Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
45 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
ACTUS REUS |
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 |
|
|
CAUSATION |
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 |
|
|
MENS REA -- INTENTION |
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 |
|
|
MENS REA -- TRANSFERRED MALICE |
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 |
|
|
MENS REA -- SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS |
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 |
|
|
MENS REA -- OBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS |
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 |
|
|
MENS REA -- MOTIVE |
**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 |
|
|
HOMICIDE -- MURDER |
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 |
|
|
NON FATAL OFFENCES -- ASSAULT |
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 |
|
|
NON FATAL OFFENCES -- BATTERY |
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 |
|
|
NON FATAL OFFENCES -- S47 OAPA 1861 |
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 |
|
|
NON FATAL OFFENCES -- S20 |
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 |
|
|
NON FATAL OFFENCES -- S18 |
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 |
|
|
harassment |
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 |
|
|
stalking |
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 |
|
|
rape |
s1 sexual offences act hughes: any degree of penetration |
|
|
consent |
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 |
s3 r v h s79 s78 r v george |
