Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Criminal > Defences and basics > Flashcards

Defences and basics Flashcards

(85 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

What is the golden thread

A

Duty of prosecution to prove D is guilty not for D to prove innocence - presumption of innocence

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

Which defences reverse the burden of proof

A

Diminished responsibility and insanity - balance of probabilities

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

What is the evidential burden

A

Duty to make issues live in the case. No need to prove, just introduce evidence

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

How to establish causation

A

Causation in fact - but for
Causation in law- operating and substantial cause of death. Ongoing at time of harm. Doesn’t need to be only cause, just A cause. More than slight link.
Intervening act?

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

Possible intervening acts

A

Thin skull rules
Natural events
Acts of V
Acts of third people

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

What is the thin skull rule

A

Take v as you find them. Unusual condition won’t break chain of causation

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

Does a natural event break the chain of causation

A

If not reasonably foreseeable then it breaks the chain

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

Can V break the chain of causation

A

If V causes own injury through free and voluntary act the chain is broken. If V not acting freely then ask was Vs act a reasonably foreseeable consequence of ads act. If yes then D cause Vs injury if no D didn’t cause it

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

Can the act of a third party break the chain of causation

A

Free, deliberate and informed act of third party can break chain but a reasonable act in self defence does not
Is act of third party normal or extraordinary ?

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

What is the doctrine of transferred malice

A

Allows mens rea to be transferred from intended v to unintended v

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

What is direct intention

A

A result D wanted or aimed to produce

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

What is indirect intention

A

D did not want or aim to produce it but did foresee the result as very likely to occur as a result of their actions

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

What is the woolin test for intention

A

Is the result a virtually certain consequence of Ds actions?
Did d realise it was a virtually certain consequence
Does the jury decided it is appropriate to find intent?

Need yes to every question for intent

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

Test for recklessness

A

D foresaw the risk of harm being cause by their acts and decided to act anyway (subjective)
Ds taking of the risk was unjustified (objective)

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

What is strict liability

A

When one element of the actus reus has no men’s rea so fault is irrelevant

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

What is absolute liability

A

When the whole offence has no mens rea

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

What is maliciousness

A

D intended to do the particular type of harm or foresaw that it might be done

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

Defence

A 
Insanity 
Automatism 
Voluntary intoxication 
Age
Mistake
Consent 
Self defence
Duress 
Necessity 
Consent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Is age a defence

A

Must be 10 or over

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

Is mistake a defence

A

If the mistake prevents the forming of the mens rea

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

Requirements to rely on self defence as a defence?

A

Force used must be reasonable in the circumstances AS D SEES THEM - doesn’t need to be a reasonable belief and can rely on mistaken belief unless due to intoxication
To prevent crime, defend yourself, another person or property from attack or threat of attack
Amount of force used is assessed objectively- irrelevant what D thought was reasonable

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

Is voluntary intoxication a defence

A

Never

Specific intent crimes- did D have mens rea? If so drunk they don’t know what they’re doing they might not have mens rea

Basic intent crimes- would D have MR when sober? If yes then MR is formed. Would need to show they wouldn’t foresee risk when sober

Cannot use as defence if Dutch courage

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

What is a basic intent crime

A

Require only proof of recklessness

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

What is a crime of specific intent

A

Crimes which required proof of intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
What is automatism
D has no control over body due to external factor and cannot be blamed for that state
26
Other names for automatism and insanity
Automatism - non insane automatism - external Insanity - insane automatism - internal
27
Evidence needed to rely on insanity as a defence
Insanity at time of crime- 2 medical practitioners, at least 1 approved to give evidence
28
Requirements to rely on defence of insanity
Defect of reason from disease of mind so did not know nature and quality of acts OR Defect of reason from disease of mind and did know nature and quality of act but did not know what he was doing was wrong
29
What does it mean to not know nature and quality of acts
Means D did not know what he was physically doing or what the consequences were
30
What is a defect of reasoning
D was deprived of the power of reason
31
What is a disease of the mind
An internal disorder that impaired Ds mental functions of reason, memory and understanding
32
Which crimes can the defence of insanity be pleased to
All crimes
33
Burden of proof for insanity defence
On D to balance of probabilities
34
Result if insanity defence successful
Not guilty by reason of insanity - disposal order MHA
35
Test for duress
D had good cause to reasonably believe if they did not do it they will kill or cause serious injury And A sober person of reasonable firmness sharing Ds characteristics would have done the same Imminent? Escape?
36
Which crimes cannot use a defence of duress
Murder Attempted murder Treason
37
When can’t you rely on duress
If you have voluntarily associated with criminals
38
Can you consider Ds characteristics for a defence of duress
Only if they affect all people eg age
39
Who must death or serious injury be against for a defence of duress
Family, D, person close to D or person D is responsible for
40
What is good cause to reasonably believe - duress
Ok if D was mistaken as long as it was a reasonable mistake then defence can still succeed
41
Is there a defence of necessity
No
42
What is valid consent
Freedom Capacity Sufficient understanding of nature of proposed act
43
What is consent a defence to
Assault, battery | ABH and GBH only when an exception applies in public interest
44
who has an evidential AND a legal burden
prosecution
45
what is Ps evidential burden
provide sufficient evidence for each element of the offence
46
what is Ds evidential burden
raise some evidence to make the issue live
47
what is factual causation
but for
48
what is legal causation
D's conduct must be a substantial and operation cause of the consequences
49
can there be multiple causes of the offence or would this break the chain of causation
there can be multiple causes of the result and it doesn't matter that D's actions were just one of these. there can be more than one person liable. The fact that there are multiple causes doesn't stop D from being liable.
50
when does an intervening act break the chain or causation
when is it free, deliberate and not reasonably foreseeable.
51
do acts of god break the chain
only if unforeseeable
52
does medical negligence break the chain
unlikely - only if so independent of D's act and so significant in cause death that D's actions become insignificant.
53
does suicide break the chain
not if it is a reasonable response that might be expected in that situation
54
does V trying to escape break the chain
not if they were forced into the situation because then it isn't free
55
do acts of third parties break the chain
only if they are free, deliberate and informed or not reasonably foreseeable
56
do acts of V after act of D but before consequence of D's act break the chain
possibly if it was a free, informed and deliberate act
57
what is direct intention
D seeks to achieve the consequences of their act
58
what is indirect intention
consequences are by-product of the principle aim
59
what is another name for indirect intention
oblique intention
60
how does woolin define indirect intention
if not direct intention then consider: what the consequence a virtually certain outcome from Ds act or omission (Objective test) and Did D appreciate the consequence was virtually certain (subjective - what did D foresee. not what RP would foresee)
61
what is the test for recklessness
this risk was unjustified or unreasonable (objective - RP) | D foresaw the risk and went on to take it (subjective)
62
test for negligence
objective - falls below standard of RP
63
how to decide if a crime is strict liability
either the court or the statute decide. Presumption in favour of mens rea.
64
what is strict liability
when mens rea not required for one or more elements of the actus reaus
65
2 ways in which the AR and MR can coincide in time
continuing act - ongoing AR and MR occurs later while AR is still ongoing single transaction principle - sequence of events MR present for initial act and subsequent act caused AR. From the outside D is involved in criminal activity so time lapse between events doesn't matter because there is a sequence of events
66
requirements for transferred malice to apply
must be an intention or recklessness MR crime not negligence. AR must be same for both crimes
67
what is a basic intent crime
recklessness or intention
68
what is a specific intent crime
only intention
69
what is an offence of ulterior intent
additional MR element
70
what should you consider when a party is not guilty of a specific intent crime due to intoxication
whether there is a lesser basic intent crime they can be convicted of
71
is involuntary intoxication a defence
yes to any offence (basic and specific intent) if D lacks MR. Cannot rely on this defence if D had MR
72
when can't you rely on mistaken belief for self defence
when mistaken belief is due to intoxication
73
can you rely on self defence if you are intoxicated
only if your reaction did not exceed that of a sober person in the same situation
74
what sort of belief do you need to hold to rely on the defence of lawful excuse for criminal damage and arson
genuine belief
75
can you rely on defence of lawful excuse for criminal damage and arson if you hold a mistaken belief due to intoxication
if the belief was a mistake and only made it due to intoxication then the defence is still avaliable
76
who has burden of proving self defence
D has evidential burden the P must disprove beyond reasonable doubt
77
when can self defence be relied on
when necessary to defend themselves or another from attack or prevent a criminal offence (subjective)
78
can you rely on a mistaken belief for self defence
yes a mistaken but honest belief is okay because they test is subjective - did D believe it was necessary (unless due to intoxication)
79
can you rely on a mistaken belief for self defence WHERE THE BELIEF IS UNREASONABLE
yes - subjective test - Did D believe it was necessary (unless due to intoxication)
80
how much force can be used for self defence
amount of force used must be reasonable in the circumstances - objective
81
are Ds characteristics taken in to consideration when deciding whether D used reasonable force in self defence
physical characteristics are considered but Ds psychiatric condition is not relevant
82
does D need to retreat before using force to rely on self defence
no - but can take it in to consideration when deciding if force used was reasonable
83
how do householder cases differ when using self defence
degree of force is not reasonable if it was grossly disproportionate - this means they can use more than proportionate force but cannot go over the top.
84
who can rely on householder case law when using self defence
they need not be the homeowner but cannot be a trespasser and must be in or partly in the dwelling
85
Does D have to wait to be attacked before using self defence
no provided they honestly believed the force was necessary to ward off the attack. danger they apprehend must be sufficiently specific or imminent to justify Ds actions

Criminal (4 decks)

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