REVISION Flashcards

Question

A conspiracy is appropriate when?

Answer 1

- The SUBSTANTIVE offence is not committed, or - The offence agreed upon as part of the conspiracy was far more SERIOUS than the offence that was committed, - Only the conspiracy charge reflect the true CRIMINALITY involved .

Answer 2

``` P - Provocation A - Automatism N - Necessity I- Insanity C - Claim of right ``` D - Duress I - Intoxication S - Substantial impairment S - Self Defence

Answer 3

- All defences need to be raised by the defence during investigation or trial. - The defence are obliged to disclose the defence, but not specifics under 139 of the Criminal Procedures act. - This burden is lower than on the balance of probabilities, but higher than reasonable suspicion. - Once they are in issue we need to negate them beyond reasonable doubt.

Answer 4

- May provide a COMPLETE defence to all mens rea offences by eliminating mens rea. - Or intoxication may be a PARTIAL defence, having the effect of reducing culpability/criminal responsibility. We need to identify offences of 'Specific Intent' and 'Basic Intent' to detemine the apllicability of intoxication.

Answer 5

a) If the person had resolved before becoming intoxicated to do the particular act, or b) Became intoxicated to stregthen his or her resolve to do the relevant conduct.

Answer 6

In accordance with section 428D - evidence of intoxication is allowed to be taken into account for offences of 'Basic Intent' only if the intoxication was NOT self induced.

Answer 7

Section 418 Crimes Act; ‘A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence’ Self defence is a COMPLETE defence.

Answer 8

1) - Subjective (In the mind of the accused): Is there a reasonable possibility that the accused believed that their conduct was necessary in order to defend themselves? (Typically dependant on admissions, evidence of preperation or circumstantial evidence, including excessive acts; to negate) - Objective (Would a reasonable 3rd person thought similarly): Is there a reasonable possibility that what the accused did was a reasonable response to the circumstances as he or she percieved them? (Inquiries and evidence can be used to refute whether their acts could be considered reasonable in those circumstances)

Answer 9

Automatism provides a COMPLETE defence to all mens rea offences, in is concerned with; - Involuntary behaviour. - It is a COMPLETE common law defence to murder and other criminal offences. - Automatism means an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind. - It can include a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion.

Answer 10

If we can show the conduct of the accused immediately prior to the involuntarty act was voluntary and that this conduct then caused the involuntary act which caused the consequent criminal act, the defence of automatism may fail. Section 428G of the Crimes act explains; 'In determining whether a person has committed an offence evidence of self-induced inoxication CANNOT be taken into account in detemining whether the relevant conduct was voluntary.

Answer 11

Instanity is; - A partial defence to murder. - Institutionalising a person indefinitely for medical treatment. - Ordinarily a defendant will be presumed sane; unless they raise the issue of 'insanity'. - Insanity is concerned with a lack of mens rea via a' disease of the mind'. - The court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant is legally INSANE AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENCE. Which will return a special verdict of 'not guilty; on the grounds of mental illness or insanity. - Insanitly is concerned with intellect and not emotion. It is not available where emotion causes an uncontrollable impulse.

Answer 12

``` McNaughten Rules (common law test for insanity); The accused must clearly prove that at the time of committing the act, he was labouring under such a defect of reason, from the disease of the mind: 1) as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or 2) as not to know that what he was doing was wrong. ```

Answer 13

Section 23A Crimes Act - and- Previously known as Diminishing responsibility. It is a PARTIAL DEFENCE to MURDER ONLY. And reduces murder to manslaughter. The accused must show at the TIME OF DEATH; a) The persons capacity to understand events, or b) To judge whether the persons actions were right or wrong, or c) To control themselves, Was substantially impaired by an abnormality of the mind arising from an underlying condition. The impairment must be substantial to justify reducing murder to manslaughter.

Answer 14

- Failure of the objective test. - There need to be an underlying medical cause for the abnormaility. Impulsive behaviour is NOT enough by itself, you need to establish an underlying medical cause this will generally be established by the diagnosis of a medical condition. - The medical condition must be of a 'permanent quality'. - It must be 'substatial'.

Answer 15

- The killing of one person resulting from a temporary loss of self control brought about by the words or acts of the deceased. - PARTIAL defence to Murder only. - Reduces Murder to Manslaughter. This requires a TRIGGER ACT and the ACT OF PROVOCATION.

Answer 16

1) Words alone as a trigger must be sufficiently provocative in nature. 2) History/culmination of provocative conduct relevant (battered wife syndrome) 3) Acts of Adultery can justify provocation. 4) Trigger must take place in the presence of the accused. 5) The trigger must come the Deceased 6) The trigger generally must be Aimed at the defendant or the defendant must be present. 7) Trigger need not be unlawful.

Answer 17

- Subjective element: 23(2)(a): -and- Objective element: 23(2)(b) How we can negate provocation when raised: 1) If the actions of the accused amount to premeditation (examine accused conduct between events). 2) The conduct of the deceased must be capable of provoking retaliation of a relevant degree (objective test).

Answer 18

- Honest claim (subjective test) the defendant honestly believes they were entitled to the property. (based on facts not law), AND - The belief must be one as to legal entitlement (objective test) Complete defence to mens rea offences. Usually property/fraud type matters. (COMPLETE defence to Mens Rea offences (typically with a dishonesty element)

Answer 19

The defence of duress may arise in circumstances where a person commits a crime out of extreme fear or threat of 'immediate death' or 'immeidiate serious personal violence'. - Duress is a COMPLETE defence. - Duress has bot bee recieved in NSW as a defence to murder.

Answer 20

- The criminal acts must be done to avoide 'serious harmful consequences' to the accused or others they were bound to protect. - The accused must honestly believe on reasonable ground that he was placed in a situation of imminent peril. (COMPLETE defence)

Answer 21

It poses the question whether the self defence in question was a REASONABLE and PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE. And uses the two elements of the test for self defence; 1) Is there a reasonable possibility that the accused believed that his or her conduct was necessary in order to defend himself or herself; and, 2) If there is, is there also a reasonable possibility that what the accused did was a reasonable response to the circumstances as he or she perceived them.

Answer 22

'The existence of such a claim may constitute an answer to a crime in which the means used to take the property involved an assault, or the use of arms. The relevant issue being whether the accused had a genuine belief in the legal right to the property rather than a belief in a legal right to employ the means in question to recover it.'

Answer 23

``` Crimes Act 1900; S18 - Murder / Manslaughter S33 - Wounding / Assault GBH S61 - Sexual intercourse without consent S86 - Kidnapping / take and detain S93 - b) Riot, and c) Affray S94 - Robbery S112 - Break enter and commit serious indictable offence S116 - Larceny S192 - Fraud S308 - Computer crimes S311 - Public justice offences S344 - Attempts, Accessories and other machinery offences S417 - Defences S431 - Sentences S502 - Miscellaneous offences ``` (Note there may be more, however these were on the white board at the start of the class)

Answer 24

1) - (DEATH OF A PERSON) - The death of the deceased, being a human being. 2) - (CAUSATION OF DEATH) - An unlawful act or omission of the accused which caused the death. (Actus Reus) 3) - (INTENT TO MURDER) - Such act or omission was done or committed to be don with - i) reckless indifference to human life ii) intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm iii) in an attempt to commit, or during, or immediately after the commission by the accused, or by some accomplice with him, of a crime punishable by penal servitude for life or 25 years. (Mens Rea)

Answer 25

a) The irreversible cessation of the functions of a persons brain, or b) The irreversible cessation of the circulation of a persons blood.

Answer 26

This element relates to the Actus Reus or the physical doing of the criminal act. It is assessed on the OBJECTIVE TEST without reference to the state of mind of the accused.

Answer 27

NO - As the end of life must be rived, in the case of a foetus the beginning of life must be proved. S20 of the Crimes Act states, 'On the trial of a person for the murder of a child, such child shall be held to have been BORN ALIVE, IF IT HAS BREATHED, HAS HAS BEEN WHOLLY BORN INTO THE WORLD. Left the mothers body completely whether it has independent circulation or not.

Answer 28

The BUT FOR test. BUT FOR the actions of the accused, the victim would not have died. This test is a tool used by the courts to when determine whether a causal link or nexus exists between the accused's actions and the death of the victim.

Answer 29

In order to establish 'prima facie' causation we need to satisfy by 'sine qua non' ("without which it could not be"); the BUT FOR test. The death being event (B) is said to have been caused by the actions of the accused being event (A) When we have established sine qua non we have established a prima facie causal chain.

Answer 30

Accused must take the victim as he finds them (the egg shell skull rule). Failing to accept medical treatment does not rupture the causal nexus

Answer 31

It is a NEW INTERVENING ACT - which is something that supervenes and takes over as the dominant cause of injury or death. This means the defence will argue some other act caused the death and not the actions of the accused if they can do this actus reus will not be established = no offence.

Answer 32

- INTENTIONAL (with INTENT TO KILL or INFLICT GBH) - RECKLESS (was done or omitted with RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE to human life) - FELONY (done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some other accomplice with him, of a CRIME PUNISHABLE BY PENAL SERVITUDE FOR LIFE OR FOR 25 YEARS)

Answer 33

The accused intended to kill or inflict GBH on the victim and did kill the victim.

Answer 34

The actions of the accused were PROBABLE to result in death (Crabbe's Case). A possibility is insufficient; the accused must force that death will PROBABLY result from their actions. NO NEED TO PROVE INTENT TO KILL

Answer 35

Commit a foundational crime being a 25 year/life offence and as a result death ensues during or immediately after.

Answer 36

Common law precedent test for RECKLESSNESS in regards to murder. The High Court of Australia ruled that to be guilty of murder, the defendant can be RECKLESS in that they did the act knowing it was PROBABLE (meaning a substantial or real chance) that death or grievous bodily harm would occur as a result of their actions. Not just possible THE ACCUSED MUST FORSEE THAT DEATH WILL PROBABLY RESULT FROM THE ACCUSED’S ACTIONS.

Answer 37

Crimes punishable by 25 years or life in prison S33 discharging firearm etc with intent. S61JA aggravated sexual assault in company S66 sexual intercourse child under 10 S96- robbery with wounding S98 robbery with arms etc and wounding S112(3) Special aggravated break and enter. S198 Destroying or damaging property with intention of endangering life

Answer 38

The mens rea from one offence can be transferred to another - DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED MALICE.

Answer 39

Manslaughter and murder are alike – that each have the same actus reus – the killing of a human being. You do not have the mens reas for manslaughter. You have the act not the intent.

Answer 40

Alternate verdict – manslaughter is an alternative verdict for murder. –Trial judge determines it under four situations 1. Evidence of manslaughter and the issue raised – judge must direct a jury they have this alternative 2. No evidence of manslaughter and the issued is not raised – the judge does not have advise the jury of their power to return a verdict of manslaughter. 3. No evidence of manslaughter and their issue is raised 4. Evidence of manslaughter and the issued is not raised

Answer 41

This is where there is a killing, which at prima facie amounts to murder but is reduced to manslaughter by reason of mitigating circumstances; - Extreme Provocation - Abnormality of the mind. - Infanticide - 22A the killing of a child under 12 months by mother suffering from PND

Answer 42

Under this heading there is no prima facie evidence of murder. Here there is lesser mens rea than required for murder. 1) The death of a person was caused by an act of the accused. 2) The act was both, a) UNLAWFUL, and b) DANGEROUS.

Answer 43

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter, they are; - Act or omission by gross negligence, or (Criminal Negligence, Gross Negligence, Duty of Care) - An act which is unlawful and dangerous.

Answer 44

The accused : 1) Was under a duty of car for the deceased. 2) Was grossly negligent (perhaps reckless) and failed thereby to perform that duty; 3) As a result of the failure to perform the duty, whether through act or omission, death was occasioned or accelerated. The standard of care is the objective test.

Answer 45

1) Where statue imposes a duty of care for another, (parents, care givers, etc) 2) Where one stands in certain status relation to another, (doctors, police, etc) 3) Where on has assumed a contractual duty to care for another. (Drivers on the road, OH&S, etc) 4) Where one had voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent other from rendering aid. (See R v TAKTAK)

Answer 46

NO. The case of Murdoch v R; Murdoch was alleged to have murdered Falconie, but no body was ever recovered. The prosecution is NOT required to prove the finding of a body as a pre-condition to a conviction for murder.

Answer 47

The fact of death can be proved by DIRECT or CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

Answer 48

If CIRCUMSTANTIAL it should be so compelling as to convince a jury that no other reasonable hypothesis could exist other than murder.

Answer 49

The accused will have caused the death if the victim's fear was WELL-FOUND or REASONABLE, and the escape a NATURAL CONSEQUENCE of the accused's behaviour.

Answer 50

Having regard to duty of care; 4) Where one had voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent other from rendering aid. The accused took a female who had overdosed on heroin, thereby preventing her from obtaining medical treatment. In the morning she was dead.

Answer 51

Section 93B - Crimes Act 1900 1) Where 12 OR MORE PERSONs who are present, together USE or THREATEN UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE for a COMMON PURPOSE and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a PERSON OF REASONABLE FIRMNESS present at the scene to FEAR for his or her PERSONAL SAFETY, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot and liable to imprisonment for 15 years. 2) It is immaterial whether or not the 12 or more persons use to threaten unlawful violence simultaneously. 3) The common purpose may be inferred from conduct. 4) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be present at the scene. 5) Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places.

Answer 52

Section 93C - Crimes Act 1900 1) A person who USES OR THREATENS UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE towards another and whose conduct is such as would cause a PERSON OF REASONABLE FIRMNESS present at the scene to FEAR for his or her PERSONAL SAFETY is guilty of affray and liable to imprisonment for 10 years. 2) If 2 or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purposes of subsection 1). 3) For the purposes of this section, a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone. 4) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene. 5) Affray may be committed in private as well in public places.

Answer 53

- Actual or deliberate intent (Subjective) - Reckless intent (Subjective) - Knowledge / awareness (Subjective) - Negligence (Objective)

Answer 54

- SUBJECTIVE: Requires the jury to look at what was acting on the mind of the accused at the time when assessing whether they intended or not to commit an offence. - OBJECTIVE: Requires the jury to look at what they would have done in the circumstances of the accused - they are NOT concerned with what the accused was thinking.

Answer 55

- At law both mens rea and the actus reus must occur together. - If on is absent from the other then there can be no offence at law. - Some criminal defences seek to disrupt or displace or eliminate either the mens rea or the actus reus resulting in the acquittal of the accused.

Answer 56

- Mens rea offences (intent based offences) - Absolute liability offences (not mens rea required - minor offences) - Strict liability offences (specific to an act offences)

Answer 57

A geographical nexus will exist if; 1) At least ONE OF THE PHYSICAL ELEMENTS of the offence occurred in NSW, OR 2) All of the physical elements of the offence occurred outside NSW but the offence has an effect in NSW.

Answer 58

1) Wrongfully took and carried away, 2) The personal goods of another, 3) With the intent of permanently depriving the owner of such property, 4) Without his or her consent.

Answer 59

- Tangible - Personal - Some value, need not be a dollar value

Answer 60

There is a concept of continuing trespass where the taking, or original possession is obtained wrongfully, even though not feloniously, and the accused later misappropriates the goods. This CAN constitute larceny. R v RILEY

Answer 61

Robbery in circumstances of Aggravation; Immediately before, during after the robbery or larceny: A) Uses corporal violence OR B) Intentionally or recklessly inflicts ABH OR C) Deprives a person of their liberty - (even momentarily)

Answer 62

Common Law "a felonious and violent taking of any money or goods from the person of another, putting him in fear”

Answer 63

Robbery being armed or in company.

Answer 64

Offensive weapon or instrument that includes: - A dangerous weapon - Anything that is made or adapted for offensive purposes - Anything in the circumstances is indeed for use or is used offensively.

Answer 65

In company; - In company of another person or persons, - Acting in a Common purpose, - Physically present - Perspective of the victim is relevant - Still in company even if victim is unaware

Answer 66

a) The destruction (other than in the course of a medical procedure) of the foetus of a pregnant woman, whether or not the woman suffers any other harm, and b) Any permanent or serious disfiguring of the person, and c) Any grievous bodily disease.

Answer 67

- A firearm - A prohibited weapon - A speargun

Answer 68

The whole skin must be broken - the dermis and epidermis.

Answer 69

Mary B - Is a Accessory BEFORE the fact. (The mastermind) - Section 346 of the Crimes Act. Joe B - Is a Principal in the FIRST degree - He is charged with the relevant offence. S97 Crimes Act - Robbery armed with a dangerous weapon. Steven B - Is a Principal in the SECOND degree - Section 345 of the Crimes Act. Adam B - Is a Accessory AFTER the fact - Section 347 of the Crimes Act.

Answer 70

``` S61 - Common assault S60A - Assault police S59 - Assault occasioning abh S35 - Reckless wounding/GBH S33 - Wounding or GBH with intent ```

Answer 71

- Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of another. - It need not be permanent or amount to GBH - Psychiatric injury amounts to abh (Chan Gook)

Answer 72

GBH an act causing serious and permanent or serious disfigurement of a person.

Answer 73

- Discharge any firearm or loaded arms - Attempts to discharge any firearm or other loaded arms. - With intent to cause gbh OR - With intent to resist or prevent his or her lawful arrest or detention.

Answer 74

- Lawful chastisement - Self defence - Lawful arrest - Medical examination - Accidental physical force - Body decoration - Sport and other physical contests

Answer 75

- A foresight of POSSIBLE injury. The onus is lower than for murder or manslaughter, which stipulates a foresight of PROBABLE death or GBH.

Answer 76

Section 86 Crimes Act - Kidnapping 1) A person who takes or detains a person without the person's consent; a) With the intention to hold her or him to RANSOM; or b) With the intention committing a SERIOUS INDICTABLE OFFENCE; or c) With the intention of obtaining any other ADVANTAGE

Answer 77

a) IN COMPANY of another person or persons, AND b) At the time of, or immediately before or after the commission of the offence, ACTUAL BODILY HARM is occasioned to the victim.

Answer 78

``` S112 Crimes Act A) The accused -Break -Enters -Dwelling House or other building -Commits serious indictable offence therein. ``` B) The accused - Being in dwelling or other building - Commits serious indictable offence therein, - And breaks out

Answer 79

- Intentionally wounds or inflicts GBH on any person. - Inflicts GBH and is reckless to inflicting ABH. - Armed with a dangerous weapon.

Answer 80

- Armed with offensive weapon - In company - Use corporal violence - Intentionally or recklessly inflicts ABH - Deprives a person of their liberty - Knows persons present at the time

Answer 81

- ACTUAL | - CONSTRUCTIVE

Answer 82

- Threat - Fraud - Conspiracy

Answer 83

Section 61H of the Crimes Act; Sexual Intercourse means; SEXUAL CONNECTION occasioned by penetration to any of the; a) Genitalia (including surgically constructed vagina) of a female, OR - The anus of any person, + i) By any part of the body of another person, OR ii) Any object manipulated by another person, - Except where carried out for proper medical purposes, OR b) Sexual connection occasioned by introduction of penis to mouth of another person c) Cunnilingus, or d) The continuation of sexual intercourse

Answer 84

1) had sexual intercourse with the complainant; 2) without the consent of the complainant; 3) knowing that the complainant did not consent; and 4) who was in the company of another or others; and who either: o Intentionally or recklessly inflicts ABH or o Threatens to inflict ABH by offensive weapon or instrument o Deprives the alleged victim of their liberty

Answer 85

1) Had sexual intercourse with the complainant; 2) Without the consent of the complainant; 3) Knowing that the complainant did not consent.

Answer 86

Case law; which states the accused MUST KNOW THE EXISTENCE or THE LIKELY EXISTENCE and nature of the narcotic goods. Onus is on the prosecution to prove the accused had this at the time of having physical control.

Answer 87

Case law; which indicates the accused required exclusive physical control to be convicted of a prohibited drug.

Answer 88

Supply prohibited drug - The accused - Did supply - A prohibited drug.

Answer 89

Case law; which indicates where a number of acts are involved, the series of incidents of at the same nature can be accumulated into one indictment. In this case regarding drug supply; the quantities for each act of supply were accumulated from individual amount to establish a commercial qauntity.

Answer 90

``` On going supply. - The supply of a prohibited drug 3 or more times, - Within a consecutive 30 days, - For financial or material reward. (Can't be cannabis) ```

Answer 91

Cultivate prohibited plant; A person who; a) Cultivates, or knowingly takes part in the cultivation of, a prohibited plant, b) Supplies or knowingly takes part in the supply of prohibited plant, c) Has a prohibited plant in his possession, is guilty of an offence.

Answer 92

- Involves the sowing of seeds - Planting, growing, tending to, nurture, watering - Harvesting of prohibited plant.

Answer 93

Supply; DEFINITION -Includes sell and distribute, agree to supply, offer to supply, keeping or having in possession to supply, delivering or receiving for supply, or authorising, directing, causing suffering, permitting or attempting any of those acts or things. EXTENDED DEFINTION - Intention required; The suspects intention that the offer to be regarded as genuine by the person receiving the offer.

Answer 94

Section 156 Crimes Act – Larceny as a clerk or servant (After the till) - Accused is a clerk or servant - Property was owned or in possession of master/employer - The accused stole the property from the master/employer

Answer 95

S157 Crimes Act - Before the Till - Received the property - before coming into the possession of the master/employer - Stole the property

Answer 96

- a name or address, - a date or place of birth, marital status,relative's identity or similar information, - a driver licence or driver licence number, - a passport or passport number, - biometric data, - a voice print, - a credit or debit card, its number or data stored or encrypted on it, - a financial account number, user name or password, - a digital signature, - a series of numbers or letters (or both) intended for use as a means of personal identification, - an ABN.

Answer 97

- A person who possesses identification information - With the INTENTION of committing or of facilitating - The commission of an indictable offence Proved through admissions, dealing act – Need to prove the intent

Answer 98

Making false document; A person who MAKES a false document with the intention that the person or another will use it: (a) to induce some person to accept it as genuine, and (b) because of its being accepted as genuine: (i) to obtain any property belonging to another, or (ii) to obtain any financial advantage or cause any financial disadvantage, or (iii) to influence the exercise of a public duty,

Answer 99

Using false document; A person who USES a false document, knowing that it is false, with the intention of: (a) inducing some person to accept it as genuine, and (b) because of its being accepted as genuine: (i) obtaining any property belonging to another, or (ii) obtaining any financial advantage or causing any financial disadvantage, or (iii) influencing the exercise of a public duty,

Answer 100

R v RYAN relates to an armed robbery; during which RYAN loaded and armed himself with a firearm, then tied up a victim during the robbery. RYAN had the firearm aimed at the victim's head. When the victim turned around, RYAN suddenly pulled the trigger. RYAN argued it was an involuntary action to pull the trigger and attempted the AUTOMATISM defence. But based on the facts that the accused had prepared himself, the firearm and put himself in that situation it was held that the acts of RYAN caused the victim's death and was convicted of murder.

Answer 101

HALLET assault the victim and left the victim unconscious on the beach. The tide rose and the victim was later found dead. The causation was found to be due to the acts of the accused. Defence argued the tide rising was a 'nous actus interveniens' (NEW INTERVENING ACT) which supervened and took over of the leading cause of death. This was Rejected. To break the causal chain defence must establish on the balance of probabilities that the novus actus interveniens (intervening Act) is SUBSTANTIAL so EXTRAORDINARY to happen to break the chain of causation (eg/an act of god)

Answer 102

(1) A person who does anything intending in any way to hinder: (a) the investigation of a serious indictable offence committed by another person, or (b) the discovery of evidence concerning a serious indictable offence committed by another person, or (c) the apprehension of another person who has committed a serious indictable offence. - ONLY NEED PROVE THEY KNEW AN OFFENCE HAD BEEN COMMITTED. - THE HINDER MUST BE DELIBERATE.

Answer 103

The Attorney General or director of the ODPP.

REVISION Flashcards

(127 cards)