Homicide Flashcards
(100 cards)
1
Q
UAM is governed by?
A
A range of common laws
2
Q
UAM: the D had committed a crime and not a tort
A
Franklin
3
Q
UAM: the unlawful act is a positive act
A
Lowe
4
Q
UAM: the D must satisfy all of the elements of the unlawful act
A
Lamb
5
Q
UAM: the D act is objectively dangerous if the reasonable and sober person foresees a risk of harm from their conduct
A
Church
6
Q
UAM: objectively dangerous act doesn’t have to be aimed at the V
A
Larkin
7
Q
UAM: objectively dangerous act can be aimed at property
A
Goodfellow
8
Q
UAM: if the V had a obvious vulnerability, the D would know, and so would the reasonable and sober person
A
Watson
9
Q
UAM: reasonable and sober person has to foresee some harm and not a specific type of harm
A
JM v SM
10
Q
UAM: doesn’t matter if the D didn’t realise if their conduct was dangerous, as long as the reasonable and sober person would realise it
A
Bristow
11
Q
UAM: usual rule of causation also apply to UAM
A
Attorney General Reference ( No 3 of 1994)
12
Q
UAM: D must have the men’s rea of the unlawful act
A
Lamb
13
Q
UAM: transferred malice can apply to UAM
A
Mitchell
14
Q
UAM: All that matters is that they satisfy the MR of the unlawful act
A
Newbury & Jones
15
Q
Diminished responsibility : governed by
A
S2(1) Homicide Act 1957 amended by S52 Corners and Justice Act 2009
16
Q
Diminished responsibility: D’s state of mind is so different that a reasonable man would consider it abnormal
A
Lord Parker CJ
17
Q
Diminished responsibility: the AMF doesn’t have to be permanent or present at birth
A
Gomez
18
Q
Diminished responsibility: depression
A
Gittens
19
Q
Diminished responsibility: irresistible impulses
A
Bryne
20
Q
Diminished responsibility: battered wife syndrome
A
Ahluawalia
21
Q
Diminished responsibility: alcoholism
A
Wood
22
Q
Diminished responsibility: ADS
A
Stewart
23
Q
Diminished responsibility: paranoia
A
Simcox
24
Q
Diminished responsibility: adjustment disorder
A
Dietschmann
25
Diminished responsibility: Schizophrenia
Moyle
26
Diminished responsibility: medical evidence is required for the defence to be successful
Bunch
27
Diminished responsibility: rational judgement
Simcox
28
Diminished responsibility: nature of his conduct
Stewart
29
Diminished responsibility: exercise self control
Bryne
30
Diminished responsibility: substantial doesn’t mean a total impairment, but is more than minimal or trivial
Lloyd
31
Diminished responsibility: AMF is the cause or significant contribution in the unlawful killing
S1B Homicide Act 1957
32
GNM: governed by
Adomako
33
GNM: definition of duty of care is the same as in negligence
Wacker
34
GNM: reasonable steps to remedy a dangerous situation
Miller
35
GNM: voluntarily took on a duty of care
Stone and Dobinson
36
GNM: duty of care due to a special relationship
Gibbons and Proctor
37
GNM: contractual duty of care
Pittwood
38
GNM: a duty of care due to a public duty role (police officer)
Dytham
39
GNM: doctor and patient
Adomako
40
GNM: landlord and tenant
Singh
41
GNM: employers and employees
Dean
42
GNM: the duty of care will apply whenever a Ds conduct carries a foreseeable risk to those around them
Evans
43
GNM: if the D fails to reach the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the same position and the breach is so serious, it is criminally wrong
Adomako
44
GNM: the Ds conduct must pose a reasonably foreseeable serous and obvious risk of death
Rose
45
GNM: usual rules of causation apply to GNM
Singh
46
GNM: the breach has to be gross and go beyond a mere matter of compensation between parties
Adomako
47
GNM: if the breach is flagrant and atrocious, it is gross and therefore a crime
Cornish
48
GNM: it is the jury to decide if the D is grossly negligent
Sellu
49
Murder: the Ds conduct causes the unlawful killing of a creature in being during kings peace with malice aforethought expressed or implied
Lord Justice Coke
50
Murder: a reasonable creature in being is a human being that is independent from its birth mother
Poutler
51
Murder: the umbilical cord doesn’t need to be cut to be a reasonable creature in being
Reeves
52
Murder: a foetus is not a reasonable creature in being
Attorney General Reference (No3 of 1994)
53
Murder: the destruction of a foetus can be criminal
Infant life (preservation) act 1929
54
Murder: a person on life support with no brain activity is a reasonable person in being
Malcherek
55
Murder: there is no time limit on death after the unlawful act or omission, but if it is more than 3 years after the event, the consent of the attorney general may is needed to prosecute
Law reform (year and a day rule) act 1996
56
Murder: for a killing to be during kings peace, it must not be a part of war
Blackman
57
Murder: D committed the unlawful killing with malice aforethought expressed or implied
Lord justice Coke
58
Murder: Ds aim or purpose to unlawfully kill a creature in being (direct intent)
Mohan
59
Murder: Ds aim or purpose to cause GBH (direct intent to cause serious harm)
Vickers
60
Murder: D did not intent to kill the V, but it was virtually certain death or serious harm would occur and they realised this (foresight of consequences)
Woollin
61
Murder: governed by
Law: Lord justic coke
Intro: Homicide Act 1957
62
Loss of control: governed by
S54 coroners and justice act 2009
63
Loss of control: the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the D didn’t have a loss of control when they killed
Martin
64
Loss of control: the D must have suffered from a loss of control at the time of the killing
Jewell
65
Loss of control: the Ds loss of control doesn’t have to be sudden after a qualifying trigger
S54(2) coroners and justice act 2009
66
Loss of control: one qualifying trigger is a fear of serious violence
S55(3) coroners and justice act 2009
67
Loss of control: The D must fear serious violence
Goodwin
68
Loss of control: the fear of violence can be towards an identified person and not just the D
Ward
69
Loss of control: the fear of serious violence can come from another person and not the V
70
Loss of control: one qualifying trigger is a thing said or done
S55(4) coroner and justice act 2009
71
Loss of control: the thing said or done must be extremely grave in character to the D; and gives them justifiable sense of being wronged
Zebedee
72
Loss of control: a breakdown of a relationship isn’t circumstances of the extremely grave character or justify a sense of being wronged
Hatter
73
Loss of control: revenge is not an allowed qualifying trigger
Ibrams and Gregory
74
Loss of control: Ds inciting something said or done isn’t a qualifying trigger
S55(6)(a) coroners and justice act 2009
75
Loss of control: sexual infidelity is not a qualifying trigger
S55(6)(c) coroners and justice act 2009
76
Loss of control: sexual infidelity can be considered as a qualifying trigger when there are other factors with it
Clinton
77
Loss of control: standard of control test is governed by
S54(1)(c) coroners and justice act 2009
78
Loss of control: would a normal person of the same age
Camplin
79
Loss of control: and gender with tolerance and self restraint
Mohammed
80
Loss of control: In the same circumstance as the D
Gregson
81
Loss of control: Response in the same or similar way
Van dongen
82
Loss of control: unemployment, depression and epilepsy
Gregson
83
Loss of control: sexual abuse
Hill
84
Loss of control: PTSD
Rejmanski
85
Loss of control: personality disorder
Wilcocks
86
Loss of control: sexual infidelity, as long as other qualifying triggers are present
Clinton
87
Loss of control: if D is intoxicated this must be ignored as the normal person is someone who is sober
Asmelash
88
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: governed by
S2(1) Homicide Act 1957 amended by S52 Corners and Justice Act 2009 & Stewart
89
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: if the D was intoxicated but did not suffer from an AMF at the time they killed, the partial defence of diminished responsibility is unavailable
Dowds
90
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: The Ds AMF and intoxication were unrelated, therefore the intoxication is disregarded and the diminished responsibility test is applied as normal
Deitschmann
91
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: as the Ds AMF is due to ADS, a modified version of the s2(1) homicide act 1957 amended by s52 coroners and justice act 2009 diminished responsibility legal test is applied
Stewart
92
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: intoxication criteria- if the D suffered an AMF caused by ADS at the time they killed, they do not have to have brain damage and their drinking doesn’t have to be 100% involuntary
Wood
93
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: AMF- same as in diminished responsibility test
Stewart
94
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: Recognised medical condition- same as in diminished responsibility test but only ADS is the only WHO condition
Stewart
95
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: substantial impairment- first, the extent and seriousness of the Ds dependency on alcohol and the extent to which they could control the drinking at the time of the killing
Lord Parker CJ in Stewart
96
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: substantial impairment- rational judgement
Simcox
97
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: substantial impairment- nature of their conduct
Stewart
98
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: substantial impairment- exercise of self control
Byrne
99
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: substantial impairment- the AMF is more than the minimal or trivial cause of the killing (as it is the only cause)
Lloyd
100
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: provides an alternative explanation for the killing- the AMF is the cause or significant contribution in the unlawful killing and explains the Ds conduct
S1B homicide act 1957
