Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law A > murder > Flashcards

murder Flashcards

1
Q

what is the definition of murder?

A

The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s Peace, with malice aforethought

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

what law had to be changed because of Technological changes?

A

The Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019, that amends the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to make upskirting a specific offence of voyeurism.

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

what is the burden of proof?

A

Generally on the prosecution (State) (it’s their job to prove the case against the defendant)

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

what is the name of the guilty act?

A

Actus Reus

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

what is the standard of proof?

A

the level to which the case has to be proved (In criminal cases this is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’)what

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

what is the name of the guilty mind?

A

Mens Rea

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

what are the 4 types of Actus Reus?

A

(1) Acts/Conduct
(2) Result crimes
(3) State of affair
(4) omissions

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

What is included in Act/Conduct crimes? (1st type of Actus Reus)

A

A (positive) act is the actual doing of something
Most common type of actus reus
Requires particular conduct
E.g. Speeding

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

What is included in result crimes? (2nd type of Actus Reus)

A

This action requires a particular end result
Need proof that the conduct caused a particular end result
E.g. throwing a stone and criminal damage – throwing a stone is not a crime, it is the result/ consequence is the crime

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

What is included in state of affairs crimes? (3rd type of Actus Reus?)

A

The actus reus consists of ‘being’ rather than ‘doing’
E.g. being in charge of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs
All the crimes which states: “being found”, “being in possession” or “being in charge” etc.

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

whats cases support state of affairs crimes? (3rd type of Actus Reus)

A

R v Larsonneur
Winzar v CC Kent

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

What is included in omission crimes? (4th type of Actus Reus?)

A

An omission is a ‘failure to act’
General rule: you cannot be guilty of an omission – the law does not make you act
there is no liability for an omission

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

whatt case defines omission crimes?

A

Stevens J in Digest of the Criminal Law 1887 “It is not a crime to cause death or bodily injury, even intentionally, by any omission.”

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

what are the SIX EXCEPTIONS where you CAN be under a legal duty to act and, therefore, a crime is capable of being committed by omission?

A

(1) Statute
(2) Contract
(3) Professional duty
(4) Duty arising out of special relationship
(5) duty arising out of a person voluntarily assuming responsibility for another
(6) defendant has inadvertently created a dangerous situation, becomes aware of it, but fails to take steps to rectify it

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

what statute shows Duty Created by Statute? (1st exception to omissions not being liable)

A

Criminal liability is imposed under the ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 for failure to provide a breath specimen when required.

It is also imposed under the CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1933 for failure to send a child to school.

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

what case shows Duty Created by contract? (2nd exception to omissions not being liable)

A

Pitwood

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

what happened in Pitwood? (omissions exception)

A

Pitwood was employed as a gatekeeper at a railway crossing, he went for lunch, leaving the gates open. A cart crossing the line was hit by a train. One man on the cart was killed
Pitwood was convicted of manslaughter, based on his failure (an omission) to carry out his duty to close the gate when trains were approaching.
The duty to close the gate was part of his contract of employment.

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

what case shows Duty Created where a professional position? (3rd exception to omissions not being liable)

A

Dytham

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

what happened in Dytham? (omissions exception)

A

D was an off duty policeman who saw a man being kicked to death. He took no steps to stop the attack and drove away when it was over
Convicted of misconduct in a public office, as he had failed to act (an omission) to protect the victim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

what case shows where a person voluntarily takes on a duty? (5th exception to omissions not being liable)

A

Stone and Dobinson

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

what happened in Stone and Dobinson? (omissions exception)

A

Ds lived together, but were of low intelligence and had many personality disorders. Despite this, Stone’s sister came to live with them. She was anorexic, and although ill refused to leave her room for medical treatment. Stone and Dobinson made some effort to care for her, but did not call for medical aid. She died.
Convicted of manslaughter, as they had taken on a duty of care by allowing her to live in their home and then failed to make arrangements (an omission) for her,whilst knowing she relied on them

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

what case shows where a person creates dangerous situation and fails to minimise the harmful consequences? (6th exception to omissions not being liable)

A

Miller

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

what happened in Miller? (exceptions to omissions)

A

Miller had been squatting in a house and fell asleep on a mattress whilst smoking a cigarette. He was woken by the flames, but instead of putting the fire out, he got up and went into another room, where he found another mattress and went back to sleep. The house was damaged by the fire.
Convicted of criminal damage – one he woke up and realised what had happened, he had a duty to minimise the harmful effects of the fire, which he failed to do (an omission)

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

what case shows duty created by special relationship? (4th exception to omissions not being liable)

A

This is usually created in a parent-child relationship – a parent has a duty to care for their children.

Gibbins and Proctor

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

what happened in Gibbins and Proctor?

A

Gibbins, and several of his children from a previous marriage, lived together with his partner, Proctor. The 7 year old daughter was kept separate from the other children and starved to death.
The Court held that the Father had a duty to care for his child and Proctor had also taken the responsibility to care for the child. The failure to feed her led to them both being convicted of murder.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

whats the difference between a positive act and an omission?

A

Watching someone drown is an omission and not a crime
But holding their head under the water is a positive act and is a crime
Airedale NHS v Bland
Diane Pretty v UK

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

what is causation for Actus Reus?

A

For RESULT crimes, the Prosecution must also prove causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What are examples of result crimes?

A

Assault
Battery
ABH
Wounding and GBH
Murder & Manslaughter
Criminal damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

what is the chain of causation?

A

There needs to be an unbroken and direct chain of causation between the defendant’s acts and the consequence of that act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

what are the two types of causation?

A

factual and legal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

what are the two parts of factual causation? ( result crimes)

A

(1) But for test
(2) De minimis rule

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

what are the three parts of legal causation? (result crimes)

A

(1) injury must be the operating and substantial cause of death
(2) no intervening acts
(3) thin skull test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

what is the Bust for test? (factual causation result crimes)

A

but for the actions of the defendant, the victim would not have died as and when they did

33
Q

what cases supports the but for test? (factual causation result crimes)

A

R v White
R v Dalloway

34
Q

what happened in R v White?

A

A son prepared an evening drink for his mother, laced with poison. He gave her the drink but before she finished it she had a heart attack, meaning she had died before the poison had taken effect

He was not liable for her death. He WAS liable for attempt.

35
Q

what happened in R v Pagett?

A

Pagett was armed and resisting arrest. He used his girlfriend as a human shield between him and the police. He fired at the police. The police returned fire and shot the girlfriend in the process, killing her.

It was held that ‘but for’ his actions of holding her as a human shield, she would not have died as and when she did. This was despite the fact that it was not him who shot her.

36
Q

what happened in R v Dalloway?

A

A man using a horse and cart was not holding the reins when a child ran out in front and was killed when one of the wheels ran over him.

It was argued at trial that the D was not holding the reins, however, it could not be established ‘but for’ his actions of not holding the reins, as even if he were holding the reins, there was nothing he could do to stop the cart from killing the child

37
Q

what is the de minimis rule?

A

De minimis means insignificant, minute or trifling
This test requires that the original injury caused by the D’s actions must be more than a minimal cause of death

38
Q

what case supports the de minimis rule?

A

R v Pagett

39
Q

what is the INJURY MUST BE THE OPERATING AND SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF DEATH test?

A

This test considers whether the original injury inflicted by the defendant is, at the time of death, still the operating and substantial
cause of death

40
Q

what are intervening acts?

A

For a new act to break the chain it must be unforeseeable and random

41
Q

what are intervening acts by medical professionals?

A

Medical treatment rarely breaks the chain of causation
It needs to be proved that the treatment was so independent of the defendant’s actions that it actually had a greater affect on the consequence than the defendant’s actions thus making the defendant’s actions insignificant

42
Q

what cases show intervening acts by medical professionals?

A

R v Smith
R v Cheshire
R v Jordan

43
Q

what happened in R v Smith?

A

A soldier had been stabbed in a barrack-room brawl and was dropped twice on his way to the hospital. When he got there, he experienced a delay in seeing a doctor and subsequently given poor medical treatment that affected his chance of recovery.

44
Q

what happened in R v Cheshire?

A

In the course of an argument in a fish and chip shop, D shot V in the leg and stomach, seriously wounding him. After an operation, V developed respiratory problems and a tracheotomy tube was inserted. He developed a rare, but known complication, of the tracheotomy where the wind pipe narrows. The doctors did not notice this condition and V died in hospital over two months after the shooting from breathing difficulties and a chest infection.

45
Q

what happened in R v Jordan?

A

The defendant stabbed the victim. While in hospital recovering, the stab wound had almost healed when the victim was given an antibiotic to which he was allergic and died.

46
Q

case to support intervening acts by third parties?

A

The act of a third party will generally break the chain of causation unless the action was foreseeable
R v Pagett
Act (of firing back) was foreseeable, no chain was not broken

47
Q

what are the 4 types of intervening acts?

A

Medical professionals
The victim
Third party
Natural events

48
Q

what are intervening acts by the victim?

A

Where the act is of the victim, the chain of causation will not be broken unless the victim’s actions are disproportionate or unreasonable in the circumstances and the D’s act is still the substantial and operating cause of death

49
Q

what cases support intervening acts by the victim?

A

Wall
Robberts

50
Q

what happened in the Wall case?

A

Wall (1802)
The governor of a colony was charged with the murder of a soldier he had sentenced to an illegal flogging. The soldier went to hospital following the blows he had received, but whilst in hospital drank spirits and died. It was argued that he might not have died had he not drunk the spirits.
Is D guilty or not guilty of murder?

51
Q

what happened in the Robberts case?

A

A girl accepted a lift to a party from a man she did not know at 3am. He drove in a different direction and then stopped the car. He began making sexual advances towards her and had tried to remove her coat. She refused his advances and drove off at speed. He started to make further advances whilst driving and she jumped from the moving vehicle to escape him. they were something that could have reasonably have been foreseen as the consequence of what D was saying and doing

Where the victim’s actions were a natural result of the defendant’s actions it matters not whether the defendant could foresee the result. Only where the victim’s actions were so daft or unexpected that no reasonable man could have expected it would there be a break in the chain of causation.

V must be in fear or be in harm. Fear of harm cannot be an unreasonable one. If fear is reasonable, but does something daft to escape, then their actions/response will not be regarded as likely or foreseeable, so it will break the chain

52
Q

what case supports intervening acts by natural events?

A

Hart

53
Q

what happened in Hart?

A

D injures V and leaves V incapacitated on the beach below the high water line, and V is drowned by the incoming tide

54
Q

what case supports the thin skull rule?

A

R v Blaue

54
Q

what happened in R v Blaue?

A

The D. stabbed a woman who happened to be a Jehovah’s Witness. As a result of her beliefs she refused a blood transfusion which would have saved her life. The D. argued he should not be responsible for her death as the transfusion could have saved her life and she refused it.
The courts disagreed and said he must take his victim as he finds them.

55
Q

what is mens rea for murder?

A

malice aforethought

56
Q

what is mens rea for GBH?

A

intentionally or recklessly causing the V to apprehend
the application of immediate unlawful force

57
Q

what case shows the difference between intention and motive for murder?

A

R v Inglis:
A person who kills a loved one dying from a terminal illness, in order
to relieve pain and suffering, may well act out of good motives.
Nevertheless, this does not prevent them having the
necessary intention to kill

58
Q

what are the two types of intent? (mens rea)

A

indirect/oblique and direct

59
Q

what is direct intent? (mens rea)

A

the defendant wants a result and carries out an act to achieve it. generally this is easier to prove based on the
circumstances of the crime.

60
Q

what is indirect/oblique intent? (mens rea)

A

the defendant doesn’t want the result that occurs but realises that in acting as he does that the result is virtually certain

61
Q

what case law defines indirect/oblique intent? (men rea)

A

The law on oblique intent comes from Nedrick
This was later approved by the HoL in Woollin
It is known as the ‘Virtual certainty’ test.

62
Q

what happened in Nedrick?

A

The Defendant poured paraffin through the letterbox of a woman he didn’t like and set fire to it killing a baby.
the jury were told to ask themselves the following questions:-
How probable was the consequence which resulted from D’s voluntary act?
Did D foresee that consequence?
If the consequence was a virtual certainty and the D had
realised as such, then the jury could safely infer that the D had the necessary intention to satisfy a murder conviction.
At first instance he was convicted of murder but
this was reduced to manslaughter in the COA.

63
Q

what happened in Woolin?

A

The D lost his temper when his baby started to choke. He shook him and then threw him across the room where he hit a wall and died.
He was found guilty of murder at first instance but
appealed and had the conviction quashed and replaced
with manslaughter
Clearly in Woollin, in the House of Lords, it was decided
that he hadn’t considered that death or serious bodily
harm would be a virtual certainty.

64
Q

what is the virtual certainty test?

A

the jury should feel sure that death or serious bodily
harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendants actions and that the D appreciated that such was the case.

65
Q

what is the contemporaneity rule?

A

MUST PROVE ACTUS REUS OF THE OFFENCE
WAS COMMITTED ALONG WITH THE
NECESSARY MENS REA FOR THAT OFFENCE

66
Q

what is a continuing acts? (contemporaneity rule)

A

It is not necessary for the mens rea to be present
at the start of the actus reus, as long as the mens rea appears at some point in the continuing act

67
Q

what case supports continuing acts? (contemporaneity rule)

A

Fagan

68
Q

what happened in the Fagan case?

A

Fagan accidentally parked his car on a police
officer’s foot when asked by the officer to park the
car near the curb. Fagan did not mean to drive his
car on the officer’s foot. However, when asked to
move, he refused. It was at this point that mens rea
was formed and driving on to the officer’s foot and
remaining there was a continuing act.

69
Q

what is the single transaction of events? (contemporaneity rule)

A

As long as there is one unbroken transaction of
events, then the mens rea and actus reus need
not occur at the same time

70
Q

what case supports single transaction events? (contemporaneity rule)

A

Church

71
Q

what happened in the Church case?

A

The defendant took a woman back to his van to
have sex. He couldn’t satisfy her and she laughed
at him.

A fight followed and the woman was knocked
unconscious. Thinking she was dead, Church
threw her body in the river where she actually
drowned.

Church was convicted of manslaughter.

72
Q

what is transferred malice?

A

If a defendant attempts to commit a crime against one person but, in doing so, actually commits a similar crime against someone else, they can still be held guilty of the offence against the actual victim.

73
Q

what case shows transferred malice?

A

Latimer

74
Q

what happened in Latimer?

A

The Defendant aimed to hit a man with his belt.
The belt recoiled and hit a woman in the face. As both offences
were similar, the defendant was found guilty of the offence
against the woman.

75
Q

how is recklessness a form of mens rea?

A

Concerns the taking of an unjustified risk
“A situation where the defendant knows that there is a risk that his actions will lead to harm but goes on to take the risk regardless.”
This is a lower form of mens rea from intention

76
Q

examples of Offences where recklessness is the mens rea…

A

Criminal Damage Act 1971
(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

77
Q

what is the test for recklessness?

A

‘subjective recklessness’

78
Q

what is the subjective recklessness test?

A

did the defendant HIMSELF realise they were taking a risk?

79
Q

what case shows the subjective recklessness test?

A

Law A (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions