Criminal Law - Paper 1 Section B Flashcards

Question 1

Q

actus reus

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

act
ommision
state of affairs - r v larsonneur - french lady being deported but didnt vlentary come to england

Question 2

Q

no obligations to act but expectations…..

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

statutory duty to act
duty arising from a relationship
where a duty has been taken on
duty as public officer
where you have created a dangerous situation
contractual duty to act

Question 3

Q

case for duty arising from a relationship - omission

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

gibbson and proctor (1918)
father neglected 7yr old daughter - died of starvation

Question 4

Q

case for where duty has been taken on - omission

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

r v instan (1893)
lived with aunt who had taken ill an didnt get help or didnt feed
died

Question 5

Q

case for where you have created a dangerous situation - omission

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

fagan v metropolition police commissiorner (1969)
drove on police officers foot and refused to move off of it

Question 6

Q

case for contractual duty to act - omission

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

r v pittwood (1902)
failed to close gate at train crossing and train collided with hay cart

Question 7

Q

case for duty as a public officer - omission

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

r v dytham (1979)
police officer stood and watched a man get beaten to death - left without calling for assisantance or ambulance

Question 8

Q

causation

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

factual causation
legal causation
chain of causation

Question 9

Q

factual causation

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

but for test
if the result would have happened if the defendant hadnt acted
if something else caused it

Question 10

Q

factual causation - but for test cases

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

white (1910) - put poison in mothers drink but died of heart attack - he technically didnt cause her death
pagett (1983) - used girlfriend as a human sheild and she died

Question 11

Q

legal causation

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

defendants actions were more than minimal
de minimis
must have legally caused the consequence

Question 12

Q

legal causations cases

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

r v hughes (2013) - drove a van without insurance and not full licencse , car swerved into him and someone died

Question 13

Q

intervening act

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

novous actus interveniens
must be a direct link from defendants actions to consequence - chain of causation
can be broken by: third party , victims own actions, natrual but unpredictable event

Question 14

Q

intervening act case

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

** r v malcherek (1981)**
* attacked woman
* put on life support
* doctors switched life machine off as she was brain dead
* tried to argue doctors broken chain of causation

Question 15

Q

medical treatments that break the chain of causation

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

r v jordan (1956) - patient got stabbed and given antibiotics died from alergic reaction - not guilty as stabbing was more than minimal
r v cheshire (1991) - shot vitum , died with complications due to breathing tube - but found guilty as wounds were bad

Question 16

Q

victums own actions

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

if actions were reasonable or unreasobale
**r v roberts ** - jumped out car to get away from rape and got injured from speed of car - gulity
r v williams (1992) - jumped out car though wallet was being stolen, wasnt a reasonale action so d found not guilty

Question 17

Q

thin skull rule - causation

elements of a crime - actus reus

Answer

A

take your victum as you find them
law doesnt take any particualr characteristic into account
r v watson (1989) - victum was old man and had heart attack - defendant has no exucse

Question 18

Q

mens rea

elements of a crime - mens rea

Answer

A

direct intention
oblique intention
recklessness
gross negligence

Question 19

Q

direct intention

elements of a crime - mens rea

Answer

A

where the defendant wanted the specific outcome
case - mohan - drove a car at a police officer to purposly hurt the,

Question 20

Q

oblique intention

elements of a crime - mens rea

Answer

A

when the defendant wants a different outcome but knew the outcome was virtually certain
case - woolin - throuh baby to bed but hit wall and died

Question 21

Q

recklessness

elements of a crime - mens rea

Answer

A

subjective test
when the defedant was aware of the risk and takes it anyway
carelessness
case - cunningham - tried to break mother in laws gas meter to get money and poisned mother - bot guilty

Question 22

Q

gross negligence

elements of a crime - mens rea

Answer

A

where the negligence to a duty of care is so great the jury see it as a crime
only relevant to manslaughter
case - adomako - anaethtist didnt notice the oxygen tube wasnt working as they walked away

Question 23

Q

transferred malice

elements of a crime

Answer

A

occurs when the defendants mens rea is transferred from the intented victum to the actual (uniteneted) victum

Question 24

Q

transferred malice cases

elements of a crime

Answer

A

r v mitchell (1983) - pushed eldery man who fell into old woman and she died - guilty
ags refernece (No 3 of 1994) - stabbed girlfreind while pregnant baby born early and died later, not guilty for murder bc foetus is not alive but guility of manslaughter

Question 25

Q

coincidence rule

elements of a crime

Answer

A

general rule that the mens reu and actus reus must happen at same time
continuing act theory
court have modified it to when a series of ommisions or acts can be treated as one single continouting act

Question 26

Q

coincidence rule cases

elements of a crime

Answer

A

fagan - drove on foot, no mens reu at start then formed one when didnt move
thabo meli (1954) - beat person up and killed them , rolled of mountain, survived both died later to exposure - guilty dont seperate events and there was a mens reu

Question 27

Q

strict liability

elements of a crime - strict liability

Answer

A

where the mens reas is not required and the actus reus is enough
gammon test
requirment of actus reas
absolute liability
no fault
due diligence
honest mistake

Question 28

Q

strict liability case

elements of a crime - strict liability

Answer

A

**r v hibbert ** - ran off with underage girl detained her for hours then returned her home
pharmacetical society of gb v storkwain (1986) - pharmists didnt know he supplied drugs for forged perscriptions - guilty

Question 29

Q

gammon test

elements of a crime - strict liability

Answer

A

d was charged with deviating from approved plan for building
decide wether they knew they broke the law or strict liability
*

Question 30

Q

requirment of actus reus

elements of a crime - strict liability

Answer

A

must prove that the actus reus was volentary

Question 31

Q

absolute liability

elements of a crime - strict liability

Answer

A

if act was involentarty then it is absolute liability
state of affair cases
larsonneur - no volentary act

Question 32

Q

no fault

elements of a crime - strict liability

Answer

A

if the volenraty act inadvertently caused a prohibted consequence - was tottally blameless of actual consequence
callow v tillstone (1900) - butcher asked vet to see if cacus was safe (it wasnt) ut vet said yes - butcher was convited

Question 33

Q

due diligence

elements of a crime - strict liability

Answer

A

even if they have tried to stop it and it happens they can still have strict liability
harrow lbc v shah and shah (1999) - was owner of sop, told staff not to sell to under 16s, sold to 13 , shop keeper convicted

Question 34

Q

honest mistake

elements of a crime - strict liability

Answer

A

genuine mistake can also be convicted
cundy v le cocq - sold alchol to person who was drunk ut had no clue bc he was quiet

Question 35

Q

what is assault?

non fatal offences - assault

Answer

A

when the defendant recklessly or intentionally causes the victum to fear immediate and unlawful personal violence
section 39 of the criminal justice act 1988
common law offence

Question 36

Q

actus reus of assault

non fatal offences - assault

Answer

A

is to cause the vitum to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
logdon (1976) - points fake gun and demands money - guilty bc victum was scared
victum doesnt have to apprehend violence
lamb (1967) - playing gun thought there was no bullets - friend got shot - not guilty no fear
words can stop actions
tuberville v savage (1669) - threatened a person with sword “if i were not assize time” - not guilty
immediate requirment of the violence is flexable
smith v cheif superintendant woking police (1983) - started at victum through window of house - tried to argue any violence wouldnt be immediate - guilty

Question 37

Q

mens reu of assualt

non fatal offences - assault

Answer

A

either when the defendant intentionally causes the victum to fear physical violence or is reckless about causing them to fear violence

Question 38

Q

Assault cases

non fatal offences - assault

Answer

A

lamb (1967) - playing with gun thought there was no bullets , shot friend - not guilty
logdon (1976) - held fake gun to womens head and demanded money - guilty
ireland (1998) - number of silent phone calls for three montsh - guilty
constanza (1997) - sent 800 letters and stole things from washing line - psychiatric damadge - guilty
tuberville v savage (1669) - threatened with a sword but said wouldnt
smith v chief superintendant woking police (1983) - stared at woman through window in her garden
cunningham - gas meter broke trying to get money from it , poinsed mother in law

Question 39

Q

what is battery?

non fatal offences - battery

Answer

A

applying force onto a person
common assault
section 39 criminal justice act 1988

Question 40

Q

actus reus of battery

non fatal offences - battery

Answer

A

the application of unlawful force
any touching eithout consent
also includes a greater degree of physical force was used than necessary
collins v wilcock (1984) - d resisted arrest and was charged with battery - things in everyday life will be allowed
touching cloths
r v thomas (1985) - d grabbed 12 yr old skirt
comminted through continouing act
fagan (1968) - not getting off police officers foot - omission and indirect force
force can be indire
DPP v K (1990) - stole acid got scared and put it in handdryer - someone used it and burnt their hands - guilty

Question 41

Q

mens reu of battery

non fatal offences - battery

Answer

A

defendant intends (firect or oblique) to apply force or is reckless
cunningham
venna (1976) - hit police officer when got arrested - knew the risk of flaling around

Question 42

Q

cases for battery

non fatal offences - battery

Answer

A

collins v willcox (1984) - police officer grabbed d , resited arrest and hit officer - police offcier didnt do battery as everyday allowances
thomas (1985) - grabbed 12yr skirt
dpp v k (1990) - acid in hand dryer
haystead - punched woman and dropped her baby - battery on baby
cunningham
venna (1976) - hit police officer when resisitng arrest - should have seen outcome

Question 43

Q

what is abh?

non fatal offences - abh

Answer

A

triable either way offence
max 5 years
section 47 of offence against the person act 1861

Question 44

Q

actus reus of abh

non fatal offences - abh

Answer

A

the application of unlawful force wich occassions actual bodily harm
defendant commits assault or battery but the injuries are abh
test for abh - miller test - injury affecting health and comfort of victum

Question 45

Q

mens reu of abh

non fatal offences - abh

Answer

A

the intention or recklessnes as to causing the victum to aprehend the aplication of unlawful physical force or apllication of unlawful physical force
cunningham
dont have to prove any intent for abh but just intent/recklessness of battery or assault

Question 46

Q

abh cases

non fatal offences - abh

Answer

A

miller - injury affecting health and comfort of victum
chanfook (1994) - jumped out window and broke both hips - psychatric damadge - guilty
roberts (1971) - jumped out of car to stop sexual advances - shows recklessness
t v dpp (2003) - kicked in head and lost conciousness - battery leading to abh
smith - chopped off ex gf ponytail - psychiatric damadge
savage (1991) - sees ex with new girl - throws drink but glass goes - reckless

Question 47

Q

what is gbh s20?

non fatal offences - gbh 20

Answer

A

section 20 of the offecnes against the person act 1861
unlawfully wound and cause gbh

Question 48

Q

actus reus of gbh 20

non fatal offences - gbh 20

Answer

A

the unlwafully wound or inflict any grevious bodily harm upon another person
wound - break the continuity of the skin
jcc v eisenhower (1983) - pellet gun - no break of the skin so no gbh

Question 49

Q

mens reu of gbh s20

non fatal offences - gbh 20

Answer

A

intentionally cause some level of harm (not gbh) or recklessly inflict gbh on another person
cunningham
mowatt (1968) - punched person bc he was threatened

Question 50

Q

what is gbh section 18?

non fatal offences - gbh 18

Answer

A

with intent to cause gbh
section 18 of offecne against the person act 1861
if cant prove s18 mens reu then drops to an either way offence

Question 51

Q

actus reus of gbh s18

non fatal offences - gbh 18

Answer

A

to unlawfully wound or inflict any grevious bodyily harm upon another person
wound - break the skin
jcc v eisenhower (1983) - pellet gun, didnt break the skin , no blood

Question 52

Q

the mens reu of gbh s18

non fatal offences - gbh 18

Answer

A

must find intention and cannot rely on recklessness
must rely on oblique intent but actions are virtually certain -woolin
belfon - waved razor around, sliced and caused deep wound - s20 as reckless
morrison - d runs away from the police officer - hsatters glass and police hurts himself - s18 runs away and sees virtual certainity

Question 53

Q

gbh cases

non fatal offences - gbh

Answer

A

brown and stratton - mutiple abh = gbh - beat up dad
jcc v eisenhower (1983) - pellet gun - no blood no wound
dica (2004) - slept with 2 women knowing he had hiv
lewis (1970) - victum jumped out window to get away - making an injury is gbh
belfon - waved around razer - reckless so not gbh
morrison - runs away from police - police officer cts hand on shattered glass - gbh with intent as runs away

Question 54

Q

evaluations of assault

evaulations of non fatal offences

Answer

A

language is complecated, obscure and out of date - assault generally means physical attack - legal term is diff
same sentence as battery - 6months max
no statutory definstion - common law - what classes as assault - battery and assualy under s39 but tot diff things

Question 55

Q

evaluations of battery

evaulations of non fatal offences

Answer

A

language is complicated, obsure and out of date - battery makes it sound worse
no statutory defintions - common law - no clear boundaries between assault and abh
max sentecne only 6 months - could be similar to abh

Question 56

Q

evaluations of abh

evaulations of non fatal offences

Answer

A

mens reu - intent lesser offence - could get max 5yrs for something you didnt mean to cause - not good justice for defendant
sentencing - abh and gbh r very different but have the same 5 year max sentence
out of fate language (1861) - actual and occasosing - jury may interpet differently
case law - no actual defintion - made up of cases that differ
expanding law - constantly changing - law doesnt hvae certainity - psychatric damadge

Question 57

Q

evalauations of gbh

evaulations of non fatal offences

Answer

A

abh and s20 are very different offences but have the same max sentence 5yrs
defintion of wound - made by judges - have no medical knowledge - what about internal bleeding
actus reus is circularsefintion - no defintion - case made
s18 max sentence is life - is it the same as manslaughter and murder - s20 only 5yrs even tho same outcome as section 18

Question 58

Q

what is murder?

fatal offences - murder

Answer

A

intention to kill or cause gbh

Question 59

Q

actus reus of murder

fatal offences - murder

Answer

A

unlawful killing caused by the defendant of a reasonable creature of being under the kings peace
killed - an act or omission
gibbins and proctor - failed to feed 7yr old and died
unlawful killing - war, medical, self defence
re a (2000) - conjoined twins - wnt to court bc parents didnt want to - weaker one died
causation - factual - but for test paget and white - legal causation - more than minimal
reasonable creature in being
ag reference (no3 of1994) - stabs bay in stomache and dies in the womb - not murder
malcherek and steel - victum in permany vegitative state - brain dead - pulled plug - defendant tried to argue it was the doctors
under kings peace

Question 60

Q

mens reu of murder

fatal offences - murder

Answer

A

expressed malice aforethought (itention to kill) or implied malice aforethought (intention to cause gbh)
implied malice vickers (1957) - robbed shop and beat up old woman who died - thin skull rule
oblique and dirent intent
woolin - thrw baby
mathews and alleyne - thrw boy off bridge fter told he couldnt swim - drowned

Question 61

Q

loss of control

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - loss of control

Answer

A

partial defence for murder
charge is changed from murder to voluntray manslughter (discretrionary sentence)
defence is found in section 54 and 55 of coroners and justice act 2009

Question 62

Q

section 54 of coroners and justice act 2009

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - loss of control

Answer

A

acts resulted from the loss of control
had a qualifiying trigger (s55)
a person of d same sex and age might have reacted in a similar way

Question 63

Q

loss of self control

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - loss of control

Answer

A

the lost of control is for the jury to decide
the loss of controll does not need to be sudden (anymore) -ahluwalia - prolonged vitum of domestic violence (10yr) , poured petrol and set him alight , not guily
there must be a total loss of control - must have snapped - jewell -shot a victum and said loss of control , but found thinks to flew with in car

Question 64

Q

, 2.qualifying trigger (s55)

fatal offence - voluntary manslaughter - loss of control

Answer

A

fear of serious violence -subjective test , jury have to be conviced the fear was genuin, can be in fear for another -ward - ds brother was attacked so got axe and hit the v , not guilty
the d can not have incited the violence - dawes - came home to wife sleeping with someone, stabbed v after altercation , guilty
things said or done - must be extremely grave and a sense of seriouslt wronged (jury decide)
hatter- gf breaks up with him , kills her - guilty zebedee - father had alzhimers and kept shitting himslef , killed him - guiluty bowyer - 2 dating 1 prosetute , d went to bugarl home , v taunted him , beat up and killed - v could do what he wanted bc d was bugarlying him
where d seeks to rely on both a fear of serious violence and a thing done or said - is relveant where a person with the ds characteristics and circumstances would have not acted in the same way

Answer 65

A

sexual infidelity - clinton - wife taunted d about his drepressiona nd cheating on him , suciide websites ect , killed wife , guilty
relationship breakup -hatter
revenge

Answer 66

A

if someone would have acted a similar way
same sex and age , ordinary level of tolerance and self restraint , same circumstances
the jury isnt alowwed to consider any else (circumstances - depression , epilsepsy)
rejmanski - had ptsd from army , mocked about the ptsd and army , killed them , not guily
voluntary intoxication should not be taken into account - asmelash

Answer 67

A

section 52 of coroners and justice act 2009
(1. abnormality of mental functioning
(2. arsing from a recognised medical condtion
(3. substantially impairs…
(4. the abnormality must porvide an explanation for the ds conduct

Answer 68

A

a case that defines abnormality
byrne
sexal physcopath who mutilated women but he was unable to control himself so he got volentary mansluaghter
‘ordianry person deem it abnormal’

Answer 69

A

must have medical evidence
covers psychological and physicical condtiitons
gittens - depression
squelch - paranoid personality
ahluwalia - battered spouse syndrome
campbell - eplilepsy
conroy - autism

Answer 70

A

must impar ds mental responsiblity
substaintail is defined in the case llyod , not total , not trival , somewhere inbetween
golds - killed parents and admitted it, found some psychiatric things , it was above trivial but not suffient enough
the ds ability to do these 3 things must be impaired - undersand the nature of his conduct (in a automatic state) , or form rational judgements, or to exercise self control (r v bryne)

Answer 71

A

if the mental functioning doesnt have anything to do with the murder then they will not be used
needs to be a casual connection between the abnormality and the killing
section2(18) homicide act ‘a significant contributory factor in causing the d to carry out that conduct’
important when the d is also intoxictaced at the time of the killing

Answer 72

A

intoxication alone will not form a defence - dowds
could have a pre-exsiting abnormality but be drinking at the time of the killing - dietschmann - someone made fn of his dead aunt, killed him , porved he had depression (was intoxicated ta the time) , vol man
alchol dependancy syndrome - wood - vey drunk , went to freinds house fell asleep, friends tried to do oral sex , hit him with meat clever , vol man

Answer 73

A

AR
1. commits an unlawful act
2. the act must be dangerous
3. the act must have cause the death
MR
1. the d only needs to have the mens rea for the unlawful act , nothing else

Answer 74

A

the unlawful act must be a crimnal offecne - lamb - playin with gun didnt know had bullets in a shot freinds , couldnt be unlawful act man bc there was no unlawful act (no fear so no assault)
franklin - threw a box into water and hit a swimmer , no unlawful act
goodfellow - set fire to council house so he could get rehomed, spread killed family , porpert offecne
it must be an act not ommision - lowe - neglected child and died of starvation, he did an omission

Answer 75

A

test for dangerousness church - ‘such as all sober and reasonable person would recognise some level of harm’ - subjective test for jury
larkin - threatened with raxer blade, women drunkenly fell on it
jm & sm - got in fight with a bouncer, collasped fue to heart issues, still a level of harm
can be aimed towards a property - goodfellow - set fire to council house
physical harm - dawson - threatened worker , they died of ha , not convicted as there was no phsyical harm
recognise vitims fraility - watson - old vitum got abused and died of ha , thin skull rule

Answer 76

A

if there is an intervening act when the chain is broken and the d is no longer guilty
cato - administered drug into victum , died
kennedy - prepared a dose of heronin but victum did it himself , died of choking on his sick , interveining act

Answer 77

A

they dont need to know about the dangerousness of their act or intend death or serious injury
mens rea for the unlawful act
dpp v newbury and jones - threw a paving slove into train tracks and hit a training killing train driving , had no intention to kill but intention for damadge

Answer 78

A

d owes the victum a duty of care
d breaches that duty of care
the breach causes the death of the victum
the breach is so bad that it is more than civil negligence and becomes criminal

main case - adomako - an anaethsist , crucial tube comes disconnected , patent went into cariac arrest , guilty

Answer 79

A

three stages for duty of care caparo v dickman - forsable harm , proximate , fair just & reasonable to impose a duty
singh - landlord , faulty gas that he didnt fix , tennants died
litchfeild - owner of a ship , sailed knowing the engines would fail , 5 sailers died
wacker - bought 60 illegal immagrants , in back of lorry with airvent lcosed , 58 died

Answer 80

A

jury must decide that the d breached their duty and that is caused the death
stone and dobinson - took in victum as a lodger, had serve diabilities , gave up looking after her, she died

Answer 81

A

has to be gross , explained in the case bateman - medical practioner , baby came out dead and only took part of uterus out, refused to care for her after
gross - beyond a matter of mere compensation and showing such disregard for life that it becomes a crime
misra and srivastava - two surgeons , patient go infected under their care and left untreated

Answer 82

A

found in section 1(1) theft act 1968
AR
1. appropriation
2. of property
3. belonging to another
MR
1. dishonesty
2. intention to permantly deprive

Answer 83

A

defintion is found in section 3(1) - assumption of the rights of ownership
innconent appropriation (section 3(2)) - transfered for value to a person acting in good faith (if A buys a book from D who stole it)
appropriation by consent
can appropriate property even where the owner consents to taking the property - gomez - pays for goods with check that doesnt work , ‘shop keeper consented’
appropriation when there is a gift that has been obtained dishonestly - hinks - manipulated someone with limited intelligence to give them money
an assumption of any right of an owner will be appropriation - morris - switches the prices in a shop

Answer 84

A

section 4(1) included money , all other property , actions and other intagible property
oxford v moss - found exam papers and read them , info isnt property
kelly - sculptor and asked for body parts , body parts arent under the act , but parts are for the bodys oownership
welsh - acussed of drink driving , poured urine down drain , polces property
land - cant be stolen expect , dealing with land in a special capcity , severs something from it , appropriates a fixture or structure on it
plants and flowers - not stealing unless used for selling
wild animals - cant steal

Answer 85

A

section 5 - a person having possesion or control , having any proprietary right or interest
stealing if its someone with a lower interest - turner - stole car the evening the repairs had finsihed , didnt pay
webster - sent another medal from army and dint send back
poses property even if they didnt know its there woodman - scarp metal take, tiny bit left, took it
abandoned property - cant steal whats not owned
property recieved for a particular reason - if its given for a certain purpose but using it in a different way , must be under legal obligation hall - travel agent, payed deposit in wrongaccount and never did tikcets
davidge v bunnet - given monye by flatmates for bills, spent it on presents
property recieved by mistake - should still be treated as belonging to the person who gave it ag ref n1- payed wrong wage and dint say anything
gilks - bet on a horse, got payed more than he should have

Answer 86

A

section 2
barton and booth - stole from elderly
not dishonest it;
he has the belief that he has in law the right of it - holden - took tyres from work bc they let him but ocntract said no
if they believe they would have the consent of the other
if they beileive the person of the property cant be found - small - saw cars with key in and took it
can be dihosnest if he acts with a view to casuing a loss to the owner , motwithstanding that he is willing to pay
jury decide wether it is dishonest

Answer 87

A

jury decide
even long term or indefinite borrowing will not amount to theft - warner - took tool box and hid in car but was going to give it back
unless the goodness is taken out - bagshaw - took gas and used it but then gave it back , but took goodness out
its not a defence to claim that money that has been taken would have been repaid - velumyl - took monye from work his friend owned him and said he was going to pay it back
test - treat the thing as his own to dispose -lavander - took doors from one council house and put it on another , borwoning or lending for a period of time that is equavilant to taking it out right
borrwiing is not theft (unless goodness taken out) - llyod - given a film and made a copy - not theft
conditional intent is not enough - eason - took handbook , looked at it and gave it back

Answer 88

A

s.8(1) theft act 1968
(1. steals
(2. force or threat of force on victum
(3. immediantly before or at the time of the theft
(4. dishonesty
(5. intention to permonantly deprive

Answer 89

A

theft must be complete , if an element missing there will be no offecne
corcoran and anderton - pushes v in back she drops her bag and screams , d runs off but empty handed , guilty

Answer 90

A

a threat of force is suffiecent so no force has to be applied
definetion - dawson and james - nudged the victum and took wallet , force was minimal but enough
clouden - force applied to a shopping basket (taking it) , indierct force
p v dpp - snatched cigerate without touching the victum - not theft
they must seek to put the victum in fear even if the v doesnt feel it - b and r v dpp - surrounded boy and pushed him for money , bot was scared but still theft
the theft doesnt have to be from the person who applies force , silence can amount to theft and the use of weapons

Answer 91

A

the force must occur either immediantly before or at the time of the theft
if the force is seprate there is no robbery
however theft can be a continuing act hale - tied up victum and then stole their jewerly
lockley - put beer under his jacket , shop keeper tried to stop but assaulted him

Answer 92

A

section 2
barton and booth - stole from elderly
not dishonest it;
he has the belief that he has in law the right of it - holden - took tyres from work bc they let him but ocntract said no
if they believe they would have the consent of the other
if they beileive the person of the property cant be found - small - saw cars with key in and took it
can be dihosnest if he acts with a view to casuing a loss to the owner , motwithstanding that he is willing to pay
jury decide wether it is dishonest

Answer 93

A

jury decide
even long term or indefinite borrowing will not amount to theft - warner - took tool box and hid in car but was going to give it back
unless the goodness is taken out - bagshaw - took gas and used it but then gave it back , but took goodness out
its not a defence to claim that money that has been taken would have been repaid - velumyl - took monye from work his friend owned him and said he was going to pay it back
test - treat the thing as his own to dispose -lavander - took doors from one council house and put it on another , borwoning or lending for a period of time that is equavilant to taking it out right
borrwiing is not theft (unless goodness taken out) - llyod - given a film and made a copy - not theft
conditional intent is not enough - eason - took handbook , looked at it and gave it back
ALSO MUST BE AN INTENTIO TO USE FORCE OR THREAT FORCE

Answer 94

A

section 9 theft act 1968
section 9(1)(a) - the defendant enters a buliding or part of a bulidng as a trespasser, with the intent to steal , inflict gbh or cause criminal damadge
section 9(1)(b) - when someones steals or inflicts gbh (or attempts either) after having tresspassed
(1. entry
(2. building or part of a building
(3. tresspassing
(4. both need intent or recklessness
(a , intent at the time of entering the builfing
(b , get the intent once entering the bulding , but have mens rea for first crime they commited

Answer 95

A

not actually defined in the theft act
first case to define it collins - entry must be effective and substaintial
effective entry
brown - smashed window , leaned in a stole (feet stayed outside) , guilty
ryan - got stuck in window had to be removed , guilty
the d inability to steal bc they were stuck is irrelavnt

Answer 96

A

inhavited places (dwellings) , caravans and house boats
problems arise when the structure is not inhavited but used for storage
leathley - stole from trailor argued it wasnt a building , had been there for a long time and had electricity , guilty
seekings and gould - stole from lorry trailor on wheels , not guilty
part of a bulding - happens when they have permission for part of the buliding but not for another
walkington - went to shop , opnened till but no money , guilty
laing - stays in storage room after hours , caught , guilty

Answer 97

A

civil law of trespassing
collins - drunk naked man climbs up ladder to window , has sex with girl , thinking it her bf , not guilty as had ‘permission’
permission for limited purpose - when a d is acting within excess of their permission ‘ when you invite someone to walk on your stairs you dont invite them to slide down the banaster’
jones and smith - went to dads house and stole his tvs, had permission to be tere but not steal
permission obtained by fraud - no genuine permission

Answer 98

A

both a and b need inetionally or recklessly trespass
section 9(1)(a) - must have the intention to commit one of the three offecnes at the time of entering the building, if they intent to steal but dont find anythign worthy this is condtional intent
ag ref 1 and 2 - went to house to steal but didnt find anything worth taking , guilty
section 9(1)(b) - have the mens rea for the ulterior offence when commiting these offence (after they have entered they then see something they want to steal)

Answer 99

A

section 1 criminal attempt act 1981
the defendant must have the intention to commit the offecne and does an act which is more than merely preparotory

Answer 100

A

the defendant doesnt need to have performed the last act before the crime or have reached the point of no return
ag ref n1 - dragged v into shed with the intent of raping , only assaulted , but guilty as they got to a point of no return
embarked on the ‘crime proper’ - guellefer - d jumped into race tracks to get his monet back , he hadnt embarked on the crime proper so wasnt guilty

Answer 101

A

(1. had the d moved from planning or preporation to excutuion or implemenation?
(2. has the d done an act showing that he was actually trying to commit the full offence, or had he only got as far as getting ready or putting himself in a postion or equipping himself to do so ?
geddes - found in boys school toleits in possesion of knife rope and masking tape , he hadnt spoken to any pupils , not guilty
campbell - outside post office with fake gun , action were not more than merely prarototy
boyle and boyle - found next to a lock that was broken , guilty
tosti - intenting to burgale , took metal cutting equipment but walked away and no damadge , guilty
jones - d gf left him for v , got gun and went to v car and pointed it at im , attempted murder

Answer 102

A

must act with intention to commit the offence
easom - picked up handbag looked through it and out it back with nothing taken , had not intention to permontaly deprive , not guilty
ag ref 1 and 2 - if he had contional intent that can be charged with attmepted
for attempted murder the prosecution must prove an intention to kill ( could still use oblique intent)
whybrow - wired up his wifes bath , attempted murder
walker and hayles - threw v off of three story building and didnt die , attempted murder

Answer 103

A

s1(2) criminal attempts act 1981
a person may be guilty of attempting to commit a crime even though the facts are such that the commision of the offence is impossible
shivpuri - thought he was carrying a suitcase of heronin and admitted to it but he was acc carrying dried cabbage , guilty

Answer 104

A

used for non fatal offences
court must concider ;
(1. can a person consent to this level of injury?
is the consent genuine/valid?

Answer 105

A

all offences expect murder
assisted suicide - illegal nicklinson
pretty - asked if husband could help her die , no
airdale nhs trust v bland - doctors can turn off life machine for those in permant vegetative state
can consent to accidenatal force - wilson v pringle - everyday justle
where the charge is s47 , 20 or 18 then consent is only valid for legally good reasons

Answer 106

A

games and sports - barnes - nad tackle in rugny and boke leg
secual activity - slingsby - fisted wife with a ring and died of sepsis
tattooing and branding - wilson - branded wife with hot knofe and got infected
horseplay - aitken- set light to his friends fire proof suit
jones - throwing boys in air and got injured
lawful chastisements
surgery

Answer 107

A

sado-masochistric activiety - brown - homosexuals , no injuries
some off the ball sporting -johnson - bit somebodies ear off
illegal sports( street fights , bare knuckle boxing) - coney - bare knuckle boxing , got injured
if not in public intrest - leach - did his own crussifiction

Answer 108

A

the alleged victum must be able to give valid consent - burrell v harmer - tattoed a 13 and 14yr , to young to give consent
consent is obtained by fraud
dica - slept with people knowing he had hiv
tabassum - set up a breast clinic as a docotr just to grope women
richardson - suspened densit but still practised
submission is not that same as consent
olugboja - got rape , ‘consented bc she took her cloths off’

Answer 109

A

(1. do you think we should allow consent for death?
autonomy/self determination
lacking cacity/open to abuse
inconsistent
(2. do you think the outsome of r v brown problamatic
illogical distinction - wilson , dr evil
public policy … discimination - dont want to condone
against freedom and autonmoy
(3.how does the law of consent go against human rights - governement deciding public policy - leach , brown
human rights = personal freedom
public safety
(4. are there inconsistencies over how we are enforcing this defence ? sport/sex
sado machinism - no list of whats allowed
distiniction between rules - mostly clear , how bad does the tackle need to be
dangerous sports like boxing , ice hockey
(5. how informed does consent need to be?
medical - all risks
contrast against implied consent - sports , horseplay

Answer 110

A

section 3 criminal law act 1967
(1. did the d think it ws neccasary
(2. was the degree of force reasonable ?
both were then expanded in section 76 criminal justice and immigration act 2008

Answer 111

A

the d has to show they genually believed that it was necessary for them to act
d has made a mistake about the attack - allowed - gladstone williams - saw man attacking a boy , turnt out he wass robbing him
drunken mistake - no - o’connor - murdered someone drunk , belived he was under attack - guilty
no need to retreat - bird - got slapped , punched forgetting they had a glass in their hand
if the threat is over , no force allowed - hussain - taken captive with family , he escaped and went back to attack man
preparing for an attack is allowed - ag ref - owned a shop in riots , made petrol bombs incase

Answer 112

A

need to make sure the force was used to prevent the crime not excessive
this created problems when - the use of force is necessary (justified) but no reasonable (proportionate)
clegg - soldier shot at a car 4 times , last one killed the man , to much
martin - two men broke into his house and he shot them , had mental issues but that is not taken into account
household cases - the degree of force is only unreasonable if it is grossly disproportionate
collins v secretary state of justice -man tresspassed so d put him into headlock giving him brain damadge - not guilty

Answer 113

A

jury decide wether force is necessary - each case will have a different opionon , most of the time they are to genrous
“all or nothing” - if the defence doesnt work you will get a full sentence , no middle ground , what happens if you didnt mean to kill
condtion of victum not considered - if they think they are in more danger bc of their condition , says its based on how the d belived
how imminent is imminent? - how faie is the measure to protect yourself , should you wait until you are attacked , battered spouse syndrome cant use this defence
who decides if grossly disproportiate
if you have time to prepare should you not call the police
*

Answer 114

A

gov made it a partial offence - loss of control manslaughter
households can protetc themselves
pre-emptive strike
complete defence - upholds justice for innocent people

Answer 115

A

offences which require a specific intention
muder , 1.18 , theft , buglary , robbery
is a defence

Answer 116

A

offences where recklessness is a mens rea
mansluaghter , s.20 , s.47 , assault , battery
is not a defence

Answer 117

A

certain circumstances are allowed for the defence
if it is a specific intent crime and they dont have the mens rea due to the intoxication they are not guilty
dpp v beard - killed and raped girls , said he was to drunk to form mens rea
sheehan and moore - set fire to a tramp , to drunk to form mens rea
gallagher - confirms that drunken intent is still intent - dutch courage - killed wife after getting intoxicated
if its basic intent the volentary drinking is seen as reckless therefore forfills mens rea - majewski - got drunk and attacked police officers

Answer 118

A

spiked your drink or given you drugs with your knowledge
kingston - had history of liking little boys , got drugged and absued 15yr old , guilty bc he would have still had the intent if he was intoxicated
where a drug has done an unexpected effect hardie - took valium which is meant to calm you down , set fire to room where his daughter and ex gf were , not guilty

Answer 119

A

if the mistake is about something that means the d cant have the specifc mens rea it is a defence
if it is basic offence then there will be no offence - lipman - took lsd and attacked gf bc she though she was a snake , manslaughter
if its about how much force to use in self defence , they wont hvae a defence - hatton - hit v with a sledgehammer bc v hit him with stick , guilty
except jaggard v dickinson - friend said you can use my house , tried to get in identical looking one , broke window to get in , not guilty bc they genurally belived

Answer 120

A

r v heard (vol , gulity) - been self harming and depressed , police took him to hopsital , rubbed penis on his thigh , couldnt remeber anything
richardson and irwen (not guilty , vol) - was drinking about involved with horeplay , dropped v off 10ft balacony
beckford (self defence , not guilty - police officer shot someone who they thought had a gun , mistaken belief
tandy (guilty of murder) - alcholic (ads) , strangled daughter to death

Answer 121

A

sexual offences are specifc intent crimes - means that people are either going to get fully acquited if to intoxicated (creates injustice)
howver they found heard was inconsicent and was found guilty
it is a complete offence to basic intent but only partial defence for specfic intent - unfair?
rules of vol intoxication/basic intent - fair/just but although drinking is reckless, they arent being reckless about the crimes mens rea, should the rule of richardson and irwen be followed
kingston - was guility despite invol intoxication , how is that fair?
however it does protect the public
inconsitent over self defence - if intoxicated mistake is not honest/genuine (o’connor) and defence wont work whereas a different type of mistake is fine (beckford)
hardie - the defence worked as invol/basic intent …. but was he being reckless by taking the valium?

Answer 122

A

codification with minor amendments
where the prosecution alleges any intentio or purpose , any knowledge or belief , or fraud and dishonesty - evidence of intoxcition should be taken into account
“would have been aware if not intoxciated” - any mental element other than these, a d who was vol intoxicated should be treated as having been aware of everything
automatism resulting from voluntary intoxication , or mistaken of fact resulting from vol intox - a person who kills in a msitaken belief (resulting from vol intox) that circumstances exist that would reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter , should be guilty of only manslaughter

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Criminal Law - Paper 1 Section B Flashcards

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM