Criminal law Flashcards
(177 cards)
1
Q
The purpose of criminal law
A
(1) protect individuals; (2) preserve order in society; (3) punish offenders
2
Q
Incapacitation
A
Depriving of legalcapacity to engage in an act
3
Q
Deterrence
A
Discouraging crime
4
Q
Examples of laws made by judges
A
(1) Shaw v DPP (1962) - offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals; (2) R v R (1991) - marital rape
5
Q
Classes of crime depending on where the case will be tried
A
(1) Indictable offences; (2) Triable either way offences; (3) Summary offences
6
Q
Indictable offences
A
Serious; tried in Crown Court, e.g. murder, maslaughter, rape; police can arrest for 24h, prelong for 48h, prelong for 96h (on special permission)
7
Q
Triable either way offences
A
either in Crown Court or Magistrate Court; e.g. theft, burglary, assault occasioning actual bodily harm
8
Q
Summary offences
A
not serious; tried at Magistrates Court; i.e. assaulting policeman in duty; common assault; police can arrest for 24h
9
Q
Classes of law by source
A
(1) Common law (judge-made); (2) Statutory law (defined in Acts of Parliament; (3) Regulatory law (set out in delegated legislation)
10
Q
Elements to be proved by prosecution in offence
A
Actus reus (physical element) and Mens rea (fault element)
11
Q
For crimes of strict liability the prosecution must prove
A
only actus reus
12
Q
Even if there is actus reus and mens rea defendant may be not guilty if
A
he has a defence
13
Q
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)
A
FACTS: D accidentally drove his car onto police officer’s foot and refused to move the car, he was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty (this involved proving assault); LAW: The actus reus of assault could be a continuing act so that if D developed the necessary mens rea at any time during that period, he could be guilty of battery
14
Q
Thabo Meli (1954)
A
FACTS: Ds attacked a man and believed they killed him, but he died afterwards of exposure; LAW: provided that mens rea and actus reus for murder were combined in a series of acts, D could be guilty
15
Q
Woolmington v DPP (1935)
A
FACTS: D wanted to threaten his wife that he would kill himself if she wouldn’t return to him and showed her a gun and accidentally killed her; LAW: When D raises a defence, it is for the prosecution yo negate that defence
16
Q
Burden of proof + standard of proof (2)
A
(1) On prosecution + ‘beyond reasonable doubt’; (2) On defendant + of balance of probabilities
17
Q
ECHR was incorporated to UK law by
A
The Human Rights Act 1998
18
Q
Art.6(1) ECHR
A
Right to fair trial
19
Q
Art.6(2) ECHR
A
Presumption of innocence; hence the burden of proof is on prosecution
20
Q
Art.7(1) ECHR
A
No punishment without law
21
Q
Art.3(1) ECHR
A
Right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment
22
Q
Art.8 ECHR
A
Right of respect for a person’s private life
23
Q
Art.14 ECHR
A
No discrimination on grounds of sex, race, colour, religion, political opinion
24
Q
Lambert (2001)
A
FACTS: D argued that s 28(2) of Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (D should be acquitted if he proves he didn’t know he possessed controlled drugs) meant that he had to prove his innocence what is in breach of art.6(2) ECHR; LAW: It was held s28(2) was imposing only evidential burden on defendant
25
Brown (1993)
FACTS: Ds consented sado-masochistic acts, but were charged with offences of assault causing actual bodily harm (s 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) and malicious wounding (s 20); LAW: Consent could not be used as a defence to charges of assault
26
Wilson (1993)
FACTS: Husband branded his intials on her wife's buttockes at her request causing harm. Convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm (s 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861); LAW: Consent is a defence, but law should develop on case-by-case basis; on appeal conviction quashed
27
Actus reus
Physical voluntary element of crime; could be (1) an act; (2) an omission such as negligence; (3) a state of affairs i.e. being found drunk in public place; (4) a consequence i.e. in murder stabbing must result in death (death = actus reus)
28
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)
D was drunk in a public place = actus reus
29
Larsenneur (1933)
D was considered to be alien under law, was brought back to UK by Irish police; being alien = actus reus
30
Hill v Baxter (1958)
Examples of involuntary conduct: (1) being stung by bee or stone; (2) having heart attack while driving; (3) another person pushed D causing his action; (4) a reflex action; (5) a muscle spasm
31
Broome v Perkins (1987)
If defendant knew he could loose controle of his movement i.e. due to health condition = voluntary act
32
Defence of automatism
D was asleep, his consciousness was impared, or act occured due to reflex, spasm or convulsion
33
Situations where there is a duty to act (5)
(1) due to relationship such as parent & child (Gibbins & Proctor); (2) under a contract i.e. of employment (Pittwood); (3) due to public office i.e. police officer (Dytham); (4) following dangerous situation created by D (Miller); (5) voluntarily undertaken i.e. care of elderly relative (Stone & Dobinson)
34
Pittwood (1902)
A railway crossing keeper omitted to shut the gates so that a person crossing the line was struck and killed by train; guilty of manslaughter
35
Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
A child's father and his mistress failed to feed a child so it dies of starvation; guilty of murder
36
Evans (2009)
Mother was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter when she failed to take an action although she knew that V had taken drugs and was ill
37
Stone and Dobinson (1977)
Ds had undertaken the care of Stone's elderly sister, guilty of manslaughter in failing to care for her or help her when she bacame helpless
38
Dytham (1979)
A police officer witnessed a violent attack on the victim, but took no steps to intervene; guilty of willfully neglecting his duty
39
Miller (1983)
A squatter accidentally started a fire and left when he realised it; guilty of arson
40
DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003)
D's failure to tell police woman that he had a hypoderminc needle which could injury her while she was searching his pockets could amount to actus reus for assault of causing actual bodily harm if she was injured
41
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)
Discontinuance of medical treatment where it is in the best interest of the patient is not an omission that can form actus reus
42
Whether an offence defined by Act of Parliament or statutory instrument can be committed by omission...
is determined by the wording
43
Causation: proving consequence of an offence
Proving that D's conduct was (1) the factual and legal cause of that consequence; (2) there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation
44
Factual cause
The consequence would not have happend 'but for' D's conduct
45
White (1910)
D put cyanide in V's drink intending to kill her; she died of heart attack before drinking it; not guilty of murder, but of attempted murder; D's act must be factual cause
46
Legal cause
D's conduct must be more than minimal cause of the consequence (Cato (1976)) but not necessarily substantial and the only cause
47
Intervening act
An act breaking chain of causation i.e. act of 3rd party, V's own act, natural but unpredictable event; must be sufficiently independent of D's conduct; D is no more responsible for the consequence
48
Rafferty (2007)
When V's death was caused by deliberate independent act of 3rd party, D is not responsible for death even if took part in assault
49
Pagett (1983)
A reasonable response in self-defence does not break the chain of causation; D was firing at policed, so did police and shot V hold by D, D charged with manslaughter
50
Kennedy No 2 (2007)
Where D has prepared an injection for V, but V self-injects, V's act breaks the chain of causation
51
Cheshire (1991) and Jordan (1956)
Medical treatment (even negligent) is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the D's act and 'in itself so potent in causing death' that D's acts are insignificant
52
Blaue (1975)
Jehovah's witness died after assault because she refused blood transfusion; D must take the victim as he finds him; Thin skull rule - you take victim as you find it
53
Malcherek (1981)
Switching off a life support machine does not break the chain of causation
54
Roberts (1971)
If D causes victim to react in a forseeable way, any injury to V will have been caused by D -> Test: was V's action a natural reasonably forseeable result of what D did?
55
Williams and Davis (1992)
If V's reaction is unreasonable, this may break the chain of causation
56
Liability
Legal responsibility for one's acts or omissions
57
Strict liability
Automatic responsibility for damages caused due to possession or use of dangerous things; (1) no need to prove negligence or mens rea; (2) actus reus must be proved; (3) defence of mistake is not available
58
Absolute liability
Higher level of strict liability, very rare; results from dangerous activities; (1) mens rea is not required; (2) actus reus doesnt have to be voluntary; (3) defence of mistake is not available
59
The Gammon test
(1) Presumption that mens rea is required for criminal offence (2) This presumption applies to statutoty offences and can be displaced only if statute implies so (3) This happens in issues of social concern and public safety; (4) Even the mens rea can be disregarded if creation of strict liability will help to prevent commission of the prohibited act
60
Larsonneur (1933)
Absolute liability; D was alien under UK law but was brought to UK by Irish police; LAW: Even if act in not voluntary and lacks mens rea, a state of affairs can amount to absolute liability
61
Sweet v Parsley (1969)
D rented farmhouse out to students who smoked cannabis there; D was charged with being concerned with cannabis management; LAW: not guilty since had no knowledge and there was a presumption that the offence required mens rea
62
G (2008)
D aged 15 had sexual intercourse with girl aged 12 but D believed she was 15; D was charged with rape of a child under s 5 of Sexual Offences Act 2003; he appealed and claimed breach of art.6(1)&(2) of ECHR; LAW: The concept of strict liability does not breach human rights
63
Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd (1984)
Statutory offence; Ds were charged with deviating from building work in a material way from approved plan; LAW: The presumption that mens rea is required can be only displaced if it is clearly the effect of the statute
64
B (a minor) v DPP (2000)
A minor asked 13 yr old girl to have oral sex with him; he was charged with inciting child to commit gross indecency under s 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960; LAW: the starting point is that mens rea is required
65
Sherras v de Rutzen (1895)
D was convicted of supplying liquor to a constable on duty under s 16(2) of the Licensing Act 1872; LAW: Mistake can be defence only if offence is not of strict liability
66
Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)
Ds owned a buisnness with lottery, their staff sold a lottefy ticket to minor under 16 contrary to law; LAW: Even if D acts with due diligence, he can be guilty of strict liability offence
67
Principal offender
(1) his action is immediate cause of actus reus (2) must have mens rea to be guilty (3) there can be more co-principals
68
Joint principals
(1) both have mens rea and actus reus (2) might be difficult to prove which one did actus reus
69
Mohan v R (1967)
If offenders have joint purpose; even if one is principal and the other accessory; both guilty of the offence
70
Accessory
Someone who gives assistance to the perpetrator of a crime without taking part in it
71
Strudwick (1993)
If both offenders have no joint purpose neither can be convicted
72
Innocent agent
Person used by principal to do the act; innocent if (1) has no capacity i.e. child; (2) has no mens rea; (3) has defence i.e. insanity
73
Secondary party (accessory)
Can be guilty of the same crime under s 8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 and s 44 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 if even if principal was acquitted if accessory had actus reus
74
Bourne (1952)
Accessory can be convicted even if principal is acquitted if the latter has a defence not available to the secondary party
75
Donnington (1984)
If principal has attempted the main crime then the secondary party can be guiltt as an accessory to the attempt
76
Gnango (2011)
In a gun battle, V was a by-passer and was shot; LAW: D can be accessory even if he is intended victim of the main crime, since he has no defence under accessorial liability
77
Bainbridge (1959)
Providing tools to carry out a bulglary before offence is crime; LAW: (1) Helping principal before crime is an offence (2) No need to know details of the offence; mere knowledge about the type of crime is enough as mens rea for secondary participation
78
Wilcox v Jeffery (1951)
Presence at illegal performance can an offence of abetting
79
Clarkson and others (1971)
Soldiers were present in a room where woman was being raped; not guilty; LAW: Mere presence at the scene of crime is not enough for secondary participation, there must be intention to encourage
80
Tuck v Robson (1970)
If there is a duty to control then passive presence may be enough for an offence of abetting
81
Calhaem (1985)
(1) counseling (advising or encouraging) takes place before commission of the offence (2) no need for casual link between counseling and the commission of the offence
82
Powell: English (1997)
Powell: killing drug dealer; LAW: (1) Contemplation or foresight that the principal may commit a certain type of offence is enough for mens reas for secondary participation; criticised; (2) If principal does completely different act that was supposed to, then the secondary party is not liable
83
Rahman (2008)
Many people wanted to kill V, unknown which did the act; all convicted; LAW: Principal's intention is irrelevant to (1) whether the killing was within the scope of common purpose, and (2) whether P's act was principally different from what D foresaw
84
Withdrawal from joint enterprise
Must be clear and effective
85
Bryce (2004)
Mere regret or remorse unsupported by action demonstrating withdrawal from joint enterprise is insufficient
86
Steward abd Schofield (1995)
If a secondary party does not forsee or contemplate serious injury or death, he cannot be liable for murder
87
Uddin (1998)
(1) if all intend serious injury or death, they are all liable for murder; (2) if a very different weapon is used, D is not liable for the death
88
Principal offender
(1) his action is immediate cause of actus reus (2) must have mens rea to be guilty (3) there can be more co-principals
89
Inchoate offences
Anticipating or preparatory to a further criminal act, such as (1) encouraging or assisting an offence; (2) conspiracy; (3) attempt
90
Blackshaw: Sutcliff (2011)
Ds published info encouraging riot; LAW: Placing inciting material on Facebook or other social media can be an offence under Serious Crime Act 2007
91
Jackson (1985)
Ds shot a man in leg if he was convicted to provide a mitigating factor; charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice; LAW: Even if the plan involves commission of an offence, but is not an offence itself, defendant is guilty (statutory conspiracy)
92
Contingency
A future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty
93
Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1975)
D agreed with employees to remove films in cinema for D to make pirate copies; LAW: (1) fraud covers conduct which may not be a substantive criminal offence; (2) it is not necessary to prove that economic loss was suffered, but V's economic interest must be put at risk; (3) deception is not required
94
Mens rea of an attempt
Is the same as for the attempt as for completed crime
95
Easom (1971)
D picked up woman's handbag and put it back without taking anything; not charged; LAW: D has to intend to commit substantive offence for an attempt to occur
96
Millard and Vernon (1987)
Ds repeatedly pushed against a wooden fence that could break, but didn't; not convicted of attempted criminal damage; LAW: D must intend consequences, recklessness with regard to them is not sufficient for the offence of attempt
97
Shivpuri (1987)
D thought he was dealing in prohibited drugs but wasn't; convicted of attempt to do so; LAW: Confirmed that attempt to do impossible is an offence
98
Limitations on capacity
(1) children under age of 10 (2) mentally ill (3) corporations
99
JTB (2009)
D aged 12 was charged with sexual offences to child aged 13; LAW: Confirmed that children over 10 are responsible for their actions
100
Corporate liability
By principle of (1) identification (2) vicarious liability (3) breach of statutory duty
101
Salomon v Salomon (1897)
A corporation is a legal person, so can be criminally liable
102
Crimes for which a corporation cannot be liable
(1) offences for which only physical punishment is available (2) crimes of physical nature such as bigamy, rape, perjury (3) corporation might be liable as accessory
103
HL Bolton(Engineering) v TJ Graham & Sons Ltd (1957)
It is neccessary to identify persons being 'directing mind and will of the company' since corp has no physical existence
104
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Natrass (1972)
Tesco store advertised washing machine powder at reduced price and due to employee's negligence was charged with indicating false price after it run out of powder; LAW: (1) only those in senior positions can be 'controlling mind' of the corp and can make company liable (2) their acts and intentions are considered as of the whole company
105
Identification principle
Mens rea and actus reus should be established not against those who acted for or in the name of the company, but against those who were identified as the embodiment of the company
106
Vicarious liability
Attachment of responsibility to a person for harm or damages caused by another person in either a negligence lawsuit or criminal prosecution; i.e. employer can be liable for his employee's action
107
Coppen v Moore (No 2) (1898)
D, owner of six shops instructed employees not to state orgin of the ham sold, but one of them did; D was convicted; LAW: (1) even if employer took reasonable steps to ensure that an offence is not committed he can be liable for employee (2) this occurs when employee did authorised act in unauthorised way
108
Adams v Camfoni (1929)
D was charged with selling alcohol in his shop after permitted hours, but in fact unauthorised messenger boy did so; D not convicted; LAW: If employee did unauthorised act, the employer cannot be liable
109
Vane v Yiannopoullos (1965)
D was the licensee of a restaurant and ordered waitress not to sell alcohol under certain conditions, but she did; D not liable; LAW: Delegation of responsibility must be complete for the principal to be vicariously liable
110
DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch (1975)
D was ordered by terrorist to drive him to a place where T shot a policeman; LAW: Duress defence applies where D's will has been overborne by serious threats of death or serious injury
111
Graham (1982)
D helped to kill his wife cuz he was threatened by his homosexual lover; LAW: Duress test: (1) Was D compelled to act as he did? - subjective test (2) Would a sober reasonable person of the same characteristics responded in the same way? - objective test
112
Wilson (2007)
D aged 13 and his father were charged with killing mother; LAW: Duress defence is not available for murder even if D was aged 13
113
Hasan (2005)
D associated with drug dealer and claimed that he committed bulglary due to threats; LAW: (1) D must believe in the threat and his believe must be reasonable; (2) Defence of duress does not apply if D could or did forsee the risk of being subject to threat
114
Bowen (1996)
D had low IQ; obtained by deception some goods to hand in to two men bcuz of petrol-bomb threat; LAW: Established characteristics to be taken into consideration while applying defence of duress: (1) age (2) pregnancy (3) serious physical disability (4) recognised mental illness or psychiatric disorder (5) sex; IQ is irrelevant
115
Gill (1963)
D was threatened and stole a lorry, but had time to escape and raise the alarm; LAW: defence of duress does not apply if D gas a 'safe avenue of escape'
116
Re A (Conjoined Twins) (2000)
Conjoint twins were born; in the course of operation to seperate them one died; LAW: Recognised a defence of necessity (even for murder); requirements: (1) act done to avoid otherwise unavoidable consequences (2) which would have inflicted irreparable evil; (3) no more was done than just what was necessary; (4) evil inflicted was not disproportionate to evil avoided
117
Dudley and Stephens (1884)
Ds were shipwrecked with V for 20 years and finally killed and ate V; charged with murder; LAW: Necessity does not justify murder of an innocent victim
118
Role of necessity
Can be used for justification for (1) breach of statutory provisions i.e. speed limit (2) self-defence and (3) duress of circumstances
119
DPP v Morgan (1975)
D incited friends to have sex with his wife although she did not consented, but he claimed she did; LAW: A mistaken belief must be genuinely held, but need not to be reasonable
120
Williams (Gladstone) (1987)
D saw V dragging a youth calling for help; D punched V, but V turned out to be a policeman; LAW: D must be judged on facts as he believed (both self-defence and mistake)
121
Intoxicated mistake
D can still rely on the defence
122
O'Grady (1987)
D and V drunk fell asleep; D woke up cuz V was beating him; he beated V and found out later on that he killed him; LAW: If D is mistaken to other thing than the fact itself (i.e. amount of force needed in self-defence) he cannot rely on the defence if he is intoxicated
123
Mistakes of strict liability
Even if mistake is reasonable D cannot use defence of mistake
124
Clegg (1995)
D was a soldier on duty at a checkpoint and killed a passanger in a car that did not stop on the checkpoint; LAW: If the force used for self-defence is excessive for given circumstances, the defence of self-defence fails
125
Dica (2004)
Ds were guilty of causing GBH by infecting Vs with HIV during sex, but Vs were not informed Ds has HIV positive status; LAW: Consent must be willing and informed
126
Homicide
Unlawful killing of human being (reasonable creature in being); types: (1) murder; (2) manslaughter - voluntary and involuntary; (3) statutory offences
127
A-G's Reference (No 3 of 1994) (1997)
Killing foetus is not homicide, but if foetus is injured and after birth dies as a result of it = actus reus for manslaughter
128
Malcherek and Steel (1981)
A 'brain dead' person is not a reasonable creature in being, so doctors can switch off life support
129
Actus reus for homicide
Death must be caused by D's act or omission
130
Murder
No statutory definition; 'unlawfully killing a resonable person with malice aforethought (intention to kill or harm), express or implied' [Lord Coke]; killing an enemy in the course of war is not a murder, but war prisoner is
131
Dowds (2012)
D and V were heavy drinkers; D hit V several times when intoxicated; V died in result; LAW: Mere voluntary intoxication is not a ground for diminished responsibility
132
Wood (2008)
After heavy drinking D killed V in uncontrolled attack; D was alcohol-dependant; LAW: Alcohol dependency syndrome can amount to an abnormality of mind
133
Zebedee (2012)
D lost control towards his elderly father and killed him; charged with murder; LAW: There must be circumstances of an extremely grave character for the loss of control defence to apply
134
Involuntary manslaughter - types
(1) constructive manslaughter (2) gross negligence manslaughter (3) reckless manslaughter
135
Lowe (1973)
D was convicted of wilfully neglecting son and manslaughter, but the conviction of manslaughter was quashed; LAW: Only act (not omission) can create liability for constructive manslaughter
136
Church (1966)
D had fight with V and knocked her out; D thought V was dead and pushed her into river so that she died; LAW: For constructive manslaughter the unlawful act must be dangerous in an objective test meaning that a sober and reasonable person would recognise risk of harm
137
Reckless manslaughter
Stone and Dobinson (1977); 'D had been so indifferent to an obvious risk of injury to health, or actually to have forseen the risk but determined to run it'
138
Non-fatal offences against the person
(1) common assault (assault and battery) (2) assault occasioning actual bodily harm (3) malicious wounding or inflicting grievious bodily harm (4) wounding or causing GBH with intent
139
Assault
Actus reus - causing V to fear immediate unlawful violence; mens rea - intention or subjective recklessness as to causing V to fear immediate unlawful violence (subjective test - D must realise the risk of violence); no actual injury is required
140
Battery
Actus reus - applying unlawful violence even the slightest touching (Wilson v Pringle (1986); mens rea - intention or subjective recklessness as to applying unlawful force (Venna (1976))
141
Ireland (1998)
Putting V in fear of possibility of immediate force via i.e. words is sufficient for an assault; even silent telephone is enough
142
Martin (1881)
D's wilful act prevented people from getting out of theatre after he raised fire alarm; LAW: Actus reus for battery may be through indirect act such as booby trap (an apparently harmless object containing a concealed explosive device designed to detonate when someone touches it)
143
Venna (1976)
D and others were fighting; D kicked policeman when he tried to arrest him and caused ABH; LAW: Subjective recklessness is sufficient for the mens rea of battery
144
T v DPP (2003)
V was chased by D; V felt, D kicked him and V lost consciousness; LAW: Momentary unconsciousness can be ABH
145
Savage (1991)
D threw beer over a woman in a pub but it cut V's hand; LAW: No need for D to be reckless as to whether ABH is caused; intention to apply unlawful force is sufficient
146
Parmenter (1991)
D injured his 3month-old baby when he threw it in the air and caught him; charged with causing ABH; LAW: D need not forsee or realise possibility of serious injury for malicious wounding offence
147
Marcus (1981)
Harmless substance may become poison if administered in large quantity
148
Lawrence (1971)
Taxi driver takes more money from foreigner that does not know national money; theft; LAW: Question whether there is a theft if owner has consented to appropriation; appropriation can happen if V did not genuinely consented to the taking; here:
149
Morris (1983)
If owner consented to D's act, there is no appropriation
150
Gomez (1991)
D was assisstant manager in a shop and persuaded manager to sell goods to his accomplice by accepting checks which were then stolen; LAW: Appropriation is assumption of any of the rights of the owner
151
Things in action and other intangible property
Include patents, copyrights and credit balance in bank account
152
Oxford v Moss (1979)
Information or knowledge such as content of exam paper is not capable of being stolen; but paper with info can
153
Turner (No 2) (1971)
D was held guilty of theft of his car from repair garage (without paying); property is regarded as belonging to the one in possession or in control of it; LAW: The owner can still his property if other person is of control on it
154
Gosh (1982)
D was a doctor and claimed fees for carrying out operations he did not; LAW: Test for dishonesty: (1) would reasonable man say the act was dishonest? (2) Did D realise that his act was dishonest?
155
Lloyd (1985)
The projectionist gave D film so that D could make an illegal copy of it; D returned it before next screening; no theft; LAW: Appropriation may happen if D borrows sth and keep it until 'the goodness, the virtue, the prectical value... has gone out of the article'; borrowing can be equivalent to outright taking
156
Allen (1985)
D did not pay for his stay in hotel but his defence was that he intended to pay after receiving sufficient money to cover the bill; LAW: Intending to delay or defer payment is not sufficient for the offence, D must intend to avoid payment at all
157
Different levels of mens rea H > L
(1) (Specific) intention; (2) subjective recklessness; (3) negligence; (4) strict liability
158
Intention
Can be divided in (1) direct intent) and (2) oblique intent; the highest lvl of mens rea; required to make the accused guilty; crimes of specific intention include: murder, robbery, bulglary and theft
159
Subjective recklessness
D must have realised there was a risk of offence due to his behaviour, but took the risk anyway; crimes of minimum lvl of intention: common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and malicious wounding
160
Negligence
Where D is under duty of care and his behaviour is below standard of care of reasonable person
161
Strict liability
The prosecution only needs to prove D voluntarily did the forbidden act; no need to prove intention
162
Mens rea
Mental element of offence which requires no knowledge that the act is forbidden, =/= motive
163
Direct intent
D has a certain aim or result in mind and intends to acheive it; purposive intent
164
Oblique intent
D has one purpose in mind, but in acheiving it he cause other consequences which he did not intend; foresight of consequences
165
Moloney (1985)
D shot his father by accident when they drunk were competing who will load gun faster; LAW: foresight of consequences is evidence from which intention can be inferred
166
Nedrick (1986)
D had feeling of resentment against woman. He poured paraffin through the letterbox of her house and set it alight. In result child died in fire; conviction of murder was quashed; LAW: the consequence has to be virtual certainy and D must have realised that so that there is evidence on which to infer that D had necessary intention
167
Foresight
Ability to predict what will happen
168
Recklessness
Taking of an unjustifiable risk
169
Cunningham (1957)
Lied a subjective test for recklessness; D tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty house to steal money in it. This caused gas to seep into the house next door affecting a woman there; LAW: not guilty; D did not intend to cause harm, nor had been subjectively reckless (= maliciously)
170
G and another (2003)
Two boys accidentally spread fire to many shops causing great damages when they set fire to the bin; LAW: Recklessness means that D must realise there is a risk and take that risk; overruled Caldwell
171
Maliciously
Doing sth intentionally or being subjectively reckless about the risk involved; indicates mens rea
172
Bateman (1925)
D (doctor) attended a woman who was due to give birth. Due to his negligent supervision she died. LAW: D's conduct must show such disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime; gross negligence
173
Adomako (1994)
Patient died during operation as a result of negligence; 3 elements of negligence must be present and the breach must be sufficiently serious to make it criminal; elements: (1) D must owe V a duty of care; (2) D must be in breach of that duty; (3) the breach must cause the death or be sufficiently serious to make it a criminal behaviour (criminal liability)
174
Knowledge required for the offence
(1) actually knowing of a particular fact; (2) being virtually certain that a particular fact is true; (3) being willfully blind to truth; this indicates mens rea
175
Transferred malice
D is guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different V
176
Latimer (1886)
D during a dispute aimed a blow with his belt at the man, but cut a woman on her face; guilty under s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; LAW: An intention can be transferred to unintended victim
177
Pembliton (1874)
In the course of fight, D threw a stone in direction of a man, but broken a window; LAW: If mens rea if for completely different type of offence, D may not be guilty
