Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • 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

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


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

45 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back


bratty: voluntary conduct

larsonneur: voluntary state of affairs

deller: must prove AR

fagan: principle of contemporaneity

bland: doctors can stop treating, omission

re a: invasive procedure so cannot apply bland

miller: statute or common law must give duty to act for there to be omission liability

familial relationships

smith: parents owe children a duty, spouses owe each other a duty

gibbins and proctor: father had duty to help

sheppard: no duty to grown and competent children

evans: no duty for half sisters

assumed responsibility

gibbins and proctor: taking money for daughter

stone and dobinson: taking in anorexic girl

medical duty

bland: omission to treat will not be an offense if bolam test is satisfied

contractual duty

pittwood: train gates, omission affected anyone who was at risk

duty to counteract dangerous situation

miller: moves to another room

duty arising from public office

dytham: officer witnesses man being kicked


white: but for

smith: legal, operating and substantial

dalloway: result must be attributable to a culpable act (horse reigns)

novus actus interveniens

act of a 3rd party --> michael: foster child

medical treatment --> jordan: at hospital wound had healed, gave wrong antibiotic, palpably wrong treatment will be NAI --> Smith: poor medical treatment will be NAI if so overwhelming as to make first cause a part of history

eggshell skull rule

hayward: take your victims as you find them

fight or flight

roberts: jumps out of moving car, d convicted

lewis: v's response must be an expected result of d's act

corbett: court should recognise in the heat of the moment V may not have a measured approach


moloney: golden rule

cunliffe v goodman: a state of affairs where d does more than contemplate

direct intention

mohan: the decision to bring about a prohibited outcome

indirect intention

hyam: d must have foresight that outcome is high probability of his actions

moloney: was death or really serious injury a naturalconsequence of D’s actions and did D foresee that?

hancock: moloney doesnt consider probability

nedrick: jury can infer if virtual certainty

woollin: jury can find if virtual certainty

matthew and alleyne: court not yet reached definition


latimer: had no intention to hit V but had intention to hit someone

pembliton: intention for a different crimes cant be transferred

thabo meli: series of events that cannot be divided, intention to kill someone, V then dies from weather


cunningham: d must be aware of risk it must be unreasonable for him to take risk

stephenson: schizophrenic lights fire in haystack, did not see risk, could not be guilty


caldwell: committing an act which creates an obvious risk where D gave no thought to risk or gave thought and took it anyway

elliot: 14 yr old with limited intelligence, sets carpet alight, risk had to be obvious to reasonable person so she was charged

coles: 15 yr old with limited intelligence, sets hay barn alight while playing

shimmen: lacuna because D did not see risk

r v g: a person acts recklessly if he is aware of risk and it is unreasonable to take risk in circumstances known to him


**not formally recognised

steane: helping germans was not motive despite it being virtually certain

gillick: aiding and abetting was not motive but was virtually certain


ar: unlawful killing of another under queens peace with malice aforethought

mr: intention to kill or cause gbh

law reform act 1996: death within 3 years

kerry young: double jeopardy

when does life begin

enoch: independent existence from mother

poulton: wholly expelled from mother and alice

reeves: umbilical chord need not be cut

ag's ref 3 1994: could be guilty of murder child if he had mr towards child

when does life end

malcherek: brain death

adams: hastening of death will be murder unless medicine is given for benefit and death is a known side effect

malice aforethought

vickers: intention to cause gbh sufficient for murder

loss of control -- old law

old law of provocation

ahluwalia: slow burn

thornton: battered women syndrome

loss of control -- s56 coroners and justice act

d must lose self control

dawes: serious anger does not suffice but reaction may be delayed

must be due to a qualifying trigger

dawes: break up is not sufficient for being seriously wronged

clinton: where d feels wronged is subjective but whether circumstances are grave enough is objective

inglis: d must show connection between loss of control and trigger

d's reaction must be reasonable S54(1)(c)

dawes: can consider cumulative provocation

asmelash: voluntary intoxication will cause no defence unless sober individual wouldve acted in same way

diminished responsibility -- s52

d is suffering from abnormality of mental functioning

abnormality arises from recognised medical condition

condition has substantially impaired list in s52(1)(1a)

brown robert: a substantial impairment will be less than total but more than minimal

diminished responsibility -- intoxication

tandy: for alcoholism to apply the craving must be strong enough to make drinking involuntary

stewart: for defence to apply it must be shown that despite alcohol it was the medical condition that impaired D

unlawful act manslaughter

ag's ref 3 1994: d committed an unlawful act, unlawful act was dangerous, caused death

franklin: unlawful act must be a crime

newbury: d need not know his act was unlawful

lamb: no intent to kill so couldnt be murder, no intent to cause gbh so couldnt be oap, neither thought revolver could shoot, no unlawful act

church: unlawful act is dangerous if all sober and reasonable people would recognise it subjects V to some risk of physical harm

watson: peculiarity of the victim will be relevant if it would have been evident to reasonable observer

gross negligence manslaughter

adomako: d owed duty of care (look at general principles of negligence), breached the duty, breach amounted to gross negligence

wacker: d smuggling immigrants, closed vent, tried to rely on rule in negligence that parties of criminal enterprise dont owe duty, rejected in criminal law

gray: police officers --> those they arrest

singh: landlords --> tenants

adomako: d with expert skills will be judged to standard of reasonable competent professional

bateman: gross negligence if d's conduct shows disregard to life and safety of others

ag's reg 2: d can be convicted with no evidence of his state of mind

misra: where evidence is available it will not be irrelevant


mr: intention or subjective recklessness

ar: causing apprehension of immediate and unlawful violence

max 6 months

charged under S39 criminal justice act

ireland: silent phone calls

tuberville v savage: words negating assault means no intention

read v coker: conditional threat

logdon: empty threat no defence if V apprehends violence

smith: D standing outside her window could be imminent


mr: intention or subjective recklessness

ar: infliction fo force or violence

max 6 months

charged under S39

collins v wilcock: everyday touching

faulkner: touching without consent even if not hostile

brown: should be hostile

ireland: psychiatric injury not a battery

k: acid, indirect infliction

cps charging standards

ABH: relevant factors include medical intervention and permanent effects

GBH: permanent disability, disfigurement, broken limbs, blood loss, serious psychiatric injury with expert evidence


mr: assault or battery

ar: committing assault or battery which causes abh

max 5 years

donovan: any hurt or injury which intrudes to health/comfort of v is abh

r(t): temporary loss of consciousness may be abh

chan fook: psychiatric injury may be abh if there is medical evidence

roberts: bruising is abh


mr: intention or subjective recklessness to cause some harm

ar: wounding or inflicting gbh

savage: only have to foresee some harm not GBH

moriarty: break in continuity of skin is a wound

eisenhower: rupture of blood vessel not a wound

smith: GBH is really serious harm

grundy: look at totality of injuries, could add up to GBH


ar: wounding or inflicting gbh

mr: intention to cause gbh or resist arrest

taylor: must show intention to cause gbh, intention to wound insufficient

hate crimes

s28 crime and disorder act 1998: aggravated offences

woods: as long as hostility is demonstrated during the attack there is no need to show it was the reason

parry: 20 mins after D admitted


s1 + S4 protection from harassment act 1997: conduct on at least 2 occasions

lau: 2 separates incidents for months apart

kelly: 3 voicemail messages in 5 minutes

curtis: episodes of domestic violence in 6 months with periods of affection no harassment

king: letters and gifts after break could be wooing back

hayes v willoughby: harassment is persistant and deliberate, unreasonable and oppressive conduct, calculated to cause alarm fear or distress


s111 protection from harassment act --> amendment

s2a(1): harassment with association to stalking

s2a(2): examples of stalking

s4a(1)(i): harassment, stalking, fear of violence

s4a(1)(ii): harassment, stalking, serious alarm or distress


s1 sexual offences act

hughes: any degree of penetration


s76: conclusive presumptions

jheeta: she had not been deceived as to nature and purpose, lies may be deceitful but rarely go to nature and purpose

s75: evidential presumptions

s74: meaning of consent

assange: a positive lie regarding conditions to which V agrees will undermine consent

capacity to consent

bree: despite drinking can retain capacity to consent but if capacity is lost then no reasonable belief

economic coercion to consent

kirk: homeless teenager, money for food, coerced so no consent

transgender and consent

mcnally: convicted of assault by penetration, v did not have freedom to consent

transmission and consent

clarence: husband and wife, he had gonnhorea, held she consented to sex so consent to all risks

dica: overruled, v had to consent to risk of transmission but he had not disclosed hiv status

konzani: d cannot have honest belief in consent if he concealed his status

consent to abh and gbh

brown: general rule, cannot consent, not in public interest

billinghust: sport exception, rugby player, injury can be expected in course of game but this is not a complete immunity

terence: horseplay exception, implicit consent

sexual assault


r v h



r v george