Criminal S1 Flashcards
(119 cards)
1
Q
Actus reus
A
Conduct of the defendant
- must be performed in certain circumsrances
- the conduct must cause prohibited consequences
- conduct is normally an act
2
Q
Ommissions
A
Where D is under duty to act
3
Q
Roberts (1972)
A
Reasonable forgeability test
4
Q
Statutory duties
A
duty to act imposed by the state
5
Q
Contractual duties
A
a duty that may arise due to contractual obligation
6
Q
Pittwood [1902]
A
prosecuted for not fulfilling contractual duties of pulling a lever to change tracks, resulted in death, charged with manslaughter
7
Q
Assumption of responsibility
A
a duty to act arises when the defendant has assumed responsibility for the wellbeing of the defendant
8
Q
Evans [2009]
A
Assumption of responsibility
From a blood relationship eg parent and child
Little sister given heroin
9
Q
Stone v Dobinson [1977]
A
Assumption of responsibility
victim living with brother
made inadequate effort to care for her and jury said they were obliged as she was helplessly infrirm
10
Q
Creation of Danger
A
Where the defendant has created a dangerous situatuion and failed to prevent harm coming as a result.
11
Q
Miller [1983]
A
sleeping vagrant who fell asleep with a cigarette woke up and found fire, did nothing, moved room, charged with arson
12
Q
DPP v Santana-Bermudez
A
hypodermic needles in pockets and then told officer to search him without telling them about needles
assault occasioning ABH
13
Q
Bowler [2015]
A
mummification due to fetish
V died of suffocation, although he consented it was clearly dangerous to leave him without checking if he could breathe
14
Q
Fagan [1969]
A
parked car on officers foot and refused to move,
commission was held as continuous act of assault
15
Q
3 elements of Automatism
A
defence
-total destruction of voluntary control (Coley [2013])
- the conditions was caused by an external factor
the defendant was not responsible for his state of mind (coley [2013] and Bailey [1983])
16
Q
Consequences of Finding Automatism
A
- If self induced, no defence
- Automatism is seen to be the result of legal insanity
- if it is the result of external factors it will lead to full acquittal
17
Q
Kennedy [2007]
A
Questions of causation cannot be boiled down to mathematical formulae,
need context
18
Q
Guiding rule of causation
A
Cheshire [1991]
Prosecution must show that D’s acts was a substantial and operating cause of the harm
19
Q
Cato [1976]
A
it doesn’t need to be the only cause but cannot be minimal - can also be used for CDA
20
Q
Longbottom [1849]
A
convicted of manslaughter even though it was in part defendants fault for walking in the middle of the road
21
Q
But For causation
A
White [1910]
22
Q
Novus actus interveniens
A
An intervening unseen event -acts by third parties -medical treatments acts and omissions of the victim -acts of god
23
Q
The relevance of mens Rea
A
if the defendant intends to produce a consequence, the law is likely to find him guilty of causing the event
24
Q
Actus reds of murder
A
Unlawful killing
25
Mens Rea of murder
Cunningham [1982]
| -intention to kill or cause GBH
26
How can murder be defended?
- Loss of control
- Diminished responsibility
- Suicide pact
27
Why does murder have partial defences?
Judges discretion due to partial defence
28
Haigh {2010]
Mother smothered a child
| CoA held that it was impossible to tell the mother intended to kill
29
Smith v DPP
Definition of GBH - to cause really serious harm
30
If partial defence is granted....
Charge reduced to voluntary manslaughter
31
Steps toward Actus reus of murder
1) Was it unlawful?
2) Did it cause death?
3) Of a person?
4) Was it under the queens peace?
32
Steps towards Mens Rea of murder?
1) Intention to kill/cause GBH?
2) Partial defence?
- run through list
33
Clinton [2013]
loss of control due to wife describing intense graphic detail of an affair so he killed her
34
Coroners and Justice Act s.52
diminished responsibility
35
Coroners and Justice Act s.54
loss of control
36
Coroners and Justice Act s.55
Defines qualifying triggers
- felt thereat of serious harm
- was of extremely grave character
- sexual infidelity should be disregarded
37
Woolin [1999]
Convicted of murder due to inflicting injury on baby sons head appealed successfully
Jury can find intention if death or serious injury was fairly certain
38
R v Dowds [2012]
Voluntary acute intoxication cannot be capable of founding diminished responsibility
39
Four elements of CDA
1) Crime
2) Which is dangerous
3) Intentionally performed act
4) Causes the death of another
40
Franklin [1883]
Unlawful in the criminal sense of the word
41
Lamb [1967]
defendant messing with revolver, didn’t think there was a bullet, shot his mate, unlucky, no mens Rea and no acts reus, no base offence
42
Andrews v DPP [1937]
Crimes of negligence do not count
43
DPP v Newbury
All sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm” [1977] AC 500 p.507
44
Lowe [1973]
In CDA omission will not qualify it must be an act
45
Criticisms of CDA
- Extremest constructive
- Objective
- Striven to hold D's liable
- Rule of law issues
46
4 steps of GNM
1) Owed a duty of care
2) Breach of that duty
3) Which is gross
4) Has to cause death
47
R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 (HL)
Anaesthetist who failed to notice a patients tube had been disconnected during app and he died
Trial judge could direct the jury to consider wether his actions were reckless.
GNM manslaughter
48
s.47 Offences Against the Person Act
Deals with ABH
“Whoever shall be convicted on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable…to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding five years”
49
Actus Reus of OAP s.47 offence
1) Assault or battery
2) Occasioning
3) ABH
50
Definition of ABH
Donovan [1934] 2KB 498
We think that bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the prosecutor [v]. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent but must no doubt be more than merely transient and trifling
51
OAP s.20
To “unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any GBH upon any other person, either with or without, any weapon or instrument”
52
The two acts reus of s.20 OAP
Actus reus 1: Inflicting GBH
Actus reus 2: Wounding
53
Actus reus 1 of s.20
Inflicting GBH;
DPP v Smith [1961] defines GBH as really serious harm
54
Actus reus 2 of s.20
To wound
55
Konzani
HIV Transmission
If the defendant had informed the victim about the illness then it would be lawful to transmit the illness.
56
DPP v K [1990] 1 WLR 1067
Force need not be directly applied
57
Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172
Police woman actions amounted to battery
so the assault on the officer was actually self defence
58
R v Donovan
Any injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort providing it isn’t trivial
qualifies as ABH
59
R v Brown
Consent cannot be a defence to ABH
60
R v Jones
Defence of horseplay, two school boys thrown into the air with the intention of catching and missed resulting in serious injury eg ruptured spleen
61
R v Aitken
RAF lighting Esch other on fire
Convicted of GBH but was horseplay between officers beforehand and victims
62
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 s.8
whoever shallop aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, wether the same be an offence ai common law or buy an act passed or to be passed is liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender
63
Principle offender
The person in. the group who carries out the main offence
64
Serious Crime Act 2007 s.44
1) a person commits an offence if:
a) he does an act that is capable of encouraging ir assisting the commission of the offence
b) he intends to encourage the offence
2) not to be taken to have intended to encourage or assist the commission of the offence merely because it was foreseeable
65
Serious Crime Act 2007 s.45
1) a person commits an offence if:
he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission and he believes
that the offence will be committed and his act will encourage or assist its commission
66
Serious Crime Act 2007 s.46
1) a person commits an offence if:
he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission and he believes
that one or more of the offences will be committed and his act will encourage or assist its commission
67
R v Jogee
The element of conduct (encouraging or assisting the principle) must also be present along with the mens rea
68
R v Jogee
The element of conduct (encouraging or assisting the principle) must also be present along with the mens rea when someone furthers an offence
69
R v Gianetto [1997] 1 Cr App R 1 (CA).
The jury do not have to be sure which defendant in fact killed provided they are sure that both were there pursuant to a joint enterprise to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
70
DPP of Northern Ireland v Maxwell [1978] 1 WLR 1350 (HL)
If the crime was committed by the principle offender..........
71
R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22
Defendant could not have taken evasive action
His family was going to be harmed
Can claim duress
72
R v Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294 (CA)
Did the defendant reasonably believe the king would harm him and was so impelled to carry out the acts.
If not then cannot claim duress
73
R v Howe [1987] 1 AC 417 (HL)
Duress
The defence of duress is not available for murder
74
Re A (Conjoined Twins) [2000] 4 All ER 961 (CA)
Duress
Operation to save one twins life as the other would have killed her
75
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s 76.
Self defence
Reasonable force for the purpose of self defence
76
Criminal Law Act 1967, s 3.
self defence
Force in making an arrest
May use such force as is reasonable in the circumstance of the prevention of crime
77
Beckford v R [1988] AC 130 (PC).
self defence
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he honestly believes them to be in the defence of himself or another.
78
R (on the application of Collins) v SoS for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin).
self defence
self defence of human rights??
79
R v Martin [2001] EWCA Crim 2245.
self defence
personality disorder could not be considered for the purposes of self defence
conviction still quashed as psych report hadn't been considered by jury
80
Intoxication
NEVER A DEFENCE
81
Allen [1988] Crim LR 698
argued he didn't realise the strength of the alcohol
CoA doesn't matter, ultimately he Wass drinking so he was voluntarily intoxicated
82
Dangerous drugs for intoxication?
includes alcohol and controlled drugs
doesn't medicines
if they formed MR then nothing changes
83
Beard [1920] AC 479
Specific intent requires intention,
| whereas basic intent can be satisfied by recklessness
84
DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 142
D is reckless in having gotten drunk in the first place
MR satisfied by recklessness
85
Kingston [1994] 3 all ER 353
Involuntary intoxication
tried to avoid alcohol
drugged by someone to get blackmail material when indecent assault took place
not voluntary into and as such acquitted
HOWever HoL restored conviction as he still formed MR
86
Trial of Lunatics Act 1883, s.2
Defence of insanity
Can present not guilty verdict for reasons of insanity
87
R v McNaughten (1843) 10 Cl & F 200.
Provides the legal definition of insanity
to rely on the defence they must:
1) laboured under a defect of reason
2) caused by a disease of the mind; so that
3) he did not know the nature and quality of hid act or that he did not know what he was doing was wrong
88
R v Hennessy [1989] 1 WLR 287 (CA).
Diabetes caused hyperglycaemic state
insanity is the appropriate defence not automatism
89
R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399 (Assizes)
Tried to argue automatism for bashing wife with hammer when unconscious due to hardening of arteries in brain
Hardening arteries was a disease of the mind
M'Naghten Rules mean he cannot rely on automatism
90
Bratty v Attorney General of Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386 (HL)
Psychomotor epilepsy - terrible feeling unconscious as to actions
asked for automatism
trial judge said it was insanity and nothing else
91
R v Quick [1973] 1 QB 910 (CA).
Hypoglacemia - too much insulin
insanity defence accepted
92
R v Sullivan [1984] 1 AC 156 (HL)
kicked somoene when he had epilepsy
pleaded automatism - got insanity from the trial judge
93
Define theft
Theft act 1968 s.1
Dishonestly, appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
94
3 Elements of the Actus Reus of Theft
Appropriates
Property
Belonging ti another
95
2 Mens Rea elements of theft
dishonesty
| intention to permanently deprive (need not actually achieve this)
96
Burglary
Theft Act s.9
Enters a building as a trespasser
then steals or attempts to steal
97
Conviction for burglary sentences
- Up to 14 years where the offence was committed in respect of a building
- Up to 10 in any other case
98
R v Morris [1984] AC 320 (HL)
switched labels in supermarket
There need not be an appropriation of all the rights of an owner
99
DPP v Gomez [1993] AC 442 (HL)
Appropriation does not require absence of consent
100
R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241 (HL)
appropriation exists even where the victim consents to the appropriation
civil unlawfulness is not a constituent of the offence of theft
101
Oxford v Moss [1978] 68 Cr App R 183 (QB
Information cannot be deemed as tangible property and therefore cannot be stolen within the theft act
102
R v Turner (No.2) [1971] 1 WLR 901 (CA)
took car without paying fire repairs
theft as although it was his property, the garage was in possession and control of it
103
R v Hall [1972] All ER 1009 (CA)
Travel agents collapsed
lost the clients money
no obligation to deal with the money in a certain way under s5(3) of theft act
104
R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299
took from companies safe and said it would be returned next week
convicted of theft, unless she returned the exact same notes he had the intention to permanently deprive
105
R v Lloyd [1985] QB 829 (CA)
was genuinely just borrowing the films from work so could not intentionally permanently deprive
106
R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 (CA)
Ghosh test for dishonesty
was it dishonest by ordinary standards?
if yes;
did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards
107
Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67
New test for dishonesty
same as ghosh but includes subjective test of the defendants actual knowledge/belief of facts
108
R v Smith and Jones [1976] 3 All ER 54
invited into house, stole and as such became trespassers
109
R v Walkington [1979] 2 All ER 716
no requirement to have a physical separation
over counter was out of bounds
tresspasser in that part of building
110
Theft Act 1968, s.8
Robbery I stealing with the use of force
can be liable to life imprisonment
111
Fraud act 2006 s.1
guilty of fraud if they commit fraud by
false rep
failure to disclose info
abuse of position
112
Fraud act 2006 s2
guilty if he dishonestly makes a false representation
intends to make a gain for himself
has to know false rep is utntrue/misleading
can be express or implied
113
Fraud act 2006 s5
gain and loss extend to money for other property only
114
Criminal Damage act 1971 s.1
without lawful excuse a person destroys or damages property even through recklessness
if it is their own and would endanger another life then it is still criminal damage
destroying by fire is arson
115
Criminal Damage act 1971 s.5
without lawful excuse
lawful if believed the person who could consent to destruction had consented to destruction
or in order to protect property belonging to himself
Immaterial justification \
inclues land pirveleges
116
R v Clouden [1987] Crim LR 56
grabbed shopping bag out of woman hand
robbery as force on the bag was sufficient to amount force on the person
117
P v DPP [2012] EWHC 1657
robbery not committed
snatched a cigarette out of someones hand
not sufficient enough force
118
R v Ray [1974] AC 370
discovered he couldn't pay for a meal. but didn't inform anyone of this, ran out when there were no waiters
theft through deception
119
R v Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 2381
drunk in charge of a car an assaulting officer
blanket down toilet of cell and flooded cell said it couldn't be damage as cell is waterproof
blanket and cell were damaged as they shouldn't be used until they'd been dried
CD includes temporary impairment of value or usefulness
