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea apply? (2x authorities)

A
  1. Thabo-Meli v R: beat up man, thought was dead, threw off cliff. Actually died from the fall but the court eld this was a continuing act
  2. R v Le Brun: defendant assaulted wife then tried to move her. Slipped and banged head and died. Continuing sequence of events
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the actus reus?

A

The act or omission that comprises of the physical elements of a crime as required by statute

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

What is the general rule for liability for omissions?

A

The general principle is that there is no criminal liability for failing to act

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

What exceptions are there for omissions to act?

A
  1. Special relationship
  2. Contractual duty to act
  3. Statutory duty to act
  4. Dangerous situation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What happened in Gibbins v Proctor (special relationship)?

A

Defendants charged with murdering 7 year old. As a father had a special relationship, so held that had a duty of care

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

What happened in R v Stone and Robinson?(special relationship)

A

Took sister in to live with them. Died of anorexia. Blood relative and had taken food or water at some point so had assumed a duty of care and special relationship

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

What happened in R v Ruffell?(special relationship)

A

Defendant assumed a duty of care while trying to revive a friend who took drugs. He died - Ruffell convicted of manslaughter as special relationship

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

What happened in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland? (special relationship)

A

Bland in vegetative state, unconscious for three years. Doctors had duty of care due to special relationship. However allowed to die as applied to courts

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

What comes under a contractual duty to act? (omissions)

A

If one’s contract of employment is specific
Doctor
Police
Teacher

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

What happened in R v Pitwood? (contractual duty to act)

A
  • Defendant was a railway gate-keeper
  • Failed to close gate and person killed
  • Guilty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What happened in R v Dytham? (contractual duty to act)

A

Police officer saw man ejected from nightclub and beaten up. Did not intervene. Guilty

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

What comes under a statutory duty to act?

A

As a car driver, you must stop at a red light

If involved in an accident you must stop

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

What comes under creating a dangerous situation?

A

If you create a dangerous situation, the law imposes a duty on him to take steps to remove such danger.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What happened in R v Miller? (dangerous situation)

A

The defendant was a squatter who lay on a mattress. Found his lit cigarette begin to smoulder. Went back to sleep. House caught fire - guilty as had created a dangerous situation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What happened in R v Santana-Bermudez? (dangerous situation)

A

Female police officer asked defendant if he had any needles. Said he didn’t, pierced by needle. Guilty of ABH from omission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What is automatism?

A

An involuntary act, which will not render the defendant guilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What was the example given in Hill v Baxter?

A

If attacked by a swarm of bees while driving then not guilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What is the mens rea?

A

A defendant must have been shown to have either intended something to happen or to have been reckless as to whether certain circumstances would exist

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What is intent? (authority)

A

It means aim, purpose or desire [R v Moloney]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What happened in R v Moloney?

A

Defendant shot stepfather dead, did not mean to. Convicted of oblique intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What is indirect/oblique intent?

A

When a defendant argues something was not his main aim, but a by-product of what he set out to achieve

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What are the two cases to be used in oblique intent and what happened?

A

R v Nedrick: poured petrol on to house and set fire. Children died inside
R v Woolinn: defendant killed 3 month old son by throwing him against hard surface. Did not intend to kill

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What are the two steps to test for oblique intent?

A
  1. Did the jury consider that death or serious injury was virtually certain to occurs as a consequence of the defendant’s actions?
  2. If so, did the jury believe that the defendant foresaw the death as a virtual certainty?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What happened in R v Cunningham?

A

Appellant removed gas meter to steal money. Didn’t realise gas went in to mother in laws house, gas leak. Mother dead

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What did Cunningham establish? (and 2 part test)

A 
Recklessness can amount to guilt
If a defendant
1. Foresees the risk
2. Without justification, goes on to take that risk, then he is guilty 
SUBJECTIVE
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What happened in R v Stephenson? (Recklessness)

A

Defendant was schizophrenic who lit the fire to keep warm in a haystack. This caught fire. However, as a schizophrenic, he did not realise the risk, so quashed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

What was the case that changed the recklessness test and what happened?

A

Met Police v Caldwell: set fire to hotel when drunk. 10 people sleeping. Convicted
This despite not knowing what he was doing due to drunkeness
This was now an OBJECTIVE test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

What was the case that made it change back to Cunningham principles?

A

R v G: boys aged 11 and 12 went camping, set fire to newspapers under a bin, £1m worth of damage to shop. They were not convicted as so young

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

What is transferred malice?

A

If the defendant has malice to commit a crime against one victim, the malice is transferred if same actus reus against another, unintended victim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What does malice mean?

A

Intention or recklessness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Example of a case of transferred malice?

A

R v Latimer: man arguing in pub tried to strike C but hit someone else. Still charged

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Limitations of transferred malice? (authority)

A

R v Pembliton - threw rock at person hit window. If not same offence, then cannot work.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

What is different about an offence of careless and inconsiderate driving?

A
  • One of the few offences where criminal liability can incur for falling below standards of reasonable person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

What is a strict liability offence?

A

Do not need mens rea - just the actus reus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

What is the result of ignorance of the law?

A

Never a defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

What are the three steps in causation?

A

Factual causation
Legal causation
Intervening acts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

What is the test for factual causation?

A

The but for test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

What is the authority for the but for test? and what happened?

A

R v White: Defendant laced mother’s drink with cyanide, she was found dead due to heart failure that was NOT because of the cyanide. Therefore not guilty as not but for.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

What are the four steps + authorities for legal causation?

A
  1. The consequence must be attributable to the culpable act [R v Dalloway]
  2. The culpable act must be more than a minimal cause of the consequence [R v Pagett]
    3 The culpable act need not be the sole cause [Benge]
  3. The chain of causation need not be broken [R v Chesire]
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

What must you consider for intervening act?

A

Has there been an act which breaks the chain of causation?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

What is the thin-skull rule?

A

Take your victim as you find them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

What happened in Hayward ?

A

Threatened wife, she suffered from thyroid condition that made the fright cause her to collapse and die.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

What happened in Blaeu?

A

Stabbed woman, she refused blood as Jehovah’s Witness and died. Therefore guilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

What about escape cases and intervening acts?

A

If reasonably foreseeable then does not break the chain

If unforeseeable then does break the chain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

What happened in Roberts (escape case)?

A

Sexual advances, threatened violence. Jumped out of moving car - foreseeable so guilty of ABH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

What happened in Williams and Davies? (escape case)

A

Threatened to rob. Jumped out of 30mph car. Died. This was not foreseeable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

What about self-neglect cases?

A

The principle of self-neglect does not release the defendant from liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

What is a self-neglect case?

A

Defendant cut victims finger, said it would have to be amputated to stop risk of dying Did not and died. Defendant was still liable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

What are all types of assault from most serious to least serious?

A 
s18 GBH
s20 GBH
s47 ABH
Physical assault (battery)
Simple assault
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

What is the actus reus of a section 18 offence?

A
  1. Unlawfully
  2. Wound or cause GBH
  3. Upon another person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

What is the mens rea of a section 18 offence?

A
  1. Intent to cause GBH
  2. OR Oblique intent to cause GBH [Nedrick v Woolin]
  3. Malicious (intent or recklessness) as to ABH + intent to resist/prevent arrest
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

Can you be reckless when committing a s18 offence?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

What is a section 18 offence?

A

Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

What is a section 20 offence?

A

Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

What is the actus reus of a section 20 offence?

A
  1. Unlawfully
  2. wound or inflict GBH
  3. Upon another person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

What is the definition of wounding? (authority)

A

Moriarty v Brookes: Skin is broken

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

What is the definition of GBH? (authority)

A

DPP v Smith: GBH means ‘really serious harm’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

Can mental health amount to GBH?

A

If serious enough

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

What is the mens rea for a section 20 offence?

A

Malicious (intent/recklessness) as to ABH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

What is a section 47 offence?

A

Actual bodily harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

What is the actus reus of section 47?

A
  1. An assault
  2. Which causes
  3. Actual bodily harm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

What was established by R v Miller about ABH?

A

Can mean any hurt or injury, does not have to be serious

  1. Bruise
  2. Scratch
  3. Swelling
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

Can mental harm amount to ABH?

A

YES

Although fear and panic are emotions rather than injury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

What is the mens rea for a s47 offence/

A

Intention or recklessness as to the physical/simple assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

What did R v Savage and R v Parmenter establish?

A

You do not have to foresee ABH, simply physical or simple assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

What happened in R v Savage?

A

Defendant threw glass over woman. Glass broke and injured - said she only meant to throw beer but caused ABH. This was enough to be convicted of ABH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

What happened in R v Parmenter?

A

Child had bruises and broken bones. Father did not know how to handle child. As reckless only s47 but did not have to foresee ABH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

What is the actus reus of physical assault (battery)?

A

The infliction of force on another person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

What is indirect physical assault and example?

A

It is not essential that the force is directly inflicted by the defendant
DPP v K: put acid in hand dryer, this squirted in face causing injuries

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

What is the mens rea of physical assault?

A

Intention/recklessness as to whether unlawful force will be applied

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
81
Q

What is the actus reus of simple assault?

A

Causing a victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
82
Q

What is the issue with timing in simple assault?

A

It must be immediate - cannot be a threat from a week before

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
83
Q

Can words alone amount to an assault (authority)?

A

YES

R v Ireland - silent telephone calls, fear of immediate application of force constantly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
84
Q

What about conditional threats for simple assault? (authority)

A

If conditional, still liable

Read v Coker: threatened to break neck if didn’t leave - liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
85
Q

What is the general rule for when the defence of consent can be used? [authority]

A

For simple assault or battery - consent is no defence to any injury amounting to actual bodily harm [R v Donovan]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
86
Q

What amounts to valid consent?

A
  1. Know the identity of your assailant

2. Only valid if given by a fully informed and competent adult

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
87
Q

Who cannot give consent?

A

Children

Disabled

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
88
Q

What happened in R v Richardson?

A

Suspended from practice as a dentist, carried out dentistry on victim. This was CONSENT as victim knew nature of act and identity of victim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
89
Q

What happened in R v Melin?

A

Botox injections which caused serious injury - thought doctor but not. NOT CONSENT as impersonating

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
90
Q

What happened in R v Tabassum?

A

D claimed to be medically qualified but was not. Guilty as NO CONSENT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
91
Q

What happened in R v Dica?

A

Defendant had HIV, knowingly gave to two women who had not consented to this.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
92
Q

What happened in R v Konzani?

A

HIV, defendant claimed by having sex with him had risked HIV. Unsuccessful NO CONSENT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
93
Q

What are 6 exceptions to the rule that consent can only be a defence to simple or physical assault?

A
  1. Properly conducted sports (rugby or boxing)
  2. Lawful chastisement
  3. Reasonable surgical interference
  4. Rough horseplay
  5. Body modification
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
94
Q

What is a case for properly conducted sports?

A

R v Barnes: Serious injury in a tackle - not guilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
95
Q

What was established in the Children Act 2004?

A

Lawful chastisement is allowed but ABH not under any grounds

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
96
Q

What is a case for rough horseplay?

A

Jones and others: playing in playground throwing and catching in the air. Two boys sustained serious injuries.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
97
Q

What is a case for body modification?

A

R v BM: removed ear, nipples and split tongue. This was GBH as could not consent to such serious injuries

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
98
Q

What happened in R v Brown?

A

Sado-masochistic homosexuals. Convicted as impossible to consent to such serious injuries
Public policy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
99
Q

What happened in R v Wilson?

A

Defendant with consent of wife used hot knife to brand initials in wife’s bum. Not guilty as close to tattoing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
100
Q

What happened in R v Emmett?

A

Sado-masochistic with heterosexuals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
101
Q

What is the general rule of self-defence?

A

An individual may justifiably use force to act in self-defence in certain circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
102
Q

What justifiable circumstances may there be?

A
  • Prevention of crime

- Assisting in lawful arrest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
103
Q

What is the test for reasonable force in self-defence?

A

To argue self-defence successfully, the defendant must argue that he used (objectively) reasonable force, in the circumstances (subjectively) as he believed them to be

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
104
Q

What happened in the case of R v Bird (self-defence)?

A

Boyfriend had her pinned up against wall, punched him forgetting that she had glass in her hand. This was a successful defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
105
Q

What is the general rule for mistake?

A

You should be judged against the mistaken facts that you believe them to be

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
106
Q

What happened in R v Williams (Gladstone)?

A

Saw youth rob woman. Chased after him and knocked to ground. Defendant chased after not realising first part of incident; Judge against facts therefore not guilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
107
Q

What is the difference in a household case compared to other cases?

A

The degree of force is not considered unreasonable unless GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
108
Q

What is the actus reus of murder?

A
  1. Unlawful
  2. Killing
  3. Of a human being
  4. In the Queen’s peace
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
109
Q

What is the general rule for definition of a human being?

A

It is not homicide to kill someone in the womb - abortion is not murder

110
Q

What happened in A-G reference (no3 1994) in relation to murder of a human being?

A

Stabbed foetus, born early and died after 120 days. Could not be liable for murder but constructive manslaughter

111
Q

What does in the Queen’s Peace mean?

A

If in war or combat then not murder

112
Q

What happened in R v Watson (intervening acts for murder)?

A

Defendant threw a brick through a window of an 87 year old. Died of heart attack. This was not an intervening act

113
Q

Does euthanasia break the chain of causation?

A

No

114
Q

What happened in R v Wallace (euthanasia and murder)?

A

Threw acid on partner, injuries were horrific. Opted for euthanasia, so guilty of murder

115
Q

What is the general rule for medical negligence and intervening acts?

A

Medical negligence will not be an intervening act.

Only if grossly negligent will amount to an intervening act

116
Q

What happened in R v Cheshire (medical negligence)

A

Defendant shot man, underwent surgery. Died 2 months later due to medical negligence. Guilty

117
Q

What is the mens rea for murder?

A

An intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm

118
Q

What are the 4 parts of diminished responsibility?

A
  1. Abnormality of mental functioning
  2. From a recognised medical condition
  3. Which substantially impaired D’s abilities
  4. Which provides an explanation for D’s act or omission to kill
119
Q

What are the three things that need to be impaired?

A
  1. Understand the nature of conduct
  2. Form rational judgement
  3. Exercise self-control
120
Q

What comes under abnormality of medical function?

A

This will likely be decided by medical experts

121
Q

What comes under a recognised medical condition?

A
  • Accepted on Who’s International Classification of Diseases

- Need medical evidence to prove this

122
Q

Does alcoholism amount to a recognised medical condition? (authority)

A

R v Tandy: in order for alcoholism to amount to an abnormality of the mind, the defendant’s craving must render his consumption of alcohol involuntary

123
Q

What is meant by substantially impairing the defendant’s abilities? (authority)

A

R v Golds - substantial means important or weighty

124
Q

What is meant by providing an explanation for the killing?

A

The defence must show that the homicide would not have happened if the mental abnormality had not occurred

125
Q

What is a loss of control?

A

The loss of ability with considered judgement or a loss of normal powers of reasoning

126
Q

What are the three things that need proved for loss of control?

A
  1. The person’s act or omission resulted from the person’s loss of control
  2. The loss of control had a qualifying trigger
  3. A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same way
127
Q

Does being sudden affect loss of control?

A

No it does not matter

128
Q

Can loss of control be in revenge? (Ibrams v Gregory)

A

Planned attack on victim, cannot be a loss of control

129
Q

Who is the burden of proof on?

A

The prosecution to disprove the defence

130
Q

What are two limbs of the qualifying trigger?

A

Fear

Anger

131
Q

What comes under fear (qualifying trigger)?

A

Applies where the defendant had a fear of serious violence
Must have a genuine fear of violence - his fear need not be reasonable
(SUBJECTIVE)

132
Q

What comes under anger?(qualifying trigger)

A

When something is said or done which has amounted to circumstances of extremely grave character
Defendant’s sense of being seriously wronged is justifiable (OBJECTIVE)

133
Q

What happened in R v Meanza? (qualifying trigger)

A

Patient killed nurse after she told him to turn TV down. Loss of control not an option as no qualifying trigger and reasonable person would not have acted this way

134
Q

What happens in sexual infidelity under qualifying triggers?

A

It is disregarded

135
Q

What happened in R v Clinton (sexual infidelity)?

A

Woman had an affair.
However she had described each sexual relation in detail, taunted him and said no longer wanted the children. This was extremely grave character

136
Q

What is the actus reus of unlawful manslaughter?

A
  1. Act is unlawful
  2. Act is objectively dangerous
  3. The act causes death
137
Q

What is an unlawful act?

A

Must require proof of intention and recklessness

138
Q

What is the test for a dangerous act?

A

Whether a reasonable and sober bystander would recognise that the defendant’s act would inevitably result in some harm to the victim

139
Q

What happened in R v Lamb (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)?

A

Pointed revolver not knowing it would shoot - no mens rea

140
Q

What happened in DPP v Newbury Jones?

A

Defendant pushed stone on train killing guard. Unlawful act of criminal damage still can amount to unlawful act manslaughter

141
Q

What are the rules of intervening acts in drugs cases for unlawful act manslaughter? (2)

A
  1. If a defendant injects the victim the unlawful act may be the administration of the poison
  2. If the defendant supplies the drug and the victim self-injects - then breaks the chain of causation
142
Q

What is the mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter?

A

An intentional act

  • Intention or recklessness
  • Must be a POSITIVE ACT
143
Q

Where does the test for manslaughter by gross negligence come from?

A

R v Adomako

144
Q

What are the five steps established in R v Adomako?

A
  1. A duty of care owed to a victim
  2. A breach of duty of care
  3. A risk that the defendant’s conduct could cause death
  4. Evidence that the breach of duty did cause death
  5. Defendant fell so far below the standard of the reasonable person it could be labelled gross negligence
145
Q

What is the general rule for intoxication as a defence?

A

It it not a defence. It will not help the defendant if his case is that but for the intoxication, he would not have committed the offence

146
Q

How can a defence of intoxication be successful?

A

If due to his intoxication, he was completely lacking the mens rea for the offence committed

147
Q

What happened in R v Kingston? (intoxication)

A

Coffee spiked with drugs unknowingly. With paeodphilic tendencies, decided to indecently assault a young boy. He still had the mens rea. Guilty

148
Q

What two further questions must be asked if established the defendant had no mens rea (intoxication)?

A
  1. Was the intoxication voluntary or involuntary?

2. Is the crime one of basic or specific intent?

149
Q

What is a crime of specific intent?

A
  • One where the mens rea is intention and nothing else
150
Q

What is a crime of basic intent?

A

Where mens rea can be established with recklessness as well as intention

151
Q

What happened in DPP v Majewski?

A

While intoxicated committed many offences basic and specific

- Those that were basic intent he could be convicted for

152
Q

Why can you find someone guilty of basic intent but not specific?

A

Voluntarily getting intoxicated is the reckless act.

153
Q

What criticisms are there for the rule of intoxication and basic intent? (3)

A
  1. Not guilty mind
  2. No coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
  3. Too much reliance on public policy
154
Q

What is the definition of involuntary intoxication?

A
  1. Deemed involuntary if the defendant is not aware that he is consuming alcohol or drugs 2. The defendant, who is not at fault in taking the drugs, is unaware of the effect it will have on him
155
Q

Test for unaware of effect?

A
  1. Must be a non-dangerous drug

2. Unpredictable response

156
Q

What about dutch courage cases?

A

A defendant cannot rely on intoxication if he had the mens rea for the crime before he started to drink

157
Q

Intoxication and mistake?

A

Jaggard v Dickinson - accidentally broke in to wrong house - successful

158
Q

Intoxication and self-defence? (authority)

A

If mistakenly believes there to be a danger and this was induced by drunk or drugs, no defence to manslaughter or murder [R v O’Grady]

159
Q

What is the actus reus for theft?

A
  1. Appropriation
  2. Of property
  3. Belonging to another
160
Q

What is appropriation? (authority)

A

Established that you only need to assume any single right of an owner [R v Morris, changed prices on two pieces of meat]

161
Q

Can appropriation be present if defendant has consented? (authority)

A

YES
Lawrenc v MPC - foreign student took taxi that should have been 50p, driver took £6 after he offered wallet - This was theft

162
Q

What about a gift (appropriation) ? (authority)

A

A valid gift can amount to appropriation

R v Hinks: coerced friend to withdraw and gift sums of money to him - this was appropriation

163
Q

What is the rule for a later assumption of rights?(appropriation)

A

If legally given it, then assumes rights by keeping it or acting as if its owner, this will amount to appropriation

164
Q

What is the rule on a continuing act? (appropriation)

A

Cannot steal twice

165
Q

What is the rule for a physical act? (appropriation)

A

It must be a physical act

It cannot be a mere remote action

166
Q

What is the rule for the innocent purchaser? (test x2) (appropriation)

A

You are not liable for theft if you acquire stolen goods
The test for this is
1. Must have been for value eg you paid money or goods
2. The purchaser must have acted in good faith (eg you had no doubts or concerns over the purchase)

167
Q

What is money?

A

Any currency

168
Q

What is personal property?

A

Any tangible object that is not real property (books, cars phones etc)

169
Q

What is real property?

A

Lands and things attached to the land

170
Q

What is a thing in action?

A

Property which you cannot touch or feel. (eg money in your bank account)

171
Q

When may it not be theft regarding bank accounts?

A

When a bank account has exceeded the limit of an agreed overdraft. This is no theft as the bank is not obliged to honour the cheque, therefore there is no thing in action as no debt.

172
Q

What is other intangible property?

A

A patent or an application for a patent

173
Q

What is the general rule for land (theft)?

A

Person cannot steal land or things forming part of the land

174
Q

What exceptions are there for theft of land? (3)

A
  1. If a trustee or personal representative (eg joint owner forges another signature to sell land they owned jointly)
  2. When not in possession of land and severs anything from it
  3. When in possession of land under tenancy, appropriates a structure of the land (eg stealing a greenhouse)
175
Q

Can wild plants and flowers be stolen?

A

Yes

HAS TO BE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES

176
Q

Can wild creatures be stolen?

A

YES

  • Either in captivity or tame to be stolen
  • If shot then taken home this is stealing
177
Q

Can confidential information be stolen?

A

NO

Read paper before examination - this is not theft

178
Q

What makes something belonging to another (3)?

A
  1. Possession by someone else
  2. Control by someone else
  3. Any proprietary interest in the property in question
179
Q

Can you steal from a company?

A

YES

A company is its own legal entity

180
Q

Can you steal from yourself?

A

TES

If at the time someone else legally has possession of your item, then this is theft

181
Q

What about when a person receives property from someone else and is under obligation to deal with that property in a certain way?

A

The accused must be under a LEGAL duty to use the money in a certain way, not a moral one

182
Q

What happens with abandoned property?

A

If property is abandoned then it does not belong to anybody, so cannot be stolen.
Must have intended to relinquish interest in it

183
Q

What happened in R v Basildon Magistrates? (abandoned property)

A

Taking clothes from outside charity shops was theft, as these had not been abandoned - belonged to the charity shops

184
Q

What is the case with lost property?

A

It is lost not abandoned, so still belongs to the owner

185
Q

What happened in Hibbert v McKiernan (lost property)?

A

Stole lost golf balls from a golf club - despite being lost, these were not abandoned

186
Q

What is the mens rea for theft?

A
  1. The defendant was dishonest

2. He had an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property

187
Q

What must first do when examining dishonesty?

A

Look if there is clear dishonesty

188
Q

What must you do second when examining dishonesty?

A

Examine whether one of the three examples under section 2(1) apply

189
Q

What are the three examples under section 2(1)? for dishonesty

A
  1. Appropriates the property on the belief that he HAS THE RIGHT TO DEPRIVE THE OTHER OF IT
  2. Appropriates the property in the belief that HE WOULD HAVE HAD THE OTHER’S CONSENT
  3. Appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs CANNOT BE DISCOVERED
190
Q

Does the situation change regarding dishonesty if there has been payment?

A

A willingness to pay does not answer an allegation of dishonesty - it is not a defence

191
Q

What was the Ghosh test?

A
  1. Was what the defendant did dishonest according to the standard of the reasonable and honest person (objective)
  2. If so, did the defendant realise that the honest person would regard what he did as dishonest (subjective)
192
Q

What case made the dishonesty test changed and what happened?

A

Ivey v Genting Casino’s. Phil Ivey won £9m, he did not believe he was cheating but found guilty of cheating

193
Q

What was the new test?

A

Ivey Test

1. Was what the defendant did dishonest according to the standard of the reasonable and honest person (objective)

194
Q

What is the definition of intention to permanently deprive?

A

To treat the property as his own

195
Q

Can borrowing amount to theft?

A

Yes if it is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to outright taking

196
Q

What was important about the case of R v Velumyl?

A

Took money from company intending to return it after the weekend. However unless the EXACT COINS AND NOTES then this is theft

197
Q

What was a case where borrowing did not amount to theft?

A

R v Lloyd - defendant removing film and making pirate copies of it. Then returned after a few hours. No theft as practical value

198
Q

What are the three different types of fraud?

A
  1. By false representation
  2. By failing to disclose information
  3. By abuse of position
199
Q

What is the actus reus for fraud by false representation?

A

Make a false representation

200
Q

Does the victim have to rely on the representation to amount to a criminal charge?

A

No, does not have to rely on it nor have any actual damage or loss

201
Q

What are the two requirements about a false representation?

A
  1. It is true and misleading

2. The person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading

202
Q

What is an example of express false representation? (authority)

A

Idress v DPP: Got person to impersonate him in a driving test. False representation

203
Q

What is an example of implied false representation? (authority)

A

DPP v Ray: Defendant went to restaurant, intending to pay. Decided after meal that he would not. Left restaurant without paying. This was implied false representation

204
Q

Can you do a false representation with a machine

A

YES

205
Q

What about false representation with credit cards? (authority)

A

R v Lambie: exceeded limit on credit card, continued to use. False representation that she had authority to use card

206
Q

What is the mens rea for false representation?

A
  1. Dishonest
  2. Intends to make a gain for himself or cause a loss to another
  3. Knows the representation is untrue or misleading, or knows that it might be so
207
Q

What is the actus reus for failing to disclose information?

A
  1. Failing to disclose information which he has a legal duty to disclose
208
Q

What is the mens rea for failing to disclose information?

A
  1. Dishonesty

2. Intention to make a gain for himself or loss to another

209
Q

What is the actus reus of abuse of position?

A
  1. Be in a position where expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person
  2. The abuse of such position
210
Q

What is the mens rea of abuse of position?

A
  1. Dishonesty
  2. Intention to make a gain for himself or loss to another

IT MUST COME FROM A POSITION OF FINANCIAL TRUST

211
Q

What is the actus reus of robbery?

A
  1. Everything part of theft
    - Appropriation
    - Property
    - Belonging to someone else
  2. Use of force or threat of force
  3. At the time
212
Q

What can amount to force? (2x authority)

A

Does not need to be significant

  1. Wrenched basket from hands - this amounted to force [R v Clouden]
  2. Only slight touching will not amount to force eg snatched a cigarette [P v DPP]
213
Q

What is meant by at the time?

A

The threat cannot be made a long time before the theft

Any force used after the theft will not amount to a robbery

214
Q

What happened in R v Hale?

A

Tied up woman and threatened her after stealing her jewellery. This was part of a continuous act where the stealing did not suddenly cease

215
Q

What is the mens rea for robbery?

A
  1. Dishonest
  2. Intention to permanently deprive
  3. Intention or Reckless at the use of force or threat of force
216
Q

What are the section offences under burglary?

A 
Section 9(1)a
Section 9(1)b
217
Q

What is the actus reus for section 9(1)a?

A
  1. Enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser
218
Q

What is the mens rea for section 9(1)a?

A
  1. Know or be reckless that you are a trespasser

2. Intend to commit theft/GBH/criminal damage

219
Q

What is the actus reus of section 9(1)b?

A
  1. Enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser

2. Commit the actus reus of theft, attempted theft, GBH or attempted GBH

220
Q

What is the mens rea of section 9(1)b?

A
  1. Know/be reckless that you are a trespasser

2. Have the mens rea for theft, attempted theft, GBH or attempted GBH

221
Q

What is the definition of entry?

A

Must be effective or substantial

222
Q

What are three key components when helping to define entry?

A
  • Entry of entire body in to building is not necessary
  • Neither is it necessary that the defendant is not capable of stealing
  • Using a foreign object (instrument or chil) likely counts as entry
223
Q

What are two authorities for entry?

A
  1. R v Brown - leaning through shop window = entry

2. R v Ryan - head and arm stuck inside = entry

224
Q

What is the definition of a building?

A

Very wide
Must be inhabited
Must have some sort of permanence

225
Q

What is the distinction when talking about part of a building?

A

A person may be legally allowed in to a building, but will become a trespasser if he enters a forbidden part of a building

226
Q

What are the two steps to defining a trespasser?

A
  1. Entered without consent or permission

2. Knew or was reckless to the fact that had no permission

227
Q

What is aggravated burglary?

A

If someone commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, weapon or explosive

228
Q

What comes under the definition of weapon?

A

Firearms: air guns, air pistols
Weapon of offence: article made or adapted to inflict injury
Explosives

229
Q

What is important about knowledge with aggravated burglary?

A

Must KNOW that they have the item with them

Do not have to intend to use it

230
Q

What does at the time mean with aggravated burglary?

A

For 9a at the time means at the time of entry

For 9b, at the time means at the time of the ulterior offence (GBH or theft)

231
Q

What is the actus reus for simple criminal damage?

A
  1. Damage or destruction
  2. Of property
  3. Belonging to another
232
Q

What is meant by damage or destruction? (authority)

A

Very wide definition
Need not be permanent damage
Drawings of a pavement with soluble chalk = damage [Hardman v Avon and Somerset]

233
Q

What is meant by of property?

A

Very wide definition

Any property of TANGIBLE nature

234
Q

What is meant by belonging to another?

A

Having control or a proprietary right

235
Q

What is the mens rea for simple criminal damage?

A
  1. Intend/reckless to damage/destroy property

2. Know or be reckless to know that property belongs to another

236
Q

What is the actus reus of aggravated criminal damage?

A
  1. Damage or destruction

2. Of property

237
Q

What is the mens rea for aggravated criminal damage?

A
  1. Intend or be reckless to whether any property is damaged or destroyed
  2. Intending or reckless to damage and destruction causing another’s life to be endangered
238
Q

What did R v Steer established about aggravated criminal damage?

A

Shot window, endangered a life

This was NOT criminal damage as the endangering of a life had not come from the criminal damage but from the bullet

239
Q

What are the 4 limbs to a defence of lawful excuse?

AND WHAT SECTION

A

Section 5(2)a

  1. Believed that he had consent of the person who was entitled to give permission to damage
  2. Believed that he had the consent of the person who he believed was entitled to give permission to the damage caused
  3. Believed he would have had the consent of the person who was entitled to give permission
  4. Believed that he would have had the consent of the person who he thought was entitled to give permission
240
Q

What happened in Denton (lawful excuse)?

A

Employer asked him to burn down property - lawful excuse as had consent

241
Q

What comes under section 5(2)b for lawful excuse?

A
  1. He believed that the property (his own or another’s) was in immediate need of protection
  2. He believed that the mens of protection was reasonable in the circumstances
242
Q

Can you use lawful excuse for aggravated criminal damage?

A

Only in self-defence

Eg if picks up glass to defend himself - criminal damage covered by lawful excuse

243
Q

Can you use pre-meditated measures in defence of property?

A

YES
Must be reasonable
Barbed wire fencing to protect property = √
Traps etc = not fine

244
Q

What is the actus reus of attempt?

A

To do an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence

245
Q

What is meant by more than merely preparatory?

A

Significant steps have to be taken towards the commission

246
Q

What is the key example of merely preparatory?

A

R v Jones

  • Defendant bought gun, shortened barrel, put on disguise, went to location, jumped in to car and pointed gun at victim
  • This was more than merely preparatory
247
Q

What is the mens rea for attempt offence?

A

An intent to commit the offence

248
Q

What is important about the mens rea of attempt?

A

It must be INTENT - recklessness will not suffice

249
Q

When may recklessness suffice for attempt?

A

In crimes involving ulterior mens rea

Eg aggravated criminal damage has the ulterior mens rea of endangering a life - this can be reckless

250
Q

How is impossibility assessed in attempt?

A

A person may be guilty even if commission of the offence is impossible

251
Q

Who is the principle offender?

A

The person who commits the actus reus elements of the criminal offence

252
Q

What is the actus reus for accomplice liability?

A

Aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of the offence

253
Q

What is the explanation and example for aiding an offence?

A

Helping assisting or supporting the principle

Looking out, providing a weapon or information, driving to scene of crime

254
Q

When does aiding have to be committed?

A

Before or during the principal offence

255
Q

What is the explanation and example for abetting the offence?

A

Wilfully encouraging the principal at the scene of the crime
Gestures or words of encouragement

256
Q

When does abetting have to be committed?

A

During the principal offence

257
Q

What is the explanation and example of counselling?

A

Instigating, soliciting or encouraging the principal offence

Providing information

258
Q

When does counselling have to be committed?

A

Before the principal offence

259
Q

What is the explanation and example of procuring?

A

To produce by one’s own endeavour

Spiking a friends drink, knowing he will drive

260
Q

When does procuring have to be committed?

A

Before the principal offence

261
Q

What is the mens rea for accomplice liability?

A
  1. Intention to do the act

2. Knowledge of the circumstances

262
Q

What is intention to do the act and two key parts?

A

Any intention to say the words or do the act
This can be even if he did not want to
Even if had a contractual duty to do something

263
Q

What is knowledge of the circumstances?

A
  1. The defendant must have had within his contemplation all the circumstances of the principal offence
  2. The defendant had within his contemplation the actus reus and mens rea of the offence
264
Q

Is there a need for specific knowledge? (authority)

A

NO
Maxwell v DPP Northern Ireland
Did not know what was going to happen but was aware there was going to be a criminal act

265
Q

Can an accomplice be charged with a different offence to the principal?

A

YES

Can be charged with murder and principal manslaughter if had the actus reus and mens rea

266
Q

What was the rule for going beyond the scope of the plan before 2016?

A

Foresight=intention

If there was mere foresight that the principal might commit the offence, then guilty

267
Q

What was the landmark case that changed going beyond the scope of the plan?

A

R v Jogee: Foresight now was only evidence for intent

268
Q

What is the general rule regarding withdrawal from the plan?

A

The degree of your assistance should match the level of your withdrawal

269
Q

What was the important case on withdrawal from the plan?

A

R v Becerra and Cooper: when burgling house said ‘there’s a bloke coming, let’s go’. Principal murdered this man. This was not sufficient withdrawal

270
Q

What is an innocent agent?

A

Someone who will not be charged, but the accomplice was acting through them - will likely be charged as a principal offender

Law (4 decks)

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