• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/29

Click to flip

29 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Murder
AR-D causes v, a human being, to die during peacetime
MR-an intention to kill or cause GBH-Moloney
Cunningham
Implied malice (intention to commit serious harm or gbh) is sufficient MR for murder
Woollin
jury cannot state intention unless it feels sure that death or GBH was a virtual certainty barring some unforeseen event as a result of the accused's actions and that the accused appreciated such was the case
Voluntary manslaughter- D has the mens rea for murder but there are the 3 partial defences
Diminished responsibility
Provocation
Suicide pacts
Diminished Responsibility
s2 Homicide Act 1957
D must prove
abnormality of mind
from a specified cause
such abnormality substantially impaired D's responsibility
Byrne
abnormality of mind is a state of mind so different from that of ordinar human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
Dietschmann
did the underlying condition substantially impair D's responsibility for the killing
Ahluwahlia
includes depression
Hobson
includes battered woman syndrome
Sanderson
includes mental illness
Diminished responsibility
Section 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 new diminished responsibility defence
Abnormality of mental functioning

Specified Medical Condition

Substantial impairment of responsibility
• D’s understanding of the nature of his conduct,
• D’s ability to form rational judgment or
• D’s ability to exercise self-control.
Provocation s3 Homicide Act 1957
provocative conduct-things said or done
D lost self control
Reasonable man would have done what D did
Duffy
D's loss of self control has to be sudden and temporary so D was not master of his mind
Humphrey
loss of self control was breaking of the camels back
Morhall
addiction to glue sniffing was a characteristic of particular relevance
Holley
jury should be directed to apply a uniform objective standard of the degree of self control to be expected of an ordinary person of D's age and sex with ordinary powers of self control.
prosecution must disprove provocation beyond reasonable doubt
Camplin
D's age and physical characteristics should be taken into account
Smith (Morgan)
Certain characteristics of the defendant, beyond simply their age and sex, could be taken into account when applying the objective test.
Provocation replaced by Sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
loss of Self control
caused by a Qualifying Trigger
s55 CJA qualifying triggers
D had a fear of serious violence from V against D or another person s.55(3)

there was a thing or were things either said or done or both which constituted
circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused D to have a
justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (s.55(4))
these triggers will apply unless
D has incited the trigger as an excuse to use violence

the reason for the loss of self-control is sexual infidelity (s.55(6))
Involuntary Manslaughter
An unlawful homicide without the Mens Rea for murder
-reckless manslaughter-less than Woollin intention
-unlawful act manslaughter
-gross negligence manslaughter
Lidar
for reckless manslaughter- prosecution has to prove foresight of at least serious harm with a determination nevertheless to run it
Stone & Dobinson
D has to actually foresee the risk or recklessly disregard a risk to V's health and welfare
Unlawful Act manslaughter
4 Requirements
Lowe
Lamb
Church
-D does an act
-that act must be unlawful
-that act must be dangerous, all sober and resonable people would inevitably recognise such. it must subject the other person to the risk of at least serious harm
-The act causes V's death
Gross negligence manslaughter
5 stage test
Adomako
D owes V a duty of care
breach caused death
breach is serious enough to be a crime
Mark
D breaches that duty-objective standard
Misra and Srivastava
breach involves an obvious risk of death