Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law > Criminal Law > Flashcards

Criminal Law Flashcards

1
Q

Define murder

A

The unlawful killing of another human being with or without a weapon using malice aforethought under the king’s peace

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

What is the actus Reus of murder

A

Causing a death of a human being

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

What is the mens rea of murder

A

Malice aforethought, intention to kill

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

How do you define a human being (murder)

A

Anyone who is born and breathing

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

Define the kings peace (murder)

A

Not at war

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

Define malice aforethought

A

The intention to kill or harm

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

What law does murder come under

A

Common law

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

What conviction do you get if you murder someone

A

Mandatory life sentence

No lesser sentence can be passed no matter circumstances

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

What are the 3 defences for murder in the Homicide Act 1957

A

Diminished Responsibility

Provocation

Suicide Pact

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

What act do the defences of murder come under

A

Homicide Act 1957

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

What are the three levels of the men’s rea

A

Direct intention

Indirect intention

Recklessness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Define direct intention (murder)

A

Meaning / wanting something to happen + making it happen (Mohan)

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

What is a case for direct intention (murder)

A

Mohan

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

Define indirect intention

A

D foresees outcome as a virtual certainty (woolin)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is a case for indirect intention

A

Woolin

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

Define Recklessness (murder)

A

D see’s the outcome as a possibility (Cunningham)

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

What case goes alongside recklessness (murder)

A

Cunningham

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

Define unlawful killing (murder)

A

Committed by an act or omission

A result crime

(R v Clegg)

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

What is a case for ‘the unlawful killing’ actus reus of murder

A

R v Clegg

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

Define king’s peace (murder)

A

Excludes the killing of alien enemies in the time of war (WW2)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Define ‘human being’ murder definition

A

A foetus is not a human being as a human being is a living being that must be born

(R v Inglis)

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

What is a case relating to the definition of human being (murder)

A

R v Inglis

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

What does malice aforethought mean

A

Intention to kill or cause GBH

(R v Vickers)

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

What is a case relating to the definition of malice aforethought

A

R v vickers

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

What does GBH mean

A

Serious or very serious

(R v Saunders)

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

What is a case relating to the definition of GBH

A

R v Saunders

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

Define assault

A

Common assault is a summary offence with a punishment of maximum 6 months imprisonment

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

What act does assault come in

A

Criminal justice act 1988

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

How did the House of Lords define assault

A

Assault is committed where the D intentionally or recklessly caused the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence

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

In what case did the House of Lords define assault

A

Fagan v MPC

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

What 4 factors make up the actus reus of assault

A

Victim must apprehend

Immediate

Unlawful

Personal violence

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

What does it mean for the victim to apprehend (Lamb)

A

V needs not to be put in fear but must be aware they are about to be subjected to violence R v Lamb

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

What does it mean for the victim to apprehend in assault (Logdon)

A

Victim apprehends immediate unlawful personal violence will be committed even if there is no actual threat of violence Logdon v DPP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Can silence be assault?

A

Yes as seen in R v Ireland

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

What does men’s rea mean

A

Guilty mind

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What is subjective recklessness

A

The D must realise there is an unjustifiable possible risk of the prohibited outcome occurring and D runs the risk

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

What is a case for men’s rea subjective reckleness

A

R v Cunningham - not guilty

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

What must the defendant have to have a mend rea

A

Subjective recklessness

Intention

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

What are the two types of intention

A

Direct

Oblique

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

What is direct intention

A

D has the aim, desire or purpose to bring about the prohibited offence

R V Monan

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

What is oblique intention

A

The prohibited outcome was a virtually certain concept and the D realised this

R v Woolen

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

Explain gross negligence and manslaughter

A

Negligence can form the men’s Rea of a crime where the D’s negligence is so gross and results in death.
D may be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter

R v Adomako

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

What is transferred malice

A

When the D has the men’s rea to comitt a crime against one victim but misses and commits a crime against another.
The men’s rea is transferred

R v Latimer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

What are weaknesses about intent

A

Whether oblique intent is a type of intention or whether it just describes a state of mind from which the jury can find intention if it wishes.

Academics argue recklessness should be judged objectively as D’s should be liable for even the unforeseen results of their conduct.

Proposal for reform Law comity defined recklessness different - person acts recklessly if he is aware of the risk of the prohibited outcome and it is unreasonable to take the risk

Intention defined as - if she or he acts to bring it about or D thought result was virtually certain consequence of actions

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

What is strict liability

A

The idea a person can be liable without fault on their part

No require for men’s rea e.g speeding

Strict liability often regulatory in nature, often not seen as ‘truly criminal’ often concern breaches of regulations

Alphacell v Woodward

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

Where do liability offences come from

A

Statute law - Health and safety act 1974
Common law - blasphemy R V Lemon

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

What is an example of statute law and strict liability crimes

A

Health and safety at work act 1974

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

What is an example of common law being a strict liability offence

A

Blasphemy

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

What is a state of affair crime (strict liability)

A

The D is guilty of an offence if he is responsible for a situation.
Being in charge of a motor vehicle under intoxication
s4 (2) road traffic act 1988

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

What is absolute liability (strict liability)

A

Where the D had not acted voluntary but still guilty
R V Larsonneur

51
Q

Why would strict liability be used

A

To deal with matters of social concern (R v Blake)

Promote a high degree of vigilance (Alphacell v Woodward)

Protecting the public from harm
(Harrow v Shah & Shah)

Promoting the main fence of high standards of care (Smedleys v Breed)

Easier to convict - avoid clogging up courts for routine matter

Dealing with regulatory

52
Q

Define assault

A

Assault is an act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force.
The defendant intends to cause fear of immediate unlawful personal violence

53
Q

What is the actual reus of assault

A

An act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force

54
Q

Explain the actual reus of assault in detail

A

Act - not an omission, including words spoken or written R v Constanza

In R v Ireland, it’s held silence can be assault

Apprehend immediate unlawful force - the acts of words must cause the victim to apprehend immediate force is going to be used against them. There is no assault if the situation is obvious that the defendant can not actually use force
e.g pointing an unloaded gun at someone who knows the gun is unloaded can not be assault
R v Lamb

Unlawful - if it is lawful there is no assault

Immediate - sudden
Smith v Chief superintendent of Woking police station

55
Q

Which case defines an act of assault

A

R v Constanza

Silence - R v Ireland

56
Q

In which case was silence held as an assault

A

R v Ireland

57
Q

What is a case for apprehend immediate unlawful force in assault

A

R v Lamb
Pointing an unloaded gun at someone who knows the gun is unloaded is not an assault

58
Q

What is a case for ‘immediate’ in assault

A

Smith v Chief superintendent of Woking Police Station

59
Q

What is the men’s Rea of assault

A

Intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence
or
Subjective recklessness to whether such fear is caused

MPC v Fagan

60
Q

What is the case for men’s Rea of assault

A

MPC v Fagan

61
Q

What offence is assault

A

Summary offence

62
Q

What statue is assault under

A

Criminal justice act 1988

63
Q

What is the maximum sentence for assault

A

Up to 6 months imprisonment

64
Q

What is battery

A

Battery or assault by beating is the second part of common assault.

The application of unlawful force to another person, intending either to apply unlawful physical force to another or being reckless as to whether unlawful force is applied.

65
Q

What is the maximum sentence for battery

A

Up to 6 months imprisonment

66
Q

What is the actus reus of battery

A

The application of unlawful force to another person. Force can include the slightest touching (Collin v Wilcock)

The offence must be unlawful, if could be an offence for a police officer to detain a person without violence if they do not intend to arrest the person
Program v DPP

Touching someone else clothes can be battery
R v Thomas
Court of appeal stated that touching someone’s clothes amounts the same as touching someone

Continuing act - battery must be committed

Indirect act - battery can be committed if defendant causes force to be applied but does not personally touch victim DPP v K

Omissions - omitting to perform an act is rarely battery however can be seen in case DPP v Santa-Bermudez

67
Q

What are the cases for actus reus for battery

A

Force - Collins v Wilcock

Unlawful - Pegram v DPP

Touching clothes - R v Thomas

Indirect - K v DPP

Omissions - DPP v Santa-Beemudez

68
Q

Describe battery without an assault

A

It is possible to have battery with no assault when the victim is unaware unlawful force is about to be used on them such as the attacker coming up unseen or victim is asleep

69
Q

What is theft

A

Dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it

70
Q

What is the actus reus of theft

A

Appropriating property belonging to another

71
Q

What is appropriation

A

The act of taking.
Physically taking an item, destroying property, switching price labels, tooling goods from a shop shelf.

Owner of property has rights to destroy, sell, lend, hire their property. Thief must do something which assumes at least one of the owners rights. R v Vinall

If d destroys victims property, this is still theft R v Morris

Consent to appropriation (Lawrence) implied consent is not consent.

Appropriation can take place at any time, appropriation can change to be ‘keeping’ or ‘dealing

72
Q

Explain property in theft

A

Includes money, personal things, real, intangible

Money - coins and bank notes

Real - land and property, taken by someone not in possession of land

Personal property - all moveable items such as books, jewellery, cars as well as items like pens R v Kelly and Lindsay

Things in action - enforced by taking legal action, a cheque is a thing in action

Intangible - other rights which have no physical presence such as data in computer games
Knowledge can not be stolen Oxford v Miss

73
Q

What is factual causation and what test is used + a case

A

If the outcome would have happened regardless of D’s conduct D is not the cause

But for test

R v White

74
Q

What is a case for factual causation

A

R v White

75
Q

What is legal causation + case

A

D’s conduct need not be the main event of outcome

R v Benge

Legal causation is established if D’s conduct only needed to be more than a minimal cause of the outcome

76
Q

Can medical negligence break the chain of causation + case

A

No unless extraordinary and unusual

R v Jordan

77
Q

What is the thin skull rule

A

D must take V as they find them

78
Q

Can a victims actions break the chain of causation

A

Not if they was within range of reasonable response, forseeable by the ordinary person

79
Q

What are offences against the person

A

Common assault
Battery

80
Q

Which law does assault come under

A

S39 criminal justice act 1988

81
Q

What is the actus reus common assault

A

V must apprehend immediately unlawful violence will be used

Apprehend - general awareness of violence, need not be put in fear but must be aware R V Lamb
Silence can amount for assault R v Ireland

Immediate - V apprehend assault will happen in reasonable time, threats of future violence will not amount R v Smith

Unlawful violence - does not need physical violence just fear of violence

82
Q

Cases for actus reus common assault

A

R v Lamb

R v Ireland

R v Smith

83
Q

Men’s Rea of common assault

A

Intention or recklessness to cause apprehension of immediate unlawful violence R v Cunningham

84
Q

What is the punishment of assault and battery

A

6 months imprisonment

85
Q

Actus reus of battery

A

Application of unlawful force to a victim who does not consent

Application of unlawful force - lawful excuse will not amount, force is misleading as any touch will Suffice if it goes beyond accepted norms Collins v Wilcock

Does not consent - no consent is battery

86
Q

Men’s rea of assault

A

R v Mohan - intention to apply unlawful force

R v Cunningham - recklessness D’s conduct will apply unlawful force

87
Q

What did law commission suggest about reform for battery and assault

A

Terms are confusing should be called ‘threatened assault’ and “physical assault’

88
Q

What act is actual bodily harm under

A

Offences against the person act 1861

89
Q

What is the actus reus of actual bodily harm

A

Assault or battery occasioning ABH

Assault or battery - all elements of assault and battery law must be present DPP v Taylor

Occasioning - causation must be factual and legal R v White

ABH - any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim that’s more than trivial but less than serious R v Donovan

90
Q

Cases for actus Reus of ABH

A

DPP v Taylor

R v White

R v Donovan

91
Q

Men’s Rea of ABH

A

Intention or recklessness to cause assault or battery
Need no intention or recklessness for injury’s R v Roberts

92
Q

Maximum sentence of ABH

A

5 years inprisonment

93
Q

5 evaluation points ABH

A

Actus reus and men’s rea do not match (correspondence principle)

Sentence is same as S20 GBH

Law reform: S47 be replaced with intentionally recklessly cause injury

Should be new offence aggravated assault with max sentence 12 months

94
Q

What is wounding + case

A

A break to the continuity of the whole of the skin (both layers)

Marority v Brooks

95
Q

What does GBH mean

A

Serious or very serious

96
Q

Actus Reus of S20 GBH

A

Unlawfully wound or inflict GBH on another person

Unlawfully - covers those acting in self defence or prevention of crime as well as sports R v Hopley

Wound - break continuity of skin Moriarty v Brookes

GBH - serious or very serious DPP v Smith
Including psychiatric injury R v Burstow

Inflict - direct or indirect application of force R v Wilson

97
Q

Men’s Rea for S20 GBH

A

D has intention or is reckless to the causing of some harm

R V Savage

98
Q

Cases for S20 actus reus GBH

A

R v Hopley

Morarity v Brooks

R v Burstow

R v Savage

99
Q

Actus Reus for S18 GBH

A

Unlawfully wound or inflict GBH on another person

Unlawfully - covers those acting in self defence or prevention of crime as well as sports R v Hopley

Wound - break continuity of skin Moriarty v Brookes

GBH - serious or very serious DPP v Smith
Including psychiatric injury R v Burstow

Inflict - direct or indirect application of force R v Wilson

100
Q

Men’s Rea S18 GBH

A

Intention to cause really serious harm R v Woolin

101
Q

4 criticisms s20 GBH

A

actus reus and men’s Rea do not match so d may be held liable for outcome they didn’t foresee (correspondence principe)

Penalty for s20 can only be ascertained by reference to a chain of interlocking statues

Max sentebce is same for less serious ABH doesn’t make sense

Not all wounds constitute a level of harm commensurate with s20 or 18 offence

102
Q

What where law commission reforfms for GBH

A

S20 replaced with offence of recklessly causing serious injury - sentence of 7 years

S18 replaced with intentionally causing serious injury - max life in prison

103
Q

Case for kings peace murder

A

R v Blackman

104
Q

what is express malice

A

D desires to kill or virtually certain their conduct will result in V’s death
R v woolin

105
Q

What is implied malice

A

D desires to cause really serious harm or is virtually certain to result in really serious harm and d realises this

R v Mohan

106
Q

Criticisms murder

A

Implied malice unfair - someone who did not foresee death out in same category as serial killer

Each element of murder has developed through individual cases meaning it lacks coherence

107
Q

Proposals for murder reform

A

First degree murder and second degree
First - killing intentionally or killing where an intention to do serious injury coupled with awareness of serious risk of causing death

Second - killing where offender intended to do serious injury or killing where offender intended to cause some injury and was aware of serious risk of causing death

108
Q

What act does diminished responsibility come under

A

Coroners and justice act 2009

109
Q

If successfully use diminished responsibility what does crime change too

A

From murder to voluntary manslaughter

110
Q

What 4 things does D have to prove for diminished responsibility

A

Abnormality of mental functioning that is a recognised mental condition which causes substantial impairment to explain the defendants act omission or killing

Abnormality of mental functioning - state of mind so different from ordinary. Reasonable man would term it abnormal R v Bryne- expert advice must show this

Recognised medical condition - WHO international classification of disease R v Hobson

Substantial impairment - to understand nature of own conduct
Form rational judgement
Exercise self control R v Golds

Explain D’s act or on mission
Abnormality more than minimal cause of killing. Jury set aside intoxication and focus on abnormality R v Wood

111
Q

Cases for diminished responsibility

A

R v Bryne
R v Hobson
R v Golds
R v Wood

112
Q

What is sentence of diminished responsibility

A

Avoids mandatory life sentence
Max sentence is still life

113
Q

Weaknesses of diminished responsibility

A

Burden of proof is on the defendant contradicts idea of innocent until proven guilty and fair trial - article 6 ECHR

Law commission argued should be developmental immaturity limb to defence, to cater for those under 18 with insufficient judgement and understanding to be found guilty of murder

114
Q

What does successful plea of loss of control lead to

A

Murder -> voluntary manslaughter

115
Q

What act does loss of control come under

A

S54 coroners and justice act

116
Q

What is a loss of control

A

Loss of the ability to act with considered judgement or normal powers of reasoning. Loss of control can be claimed after a delay

117
Q

What are triggers of loss of control

A

Fear
Anger

118
Q

Describe fear trigger of loss of control

A

Does not need to be reasonable just genuine
R v Clegg

119
Q

What is anger trigger of loss of control

A

Things said or done or both that constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and cause D to have justifiable sense of being seriously wrong

Said or done - need not come from V R v Davies

Extremely grave - let jury decide

Justifiable sense of wrong - use objective test what would reasonable person think

120
Q

Restrictions of loss of control

A

Sexual infidelity not enough on its own R v Clinton

If D incited can not rely on fear or anger

121
Q

What are relevant circumstances of loss of control

A

Epilepsy
Unemployment
Depression
Sexual abuse suffered as child (Hill)

122
Q

Strengths of loss of control

A

Old law provocation reformed to provide more protection for victims eg sexual infidelity

Offers more protection to bettered women who may not have been able to satisfy requirements under old law for loss of control suffer

Objective test is illogical as person with normal degree of tolerance would not kill in first place

If partial defence didn’t exist jury may acquit D out of sympathy

123
Q

Weakness loss of control

A

Badly drafted eg loss of control not defined and left to jury

Sexual infidelity not defined and hurt supposed to disregard when considering anger trigger but can account for objective test - confusing

Defence insufficiently available to D’s if courts continue to interpret narrowly

124
Q

Potential reform for loss of control

A

Provoked extreme emotional disturbance

Law (10 decks)

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