Unit 2 So Far

Front 1

Actus Reus Voluntary

Back 1

The actus reus is the guilty act the act may be voluntary (hill v baxter) or by omission

Front 2

Actus reus omissions

Back 2

Generally there is no liability for a faliure to act but there are exceptions for example EG MILLER duty where he created a dangerous situation

Front 3

Causation

Back 3

There must be a link between ds act and end result

Front 4

Factual causation

Back 4

But for test is used pagett

Front 5

Legal contribution

Back 5

Significant contribution test smith

Front 6

Breaks in the chain

Back 6

Bad medical treatment Jordan

Victims own act roberts

Front 7

Mens rea

Back 7

The mens rea is the guilty mind can be based on intention eg woolin death or gbh was virtually certain or mr can be based on recklessness ie d realizses the risk but takes it anyway cunningham

Front 8

Transferred Malice

Back 8

The mr can be transferred from the intended victim to actual victim latimer

Cannot transfer across different types of offences pembilton

Front 9

Strict liability

Back 9

Do not recquire proof of mens rea , statuory offences eg driving wihtout belt or tax or used for regualtory offences such as protecting food hygiene smeedleys v breed

Front 10

Adv of sl

Back 10

Help to protect public from harm eg sweet vs parsley

Saves court time from having to prove mens rea

Front 11

Ar of murder

Back 11

The actus reus of murder is the unlawful kiling of any reasonable creature under the queens peace white

Front 12

Mr of murder

Back 12

Is malice aforethought ie intention to kill or cause gbh Vickers

Front 13

Intention

Back 13

Intention can be direct or indirect woolin direct is that d desired the outcome or indirect intention where death or gbh was virtually certain and d realized this

Front 14

Mandatory sentence

Back 14

Is one the court must impose for eg life for murder

Front 15

Discretionary Sentence

Back 15

Court has a choice up to the maxium for eg disqualification for drink driving or max life for manslaughter

Front 16

DR Act

Back 16

S52 coroners and justice act 2009

Front 17

DR AMF

Back 17

Abnormality of mental functioning byrne

Front 18

DR RMC

Back 18

Arising from a recognised mental condition eg chronic depression Martin

Front 19

DR SL

Back 19

Substantially impair ds mental responsibility

Front 20

DR explanation

Back 20

Provides an explantion for ds conduct

Front 21

LOC Act

Back 21

S54 coroners and justice act 2009

Front 22

LOC LC

Back 22

Dmust kill as a result of loss of control doesnt need to be sudden

Front 23

LOC QT

Back 23

Must have been a qualifiying trigger this can be

A) fear of serious violence against d or another person

B) things done or said amounting to circumstances of extremely grave character (doughty)

Or both together

Front 24

LOC objective test

Back 24

Would a person with normal self control acted the same way?

Restrictions sexual infidelity and considered desire for revenge (ibrams and gregory)

Front 25

Unlawful act manslaughter ar

Back 25

1-must be an unlawful act mitchell

2-the act must be dangerous Newbury and jones

3-the act caused death

Front 26

Unlawful act manslaughter Mr

Back 26

Is the unlawful killing of any reasonable creature under the queens peace adomako

Front 27

Gross negligence mr

Back 27

1-firstly there is a duh of care

2-D breached this when they failed to take reasonable care

3-this breach must have caused death

4-it was grossly negligent adomako because there was a disregard for life and safety of others and an obvious risk of death