fatal offences Flashcards

1
Q

what is the definition of murder

A

the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the kings peace with malice aforethought express or implied

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

what is the men’s rea of murder

A

intention to kill
intention to cause gbh

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

what is the actus reus of murder

A

unlawful killing via act or omission of a reasonable creature in being

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

r v gibbins and proctor

A

ommision leading to death can form the actus reus

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

what case shows an ommision can form the actus reus

A

r v gibbins and proctor

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

what is meant by a reasonable creature in being

A

a human being that is not a foetus
brain dead is a grey area

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

what is meant by under the kings peace

A

war killings are an exception

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

what is meant by an unlawful killing

A

not in self defence or in prevention of crime

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

what is express intention

A

a clear intention to end the life of a victim

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

what is oblique intention

A

no direct intent but is aware of the consequence

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

what is the serious harm rule

A

you only need to intend to cause gbh to form the mens rea of murder

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

what case established the serious harm rule

A

dpp v smith

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

how do you establish oblique intent

A

using foresight of consequences

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

what are the foresight of consequences

A

was the consequence natural and probable
did the defendant foresee this
does the jury find d had this level of intention

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

what is transferred malice

A

d intents to kill or harm one person but ends up killing another

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

which case shows transferred malice

A

r v gnango

17
Q

r v gnango

A

transferred malice

18
Q

what is the statute for attempted murder

A

the criminal attempts act 1981

19
Q

what is the mens rea of attempted murder

A

an intention to kill

20
Q

what is the actus reus of attempted murder

A

person does an act more than merely preparatory

21
Q

r v whybrow

A

there just be an intention to kill in attempted murder

22
Q

what case shows there must be an intention to kill in attempted murder

A

r v whybrow

23
Q

what are the elements needed for diminished responsibility

A

abnormality of mental functioning
medical condition
impaired ability
explains act or ommision

24
Q

what is meant by an abnormality of mental functioning

A

a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary human being that the reasonable man would call it abnormal

25
what case shows an abnormality of mental functioning
r v byrne
26
r v byrne
abnormality of mental functioning is what a reasonable man would term as abnormal
27
what is a recognised medical condition
a physical mental or psychological condition which can be evidenced under the WHO database which can be evolved
28
what is meant by substantially impair
a degree, and is up to the jury
29
what must be substantially impaired to prove diminished responsibility
understand nature of his conduct form a rational judgement exercise self control
30
what is meant by diminished responsibility providing an explanation
the medical condition must lead to abnormality which leads to impaired ability and this must be the reason for killing
31
what kind of defence is diminished responsibility
partial and special
32
is intoxication enough to create dr
no
33
what case shows intoxication can’t create diminished responsibility
r v dowds
34
r v dowds
intoxication can’t be the only factor behind diminished responsibility