Criminal Law Autumn Flashcards
(32 cards)
1
Q
What is the aim of criminal law?
A
- The goal of criminal law is to maintain public order, protecting individuals and society from harm.
- Criminal law defines behaviours that are considered unacceptable and provides sanctions.
2
Q
What are the main differences between criminal law and civil law?
A
- Where criminal law protects society, civil law resolves disputes between individuals.
- In criminal law, prosecution is handled by the state, whilst in civil cases, individuals sue each other.
- Although criminal law can result in imprisonment or fines, civil law leads to compensation.
3
Q
How is it decided when an act is a criminal offence?
A
A criminal act usually:
- Causes significant harm to others or to society.
- Is morally wrong and needs to be publicly condemned.
- Is insufficiently punishable under other forms of regulation.
4
Q
What is the criminal justice process?
A
- Investigation
- Charge
- First appearance in magistrates court
- Trial in magistrate or crown court
- Sentence
- Appeal if necessary
5
Q
What is the court hierarchy?
A
Lowest to highest:
- Magistrates court
- Crown court
- Court of appeal
- Supreme Court
6
Q
What are indictable, either-way and summary offences? Where are they tried?
A
- Summary offences - minor offences tried in magistrates court.
- Either-way offences - tried in magistrates or crown court depending on seriousness.
- Indictable only offences - serious offences tried only in the crown court.
7
Q
What is the ‘golden thread’?
A
- The golden thread is the principle that the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- This protects the presumption of innocence.
- This reflects the fundamental principle of protecting individual liberty, ensuring fairness in the criminal justice system, preventing wrongful convictions by placing a high burden of proof on the state.
8
Q
What is meant by actus reus in criminal law?
A
- Actus reus refers to the physical element of a crime - the ‘guilty’ act.
- It must be a voluntary act, or, in exceptional cases, not acting when there is a duty to act.
9
Q
What is the difference between acts and omissions?
A
- An act is an action causing harm, such as punching someone.
- An omission is failing to act when the law imposes a duty, such as failing to feed a child dependent on you.
- Criminal liability for omissions only arise when a specific legal duty exists.
10
Q
When do omissions account to actus reus?
A
Only when there is a legal duty, such as:
- Statute (such as Road Traffic Act duties)
- Contract (such as lifeguard duty)
- Special relationships (such as a parent-child relationship)
- Assumption of care
- Creating a dangerous situation.
11
Q
What is the difference between factual causation and legal causation and examples of each?
A
- Factual causation asks ‘but for’ (if it weren’t for) the defendants actions, would the harm still have been caused? If yes, there is factual causation, if no there is no factual causation.
- Example, R v White (2010), White poisons his mother’s drink, but she dies of a heart attack before the drink can kill her. Since white’s actions would’ve killed her anyway, there is no factual causation.
- Legal causation asks whether the defendant’s acts are a significant and operating cause of the harm.
- Example, R v Cheshire (1991), Cheshire shot someone and they died later in the hospital due to medical mistakes. Even though the doctors made errors, Cheshire’s shooting was a significant cause of death, and therefore, legal causation remains.
12
Q
What is ‘meas rea’ in criminal law?
A
- Mens rea refers to the guilty mind - the mental element needed to carry out a criminal offence.
- It refers to the defendant’s state of mind at the time the crime was committed.
13
Q
What is direct and oblique/indirect intention?
A
- Direct intention is when an outcome is directly brought about by a person’s action, being their primary goal, such as someone shooting someone to deliberately kill them.
- Indirect intention is when an outcome is clearly brought about by someone’s actions despite not being their main goal, such as throwing a baby across a room towards a pram, but the baby dying from injuries after hitting a wall (R v Woollin 1988).
14
Q
What is recklessness in criminal law? How has the test for recklessness changed?
A
- Recklessness is taking a risk despite knowing that there is a harmful result in taking it.
- Before the case of R v G and R, the test for recklessness was objective as laid out by the case of Caldwell (1982).
- After R v G and R, the test for recklessness became subjective: did the defendant foresee a risk and unreasonably continue?
15
Q
How do mens rea and actus rea coincide?
A
- The guilty mind (mens rea) and the guilty act (actus rea) must happen at the same time for a crime to occur.
- If there is a continuing act, mens rea can develop during the act.
- For example, in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969), the defendant accidentally ran over a police officer’s foot, but intentionally refused to remove - the mens rea developed after the actus rea.
16
Q
What is transferred malice?
A
- Transferred malice is when a defendant intends to harm one person but accidentally hurts another, transferring the intent.
- For example, in R v Latimer (1886), D aimed a blow at A, missed and injured B - the intent was transferred.
17
Q
Why is defining intent controversial?
A
- Intention is difficult to define because it lies between desire and foresight.
- Judges have argued over whether having foresight for something means that it was desired.
18
Q
What is the definition of murder?
A
- Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace with malicious afterthought.
- It is traditionally defined under common law as opposed to a statute.
19
Q
What is the actus reus and mens rea of murder?
A
- Actus reus - Unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace.
- Mens rea - Intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Can be direct intent (clear aim to kill) or oblique intent (a virtual certainty of one’s actions)
20
Q
What are the 3 rules of causation in murder cases?
A
Factual causation:
- ‘But for’ the defendant’s actions, would the death have occurred?
Legal causation:
- Defendant’s act must be substantial and operating. It need not be the sole cause, but it must be more than minimal.
No break in the chain (novus actus interveniens):
- Intervening acts, such as medical negligence, must not break the chain unless they are so independent and serious.
21
Q
What is the difference between murder and manslaughter?
A
- Murder refers to intent to kill or cause GBH, with no lawful excuse
- Manslaughter refers to killing in a situation where either the defendant has no mens rea for murder or partial defences apply.
22
Q
What must be proved to establish a successful defence of loss of control?
What effect has R v Clinton had on the ruling of loss of control?
A
Under ss 54-55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, 3 elements must be satisfied:
- Loss of self control (this is a partial defence, as it does not result in a loss of acquittal, but rather reduces murder to manslaughter)
- Qualifying trigger - fear of serious violence from the victim or things said or things said or done which implied the victim was an extremely dangerous character, giving the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
- Objective test, whether a person of the defendants sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, would have acted similarly.
- In R v Clinton (2012), it was established that sexual infidelity cannot qualify as a loss of control by itself, it can be considered as a part of a broader context.
23
Q
Why did the law change from provocation to loss of control?
A
- Under the old law (Homicide act 1957), provocation required the defendant to have lost control suddenly.
- This was rigid and unfair, especially to those who may have lost control over a period of time, such as abuse victims (battered woman syndrome).
- Under the coroners and justice act 2009, there is no requirement for sudden loss, and a clearer definition of qualifying triggers.
24
Q
What are the elements of diminished responsibility?
A
Under s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957, a defendant must show:
- Abnormality of mental functioning
- Arising from a recognised mental condition.
- Which impairs the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of their conduct from a rational judgement or exercise self control.
- Provide an explanation for the killing.
25
What is the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter?
- Voluntary manslaughter: the defendant has the mens rea for murder, however, they have partial defences, such as loss of control or diminished responsibility.
- Involuntary manslaughter: the defendant lacks the mens rea for murder; the death occurred due to a dangerous, unlawful act (unlawful act manslaughter) or a breach of duty of care (gross negligence manslaughter).
26
What is unlawful act manslaughter?
- Unlawful act manslaughter is a type of involuntary manslaughter when a defendant lacks the mens rea for murder, however the death occurred due to a dangerous, unlawful act, such as assault, criminal damage or burglary.
- It must have been an act that occurred, not an omission, and it must be objectively dangerous (a sober and reasonable person would inevitably recognise it as carrying risk of harm). The defendant need not be aware the act is dangerous - this is an objective test.
- For example, in R v Newbury and Jones (1977), teenagers pushed a paving stone onto a train which caused deaths. There is no need to prove if they thought it was dangerous or not because it objectively is.
27
What is gross negligence manslaughter?
- Gross negligence manslaughter is a type of involuntary manslaughter, where a defendant lacks the mens rea for murder, but the death occurred due to a breach of duty of care.
- In gross negligence manslaughter, a duty of care must exist between the defendant and the victim, a duty which has been breached by the defendant causing death.
- This breach must be so bad that it amounts to a crime deserving punishment, and the jury must consider the defendant's conduct to be that of a criminal.
- This is an objective test, not a subjective one, where a duty of care can arise in many contexts, such as doctor-patient or supplying drugs, such as in R v Evans 2009 when the defendant suppled drugs to the victim (his half-sister), causing a duty of care between the defendant and victim, which was breached.
28
What are the actus reus and mens rea of assault?
Actus reus:
- The victim becomes immediately aware of unlawful force or violence.
- No need for physical contact - assault can be verbal as seen in R v Ireland 1998.
Mens Rea:
- Intention or recklessness as to cause the victim to understand immediate unlawful force.
29
What are the actus reus and mens rea of battery?
Actus reus:
- Application of unlawful force to another person. As seen in Collins v Wilcock (1984), even slight touching may suffice.
Mens rea:
- Intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force.
- The force does not need to cause injury, unwanted physical contact is enough.
30
What are the actus reus and mens rea of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 Offences against the person act 1861)?
Actus reus:
- Assault or battery causing actual bodily harm.
- Actual bodily harm - An injury that interferes with health or comfort, such as bruises or minor fractures.
Mens rea:
- Intention or recklessness as to the assault or battery.
- There need not be mens rea to the ABH itself, as seen in R v Roberts 1971.
31
What are the actus reus and mens rea of maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (s.20, Offences Against the Person Act 1861)?
Actus reus:
- Wounding (breaking both layers of the skin) or inflicting GBH (serious bodily harm)
- 'Inflict' does not require a technical assault or battery.
Mens rea:
- Intention or recklessness as to some harm, not necessarily serious harm.
32
What are the actus reus and mens rea of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent (s.18, Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
Actus reus:
- Wounding (breaking both layers of the skin) or inflicting GBH (serious bodily harm)
- 'Inflict' does not require a technical assault or battery.
Mens rea:
- Specific intent to cause serious harm or to resist lawful arrest.
- The highest level of mens rea - recklessness is insufficient (unlike other forms of OAPA crimes)
