Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

CRIMINAL LAW > CRIMINAL LAW > Flashcards

CRIMINAL LAW Flashcards

(124 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

What is the principle established in Gibbins and Proctor regarding omissions?

A

Omission or failure to act can make a person liable for an offence of murder if there is a duty due to a relationship, such as a parent failing to feed a child.

Deliberate failure to act can be interpreted as intent to kill or cause GBH.

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

What was the ruling in Stone and Dobinson related to omissions?

A

A sister and brother-in-law were found guilty of manslaughter for failing to help their malnourished sister, breaching their duty of care.

They had undertaken a voluntary duty of care.

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

What does the case of Pittwood illustrate about contractual duty?

A

A railway worker was found guilty of manslaughter for omitting to shut the gates, leading to a fatal accident.

This highlights the implications of failing to fulfill a contractual duty.

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

What is the significance of the Dytham case regarding duty through official position?

A

An officer was convicted for misconduct for failing to intervene in a fight, demonstrating neglect of duty.

Official position can create specific duties to act.

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

What did the court decide in Bland (Airedale) regarding life support?

A

Doctors were allowed to withdraw life support from a patient in a vegetative state, as it was in the patient’s best interests.

The original injury remained the cause of death despite the withdrawal of support.

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

What is the ‘but for’ test in causation as demonstrated in Paggett?

A

A defendant was found guilty because the victim would not have died ‘but for’ his actions of using her as a human shield.

This establishes a direct link between the defendant’s action and the victim’s death.

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

What does the ‘thin-skull rule’ entail as seen in Blaue?

A

Defendants must take their victim as they find them, meaning they are liable for the consequences even if the victim has pre-existing vulnerabilities.

This principle holds even if an ordinary person wouldn’t suffer the same consequences.

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

In the context of causation, what did the Jordan case clarify?

A

A doctor’s intervening act was deemed to break the chain of causation when it was palpably wrong and the direct cause of death.

Intervening acts must be significantly erroneous to absolve the defendant of liability.

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

What principle does the case of Smith (1959) illustrate about medical treatment?

A

Medical treatment generally does not break the chain of causation unless it is independent from the defendant’s acts.

Poor medical treatment affecting recovery does not absolve the defendant of liability.

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

What occurred in the Malcherek case regarding life support?

A

The defendant was held liable even after life support was turned off, as it did not break the chain of causation.

The original act causing the injury remained the substantial cause of death.

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

What does the Roberts case signify regarding a victim’s own act?

A

If a defendant causes a victim to act in a reasonably foreseeable way, any resulting injury is considered to be caused by the defendant.

This principle ties the defendant’s actions to the victim’s response.

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

What is the definition of oblique intent as per R v Woollin?

A

Oblique intent arises when death or GBH is a virtually certain consequence, and the defendant realizes this.

This allows for intent to be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the act.

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

How is specific intent defined in the context of criminal law?

A

Specific intent requires the mens rea of intention, meaning the defendant must intend the prohibited consequence.

Examples include murder and s.18 OAPA 1861.

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

What are basic intent offences?

A

Basic intent offences require recklessness as part of the mens rea.

Examples include manslaughter and various property offences.

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

What does the term ‘transferred malice’ refer to as established in Latimer?

A

Transferred malice occurs when a defendant aims at one person but accidentally harms another, making them liable if the intent was for a similar crime.

It allows for accountability even when the target is different.

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

What is the significance of Fagan’s case regarding continuing acts?

A

A defendant can be guilty if, during a continuing act, they have the necessary mens rea at any point.

This principle allows for flexibility in assessing culpability.

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

What is the definition of assault under s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988?

A

Assault is defined as an act which causes the victim to apprehend immediate, unlawful force.

The mens rea involves intention or recklessness as to causing fear of force.

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

What constitutes battery under s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988?

A

Battery is the application of unlawful force to another person, which can include the slightest touching, Thomas.

Mens rea requires intention or recklessness regarding the application of force.

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

What is the maximum sentence for assault and battery as summary offences?

A

The maximum sentence is six months’ imprisonment and/or a £5000 fine.

Certain circumstances can elevate them to either-way offences.

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

What is the definition of S47 ABH under the OAPA 1861?

A

S47 ABH is an assault or battery that causes actual bodily harm, triable either way with a maximum sentence of five years.

Mens rea includes intention or recklessness regarding causing fear of unlawful force.

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

What injuries can constitute GBH under s.20 OAPA 1861?

A

Injuries include:
* Breaking someone’s nose
* Knocking someone’s teeth out
* Breaking someone’s jaw
* Clinical depression or PTSD

GBH can result from a combination of injuries.

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

What is required for a conviction under s.18 GBH OAPA 1861?

A

Specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm is required, meaning the defendant must intend to cause serious injury.

Recklessness or mere intention to wound is insufficient.

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

What does the term ‘murder’ signify in criminal law?

A

Murder is a common law offence not defined by any Act.

It encompasses intentional killing and is subject to various legal interpretations.

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

What is required under s.18 for causing GBH?

A

Specific intent to cause GBH or to resist arrest while intending to cause injury.

In R v Morrison (1989), the court found that recklessness was insufficient; intent to cause serious harm was necessary.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
What does murder constitute as per common law?
Unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the King’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied. ## Footnote Murder is defined by common law and not by any Act of Parliament.
26
What is the actus reus of murder?
Act or omission which causes the death of the victim. ## Footnote In Gibbins v Proctor, it was established that the defendant must have killed.
27
What does 'reasonable creature in being' refer to in murder?
Legal definition of ‘human being’ – a foetus does not meet criteria, must be outside of womb. ## Footnote The test for death is 'brain death' as established in Malcherek.
28
Under what circumstances is killing considered lawful?
If the killing is in self-defense, defense of another, or the prevention of crime using reasonable force, it is not unlawful.
29
What is mens rea in the context of murder?
Malice aforethought, express or implied, meaning intent to kill or commit grievous bodily harm.
30
Can a person be guilty of murder without intending to kill?
Yes, as established in Vickers.
31
What are the two types of intent applicable to murder?
Direct intent and oblique intent.
32
Define direct intent in the context of murder.
The defendant intended to bring about the prohibited consequence.
33
Define oblique intent in the context of murder.
Defendant’s aim or purpose was not to bring about the consequence (the death), but foresight of death or serious injury is sufficient.
34
What did Matthews and Alleyne establish regarding intent?
Foresight of virtual certainty of consequences was intention: murder.
35
Does transferred malice apply to murder?
Transferred malice applies to murder, even if the defendant is unaware of a second victim’s presence.
36
What is the mandatory sentence for murder?
Mandatory life sentence, with the judge deciding the minimum term before release on license.
37
What is 'loss of control' in the context of voluntary manslaughter?
A partial defence available to the charge of murder, where the defendant lost self-control while committing the act.
38
What must be proven for a successful loss of control defence?
Defendant must have lost self-control, with a qualifying trigger present.
39
What are the qualifying triggers under s55 for loss of control?
* D fears serious violence from the victim against them or another * Extremely grave character circumstances causing a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged * Cannot be sexual infidelity.
40
What test is applied to determine the reasonableness of the defendant's reaction in loss of control?
Objective test for the jury, considering a person of the same sex and age with normal tolerance and self-restraint.
41
What is the burden of proof in loss of control cases?
It is on the prosecution to disprove the defendant's suggestion of the defence.
42
What was the ruling in R v Jewell (2014) regarding loss of control?
Insufficient evidence of losing self-control as the defendant had a 'survival kit'.
43
What does diminished responsibility entail?
A partial defence reducing murder to voluntary manslaughter due to an abnormality of mental functioning.
44
What must be proven for diminished responsibility?
Abnormality arose from a recognised medical condition, substantially impairing ability to: * Understand the nature of conduct * Form a rational judgement * Exercise self-control.
45
What was established in Byrne (1960) regarding mental functioning?
Abnormality of mind covers all aspects of the mind's activities, including will power.
46
Can voluntary intoxication be grounds for diminished responsibility?
Voluntary acute intoxication cannot be grounds for diminished responsibility as per Dowds (2012).
47
What is the maximum sentence for voluntary manslaughter?
Life imprisonment with consideration of aggravating/mitigating factors.
48
What is unlawful act manslaughter?
An unlawful killing where the defendant does not have the mens rea for murder.
49
What constitutes the actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter?
* Defendant committed an unlawful act * Act must be objectively dangerous * Act must cause the death.
50
What is the definition of 'appropriation' in the Theft Act 1968?
Assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation.
51
What does 'property' include under the Theft Act 1968?
Money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and intangible property.
52
What does property include under s4.1?
Money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property ## Footnote Intangible property includes items like copyright of song lyrics.
53
What are 'things in action'?
Items that can only be enforced by a court action.
54
What does s4.3 exclude?
Wild plants unless taken for reward, sale or other commercial purpose.
55
What does s4.4 exclude?
Wild creatures unless they have been tamed or kept in captivity.
56
Under what condition can body parts be included in property under s4?
If they have been treated in some way, Kelly and Lindsay.
57
What was the conclusion of Oxford v Moss?
Taking an examination paper was not theft because the defendant intended to return it.
58
What does s5.1 state about property belonging to another?
Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession/control of it or having in it any proprietary right or interest.
59
What does s5.3 imply about property received from another?
If there is an obligation to deal with it in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded as belonging to another, Davidge v Bunnett.
60
Is it possible to steal your own property?
Yes, if it is under someone else’s possession/control or someone else has a legal interest in it.
61
Can a person possess or control property without knowing it is there?
Yes, as established in Woodman (1974).
62
What is considered theft in relation to overpaid wages?
Not paying back overpaid wages is considered theft.
63
What does s2.1a state about dishonesty?
It is not dishonest if the person believes they have the right to deprive the other of it.
64
What is the objective test shown in Ivey (2017)?
Whether the ordinary, reasonable person would consider the defendant’s actions dishonest.
65
What type of test does Ghosh represent in assessing dishonesty?
Subjective test regarding the defendant's awareness of how ordinary and honest people would regard their actions.
66
What constitutes an intention to permanently deprive under s6?
An intention to treat the property as his own to dispose of, regardless of others' rights.
67
What was the ruling in Velumyl (1989)?
Taking money from an employer's safe with the intention to return it was sufficient for an intention to permanently deprive.
68
What was the outcome in Lloyd (1985)?
Borrowing films and copying them did not constitute theft as all goodness or virtue was not gone.
69
What does s8 of the Theft Act 1968 define as robbery?
A person is guilty of robbery if he steals and uses force or puts someone in fear of force immediately before or at the time of doing so.
70
What is required for the actus reus of robbery?
Appropriation of property belonging to another, using force or putting someone in fear of force.
71
What does the mens rea for robbery include?
Dishonesty, intent to permanently deprive, and intention or recklessness to use force.
72
What was established in Corcoran and Anderton regarding robbery?
Sufficient force exists even if the bag is dropped and not taken away.
73
What is the maximum sentence for theft?
7 years.
74
What does the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 cover?
All indictable and either way offences when tried on indictment.
75
What is the actus reus for an attempt?
The defendant must have done something more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence.
76
What does the mens rea for an attempt require?
The same intention as would be required for the full offence.
77
What was the ruling in White (1910)?
Convicted of attempted murder despite the victim dying of a heart attack before drinking the poison.
78
What is the burden of proof for insanity?
On the defence, must be proved on the balance of probabilities.
79
What are the three components of the McNaughten Rules?
* Defect of reason * Result of a disease of the mind * Not knowing the nature and quality of the act or that it is wrong.
80
What is defined as automatism?
An act done by the muscles without any control from the mind.
81
What are examples of external causes of automatism?
* A blow to the head * An attack by a swarm of bees * A sneezing fit * Hypnotism * The effect of taking a drug.
82
When can self-induced automatism be a defence?
If it results from some perfectly appropriate action, but with unanticipated results.
83
What was the outcome in Bailey (1983)?
Court of Appeal allowed the defence of automatism for a specific intent crime.
84
What is the result of a successful insanity defence?
Leads to a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
85
If an automative state results from some kind of improper action or failure by the defendant, can automatism be a defence?
Automatism will not be a defence to basic intent offences if D knew, or knew of the risk, that if they became an automaton they might engage in dangerous or aggressive conduct.
86
What was the outcome of Bailey (1983)?
The Court of Appeal said the decision to deny the defence of automatism to a specific intent offence was wrong.
87
What was the significance of Hardie (1984)?
Automative state resulted from perfectly appropriate action, but with unanticipated results. Convicted of basic intent crime. His conviction was quashed as he had not been reckless, and the defence of automatism should have been considered.
88
What is required to show intoxication as a defence?
It must be shown that the defendant was so intoxicated by the substance that they were unable to form the mens rea of the offence.
89
What factors determine the guilt of a defendant concerning intoxication?
* Whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary * Whether the offence charged is one of specific or basic intent.
90
Why is the law on intoxication policy-based?
Intoxication is a major factor in the commission of many crimes, and there is a need to balance the rights of the defendant and the victim.
91
What is voluntary intoxication?
Where the defendant has chosen to take an intoxicating substance.
92
What is the significance of Sheehan and Moore regarding voluntary intoxication?
It is for the prosecution to prove whether the defendant had the drunken intent.
93
What did Lipman (1970) establish about being charged with specific intent offences while voluntarily intoxicated?
D may be charged with both a specific and basic intent offence, and it is up to the jury to decide whether the defendant had the mens rea for the specific intent offence.
94
What is the ruling in Gallagher (1963) concerning mens rea and intoxication?
Defendant formed mens rea before becoming intoxicated, so was convicted of murder.
95
What is the stance on voluntary intoxication for basic intent offences?
Voluntary intoxication is not a defence for basic intent offences.
96
Which case established that becoming intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct?
Majewski (1977).
97
What was the ruling in R v Allen (1988) regarding intoxication?
D was unable to rely on his intoxicated state to negate the mens rea, as offence was basic intent - even though he didn't know how intoxicated he would get from homemade wine.
98
What is involuntary intoxication?
Situations where the defendant did not know that they were taking an intoxicating substance.
99
What can a defendant argue if intoxication happens through no fault of their own?
They can argue they did not form the mens rea, regardless of if the offence is specific or basic intent.
100
What was the outcome of Kingston (1994) regarding involuntary intoxication?
If a defendant had formed the necessary mens rea before becoming involuntarily intoxicated, intoxication could not be a defence.
101
What determines the defence regarding intoxicated mistake?
If the mistake was about something which means that they didn’t have the necessary mens rea for the offence.
102
What was established in Hatton (2005) regarding self-defence?
A drunken mistake about the amount of force required in self-defence is not a defence.
103
What is the exception to the rule on intoxicated mistake in Jaggard v Dickinson (1980)?
Knew friend would consent to damage. Parliament required the court to consider her actual state of belief.
104
What is a necessity defence?
Where the defendant argues that committing the offence was necessary at the time to avoid a greater harm.
105
What defines self-defence in law?
Self-defence in the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting in a lawful arrest, permitting the use of ‘such force as is reasonable/proportionate in the circumstances’. CJAI 2008 CLA1967
106
What two questions are asked in evaluating self-defence?
* Was it necessary to use any degree of force? * If so, was the degree of force actually used proportionate or reasonable?
107
What is the subjective test in self-defence established by Gladstone Williams?
Defendant will be judged according to the facts as they believed them.
108
What does Bird (1986) establish regarding retreat in self-defence?
There is no absolute requirement to retreat or show reluctance to fight for self-defence to apply.
109
What was the ruling in Clegg (1995) regarding excessive force in self-defence?
Using more force than necessary negates the defence of self-defence.
110
What was the significance of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 in householder cases?
Force could be used reasonably or disproportionately to protect oneself and others, but not ‘grossly’ disproportionately.
111
What is duress by threat?
A common law defence where the defendant has been forced to commit a crime against their will due to threats.
112
What did Howe (1987) establish regarding duress and murder?
The defence was not available to anyone charged with murder.
113
What is required for threats to be considered for duress as per Valderrama-Vega?
Threats have to be of death or serious injury.
114
What are the two tests laid down in Graham (1982) for duress?
* Was the defendant compelled to act as they did? * Would a sober person of reasonable firmness have responded in the same way?
115
What are relevant characteristics in considering duress as per R v Bowen (1996)?
* Age * Pregnancy * Serious physical disability * Recognised mental illness or psychiatric disorder.
116
What is the requirement regarding the connection between threats and crimes in Cole (1994)?
There has to be a sufficient connection between the threats made and the crimes committed.
117
What was established in R v Gill (1963) regarding duress?
Duress can only be used as a defence if the defendant has no safe avenue of escape.
118
What is the ruling in R v Hasan regarding self-induced duress?
Duress was unavailable because he had voluntarily associated with criminals and should have foreseen the risk.
119
What distinguishes duress of circumstances from duress?
Duress of circumstances is based on the circumstances dictating the crime, rather than a person.
120
What was the outcome of R v Willer (1986) regarding reckless driving?
His conviction for reckless driving was quashed as he acted under compulsion that is duress.
121
What does the case of Conway (1988) establish for duress of circumstances?
Defence is available if the defendant was acting to avoid a threat of death or serious injury.
122
What is self-induced duress as per Sharp (1987)?
Duress is not available where D joins a criminal gang knowing it is violent.
123
What was ruled in Martin (1989) regarding duress of circumstances?
Threat of suicide by wife. Duress of circumstances could be available, and the Graham two-stage test was applied.
124
What was the significance of R v Abdul-Hussain regarding imminent threats?
The threat need not be immediate but must be imminent for duress of circumstances to apply.

CRIMINAL LAW (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions