Criminal Law Flashcards
(181 cards)
1
Q
Common Assault Act
A
s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
2
Q
R v Nelson
A
Assault requirements - “for the d to have done something of a physical kind which causes someone else to apprehend that they are about to be struck”
3
Q
AR of Assault
A
Cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful violence
4
Q
MR of Assault
A
Intention or recklessness for AR
5
Q
Lamb v DPP
A
No apprehension = no assault
6
Q
Smith v Working Police
A
Threat of assault can be immediate even through a closed window
7
Q
Tuberville v Savage
A
Words can negate an assault
8
Q
R v Ireland
A
Silent phone calls can be assault
9
Q
R v Constanza
A
Written words can be assault
10
Q
AR of Battery
A
Application of unlawful physical force
11
Q
MR of Battery
A
Intention or recklessness for AR
12
Q
DPP v K
A
An indirect act can amount to a battery
13
Q
R v Thomas
A
Touching clothes can amount to battery
14
Q
Collins v Wilcock
A
The slightest of touches can amount to battery
15
Q
R v Venna
A
MR for battery “intentional or reckless application of unlawful physical force”
16
Q
ABH Act
A
s47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
17
Q
AR of ABH
A
Assault or battery which causes ABH
18
Q
MR of ABH
A
The MR for assault or battery
19
Q
Miller 1954
A
Definition of ABH - “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the V”
20
Q
T v DPP
A
Loss of consciousness can amount to ABH
21
Q
DPP v Smith
A
Cutting hair can amount to ABH if it is a substantial amount.
22
Q
Chan Fook
A
Fear or panic is not enough for ABH
23
Q
R v Savage
A
MR for ABH does not need to be demonstrative of the harm caused
24
Q
GBH Act and Sections
A
s20 and s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
25
s20 GBH definition
"unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict GBH on any other person, either with or without a weapon or instrument"
26
AR of s20 GBH
unlawfully wound or inflict GBH
27
MR of s20 GBH
Intention to cause harm or recklessness as to whether the harm would occur or not
28
JC v Eisenhower
Rupturing a blood vessel is not enough for s20
29
Wood 1830
Broken bones are not enough for GBH if there is no break in the skin
30
Saunders
GBH only needs to be serious harm
31
Bollom
The severity of injuries should be assessed according to V age and health (GBH)
32
Burstow
Serious psychiatric injury can amount to GBH
33
R v Dica
Biological harm can amount to GBH, eg. HIV
34
Cunningham
GBH does not require ill will towards V
35
Parmenter
No need to foresee the level of injury caused, but should be aware of the risk of some harm
36
AR of s18 GBH
Unlawfully wound or inflict GBH
37
MR of s18 GBH
Intention to do some GBH, resist or prevent the unlawful apprehension or detainer of any person (recklessness is not enough)
38
R v Taylor
Intent to wound is not enough for s18 GBH
39
Morrison
D intended or realised some risk of harm and took that risk
40
Moloney
The foresight of consequences is not intention
41
Nedrick
Harm caused needs to be a virtual certainty and the D realised this
42
Definition of Murder
"the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought, express or implied"
43
RE: A
Not unlawful if it is avoiding evil, the actions go no further than avoiding the evil and the evil caused is not disproportionate to the one avoided
44
R v Inglis
"mercy killing is murder"
45
R v Adams
"a doctor is entitled to relieve pain and suffering, even if such measures shorten life"
46
R v Cox
Has to actively bring about death
47
Malcherek and Steel
Injuries caused death as the medical treatment was normal
48
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
Doctors should act in the best interest of the patient (stop feeding patient in a permanent vegetative state with unexpected recovery)
49
AG Ref No. 3
A foetus is not a reasonable creature in being
50
R v Clegg
A soldier acting under his duty can be guilty of murder if excessive force is used
51
R v Vickers
Intent to do GBH is enough for murder
52
Diminished Responsibility Cases
Voluntary manslaughter
53
Ahluwalia
Battered women's syndrome
54
R v Martin
Paranoid personality disorder
55
R v Wood
Alcohol dependency disorder
56
R v Tandy
Alcoholism only considered if they cannot exercise any self control
57
Lloyd
Must not be a trivial impairment
58
Golds
Up to the jury to decide if they have a substantial impairment
59
Loss of Control Cases
Voluntary manslaughter
60
R v Jewell
Shot V at point-blank range
61
R v Ward
Fear of serious violence towards another person is a qualifying trigger
62
Zebedee
Grave character and justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
63
R v Hatter
The end of a relationship is not a qualifying trigger
64
R v Bowyer
V could say anything to get D to leave, no justifiable sense of being wronged
65
R v Dawes
Infidelity is not a qualifying trigger
66
R v Clinton
Infidelity can be considered with other qualifying triggers
67
Asmelash
D was intoxicated, this is not taken into account
68
Unlawful Act
Involuntary manslaughter
69
R v Franklin
A civil wrong is not an unlawful act
70
R v Lamb
no fear = no assault = no unlawful act
71
R v Lowe
The unlawful act cannot be an omission
72
R v Larkin
Doesn't need to be aimed at the person, only has to be dangerous
73
Goodfellow
The unlawful act can be aimed at property
74
Dawson
The act has to cause more than fear
75
R v Church
Objective test - sober and reasonable person
76
JM and SM
Does not have to foresee specific harm
77
Bristow, Dunn and Delay
Burglary carried out in way harm is foreseeable
78
Newbury and Jones
Intent only needed for the unlawful act
79
Gross Negligence
Involuntary manslaughter
80
Adomako
Requirements - for D to have a duty of care to V and breach that duty in a grossly negligent way causing death
81
Singh
Landlords duty to maintain their property
82
Litchfield
Duty to protect their crew from harm
83
Wacker
You can assume a duty of care
84
Evans
Mothers duty to her child
85
Misra and Srivastava
Disregard for safety causing death
86
Act for property offences
Theft Act 1968 (s1-6 theft, s8 robbery, s9 burglary)
87
s1 theft definition
Dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive
88
R v Gosh
Objective + subjective test (honest and reasonable)
89
Ivey v Genting Casinos
A subjective test is not necessary
90
Pitham v Hehl
Right to sell
91
R v Morris
Assume any of the rights
92
Lawrence
Consent doesn't prevent appropriation
93
Gomez
Consent can be taken by deception
94
Hinks
Can appropriate voluntary gifts
95
Kelley and Lindsay
Body parts can be property
96
Oxford v Moss
Confidential info is not property
97
R v Turner
Can steal own property if someone else has a proprietary interest in it
98
R v Woodman
Can control property you weren't aware you owned
99
Ricketts
Property of giver/charity
100
Davidge and Bunnett
Legal obligation s5(3)
101
AG Ref No 1
Obligation to return s5(4)
102
R v Gilks
Moral obligation, do not need to return
103
R v Lavender
If D treats property as their own they have intent
104
R v Lloyd
Take all goodness, virtue and practical value
105
R v Velumyl
Must return the exact property
106
Definition of Robbery
s8(1) - Steals and, immediately before or at the time of doing so, uses force or seeks to put another person in fear of violence being used then and there
107
AR for Robbery
theft with force/threat of force immediately before or at the time
108
MR for Robbery
MR for theft and intent to use force
109
R v Waters
Not theft if s6 cannot be established
110
Concoran v Anderton
Even if D leaves without item, robbery is completed
111
R v Clouden
Up to jury to decide on force
112
B and R v DPP
No need to show V felt threatened if implied by Ds actions
113
P v DPP
Force must be direct contact
114
R v Lockley
Theft cannot be met before force is established
115
R v Raphael
Wide interpretation of s6 needed for robbery
116
R v Hale
Robbery is a continuing act until all element of theft are met
117
AR of Burglary
Entry of a building or part of a building as a trespasser
118
MR of Burglary
s9(1)(a) intent before and intention of theft, GBH or criminal damage
s9(1)(b) intent after and intention of theft, GBH or criminal damage
119
R v Brown
"effective entry"
120
R v Ryan
Part of body enters building
121
B and S v Leathley
Freezer container on sleepers, connected to electricity not B/PoaB
122
Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould
Lorry trailer is not B/PoaB
123
Walkington
Another part of a building eg behind shop counter
124
R v Collins
Permission to enter
125
R v Smith and Jones
Going beyond permission given
126
s2(1)(a), (b) and (c)
s2(2)
They believe they have the right to appropriate, consent, cannot find the owner
Willing to pay for the property
127
s4(3)
| s4(4)
wild plants unless commercial purposes
| wild animals unless reduced to property
128
M'Naghten
3 elements for insanity
□ defect of reason
□ caused by a disease of the mind
□ nature or quality of the act/legally wrong
129
Clarke 1972
Absentmindedness is not enough
130
R v Coley
A D who is voluntarily intoxicated and suffers a psychotic episode cannot claim insanity
131
R v Kemp
Hardening of arteries was a disease of the mind
132
R v Sullivan
Epilepsy is a disease of the mind
133
R v Burgess
Sleepwalking can be a disease of the mind
134
Oye
Understanding of nature and quality of the act
135
Johnson
Understand the act is legally wrong
136
Windle
Wording can show he understood the act was wrong
137
Hill v Baxter
Concept of no-fault if D is in an automatic state due to external cause (automatism)
138
R v T
Exceptional stress or PTSD can be an external factor that may cause automatism
139
AG Ref No 2
Total destruction of voluntary control
140
R v Bailey
Insufficient evidence
141
DPP v Beard
So drunk, couldn't form MR
142
AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
Had MR before intoxication = guilty
143
DPP v Majewski
Reckless as to becoming intoxicated, enough for basic intent
144
R v Harris
Alcoholic didn't drink for a few days and suffered alcohol-induced hallucinations so can claim intoxication
145
R v Kingston
Ds coffee was spiked, he sexually assaulted a 15yo boy. He had the MR
146
R v O'Grady
Doesn't have MR for murder but was reckless for manslaughter, drunken mistake/hallucination.
147
Jaggard v Dickinson
Broke into the wrong house, her friend would have consented. The exception to intoxicated mistake.
148
Self-defence
General defence
149
Criminal Law Act 1967 s3
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances
150
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
(a) may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of necessary action; and
(b) honestly and instinctively thought it was necessary
151
R v Hussain
If force is used after the danger has passed, self-defence is not available
152
Crime and Courts Act 2013 s43
Wider defence to householders where an intruder enters their property
153
CaCA s76(5)(a)
For degree of force to be reasonable it must not be grossly disproportionate
154
To be a householder requirements
□ force must be used by D while in or partly in a building that is a dwelling
□ D must not be a trespasser
□ D must have believed V to be a trespasser
155
Collins v Secretary State for Justice
S76(5)(a) /= any degree of force, the jury is to decide if it was reasonable
156
R v Gladstone Williams
D must be judged on the facts they genuinely believed them to be, even if they are mistaken, regardless of whether the mistake was unreasonable.
157
AG Ref (No 2 of 1983)
Can make preparations if you fear an attack
158
R v Bird
Striking first doesn't mean force is unnecessary
159
R v Clegg (Defence)
Self-defence not available if there is no danger when shot is fired, force is excessive
160
s76(3) CJIA
(3) Reasonable force must be judged by the circumstances the D believed them to be
161
s76(4) CJIA
(4) If D claims to have held a particular belief
(a) the reasonableness of that belief is relevant
(b) If held, D is entitled to s76(3) whether or not
(i) it was mistaken, or
(ii) the mistake was a reasonable one
162
R v Martin (Anthony)
Personality disorders can not be taken into account when considering self-defence
Force is excessive
163
Olugboja
There is a difference between real consent and submission
164
Clarence
Consent was irrelevant as she was not aware of her husbands STI
165
R v Dica (consent)
Should be made fully aware of the risks
166
Konzani
If D would not have cont. knowing all the facts, then consent is not informed or valid
167
Wilson and Pringle
"Ordinary jostlings" of everyday life are not battery
168
R v Barnes
Breach of rules in sport must be a serious one for there to be an offence
```
Consider:
Intention of injury
Reckless
During or after consented activity
Within rules
```
169
AG Ref No. 6
Exclusions from consent
```
Games/sports
Surgical interference
Tattooing/piercings
Horseplay
Dangerous exhibitions
```
170
R v Brown
5 consenting men convicted of sexual assault occasioning ABH and malicious wounding, none needed medical attention. It was considered a case of public policy and protection against a 'cult of violence' (homophobia)
171
R v Wilson
Branded his wife, was not unlawful despite medical attention being needed unlike in the case of Brown
172
R v Aitken
Can have an honest but mistaken belief of consent.
173
R v Jones
Genuine mistaken belief in 'rough and undisciplined horseplay' could be a defence even if the belief was unreasonable.
174
Re: F
It is lawful to operate or give medical treatment if they cannot consent and it is the common duty to do so.
175
Mitchell 1983
mens rea can transfer if v dies as a direct result
176
Gnango 2011
Intent to kill but mistakenly kills another, guilty via transferred malice.
177
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
formed the mens rea and continued the act, this is transferred malice
178
R v Pagett
Own acts can be novus actus interveniens
179
R v Jordan
Medical treatment can be novus actus interveniens if it is the direct cause of death
180
R v Blaue
Thin Skull Rule - legal causation
181
R v White
'but for?' - Factual
