crime

Question 1

conduct crimes

Answer 1

doing- what matters is what defendant does e.g. drink driving. no consequence is required, the AR is the prohibited conduct itself

Question 2

consequence crimes

Answer 2

result- the AR must result in a consequence, e.g. assault

Question 3

state of affairs crime

Answer 3

circumstances- what matters is being there in the prohibited circumstances, e.g. being in possession of a controlled drug, the D doesn’t have anything to do with the drug but is still in possession of it

Question 4

omission

Answer 4

the general rule in criminal law is that a person is not liable for an omission (failure to act) unless under a duty to act

Question 5

statutory duties and common law duties

Answer 5

• duties created by parliament are called statutory instruments
• duties created by judges are known as common law duties

Question 6

examples of statutory duties

Answer 6

• failing to wear a seatbelt or give a breath specimen under the Road Traffics Act 1988
• failing to muzzle a dangerous dog in public under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
• neglecting a child under the Domestic Violence, Crime + Victims Act 2004

Question 7

contractual duties

Answer 7

arise through contracts of employment, e.g pittwood 1902- where a railway crossing keeper had a duty of close the gate, his omission formed the AR of manslaughter

Question 8

official position

Answer 8

usually related to public office, e.g. Dytham 1979- where a police officer stood by while V was getting beaten up. D was guilty for failing to perform his duty while in a public position

Question 9

special relationship

Answer 9

e.g. Gibbins + Proctor 1918 , where a father starved his 7 year old daughter to death. he had a duty to feed her and the omission formed the AR of murder

Question 10

duty undertaken voluntarily

Answer 10

based on reliance, e.g. Stone + Dobinson 1977 where D’s took in an elderly relative and failed to look after her. D’s were liable for her death

Question 11

creating a dangerous situation

Answer 11

e.g. miller 1983- where D failed to take reasonable steps to deal with the fire he had started. he had created a dangerous situation and owed a duty to call the fire brigade. he was therefore liable when he failed to do so

Question 12

Airedale NHS trust vs Bland 1993

Answer 12

there can be cases where doctors decide to stop treating a patient. if discontinuing treatment is in the best interests of the patient then it is not an omission so doesn’t form the AR

Question 13

causation

Answer 13

an essential element to establish the AR in consequence crimes. there needs to be evidence to show that the D caused the consequence

Question 14

chain of causation

Answer 14

the prosecution has to prove:
1. D’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence;
2. it was the legal cause of that consequence, and
3. there was no intervening act which broke the “chain of causation”

Question 15

factual causation

Answer 15

this is the starting point in establishing the “chain of causation”. it must be proved that the unlawful consequence wouldn’t have happened “but for” D’s conduct

Question 16

Pagett 1983

Answer 16

D was the factual cause of death when he used his girlfriend as a shield and fired at police. she wouldn’t have died “but for” his actions

Question 17

White 1910

Answer 17

D was acquitted because although he tried to poison his mother, she actually died because of a heart attack, so he wasn’t a factual cause

Question 18

legal causation

Answer 18

there may be more than one act contributing to the consequence. some of these acts may be made by people other than D. the key rule is that D’s conduct doesn’t need to be the only cause of the consequence. D’s contribution must be more than minimal

Question 19

Kimsey 1996

Answer 19

D and V engaged in a high speed car chase. V lost control of the car and died. the trial judge directed the jury that D’s driving didn’t have to be “the principal, or a substantial cause of death, as long as you are sure that it was a cause and that there were something more than a slight or trifling link.”

Question 20

Benge 1846

Answer 20

D was a foreman during work on a train track. he failed to give adequate warning to an approaching train driver and a fatal accident occurred. it was irrelevant that the accident might have been avoided if others hadn’t also been negligent. D substantially caused the death through his negligence

Question 21

thin skull rule

Answer 21

means that the defendant must take the victim as he or she finds them

Question 22

Blaue 1975

Answer 22

D was responsible for V’s death when the Jehovah’s witness he stabbed refused a blood transfusion, despite the fact she would have survived if she had accepted the treatment

Question 23

intervening acts

Answer 23

an intervening act may operate to “break the chain of causation” and prevent D from being liable for the ultimate result, even if D’s conduct was a factual and more than minimal cause.
the chain of causation was broken by:
- an unforeseeable act of nature
- the unforeseeable act of a third party
- V’s own subsequent conduct

Question 24

victim’s own conduct

Answer 24

if D causes V to act in a foreseeable way, then V’s own act will not break the chain of causation

Question 25

Roberts 1971

Answer 25

V's reaction to jump from a moving car was reasonably foreseeable when D made sexual advances towards her. the chain of causation was not broken

Question 26

Williams 1992

Answer 26

V died after jumping from a moving car, allegedly to avoid having his wallet stolen, this reaction was disproportionate to the threat so broke the chain of causation

Question 27

medical treatment

Answer 27

medical treatment, even if negligent, is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of D's conduct and "in itself so potent causing death" that D's acts are insignificant

Question 28

Smith 1959

Answer 28

medical treatment- after being stabbed in a fight by D, V was dropped twice on the wat to the treatment centre and left untreated for some time. although the court recognised that this contributed to V's death, they still found D guilty of murder. the stab wound was still "operating" and it was a substantial cause of V's death

Question 29

Cheshire 1991

Answer 29

medical treatment- D shot V in the stomach and thigh. V needed an operation to insert a tube into his throat to help him breathe more easily. Some 2 months after the shooting, V died from rare complications following this tracheotomy. although V's wounds at the time were no longer life threatening. D was still held to be liable for the death as his actions (shooting V) had contributed "significantly" to the death

Question 30

when will medical treatment break the chain of causation?

Answer 30

medical treatment will only break the chain of causation if it is exceptionally bad or that it makes D's original acts insignificant

Question 31

Jordan 1956

Answer 31

medical treatment- V was stabbed by D and admitted to a large hospital. V's wounds were healing when doctors gave him a large amount of anti-biotics which he was allergic to and died. the chain of causation was broken. the medical treatment was "palpably" wrong and it was the overwhelming cause of death as the original wounds had virtually healed

Question 32

intention

Answer 32

this is the highest form of MR. for some offences, only intention suffices. So, if D didn't intend death or GBH, he or she will not be guilty of murder but instead the lesser crime of manslaughter

Question 33

direct intent

Answer 33

this is where the result is D's aim or purpose. direct intent was defined in Mohan 1975 as a "decision to bring about the prohibited consequence," no matter whether D desired the consequence or not. In that case, D had driven his car straight at a police officer with the aim of injuring him

Question 34

indirect intent

Answer 34

this is where the result isn't D's aim, yet he or she realises it is "virtually certain" to occur as a result of their actions. in this situation, the jury may conclude D has an indirect intent

Question 35

Woollin 1998

Answer 35

indirect intent- a jury isn't entitled to find indirect intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was: 1. a virtually certainty as a result of D's actions and 2. that D appreciated that it was D threw his baby son across the room, he argued that he had thrown the baby towards the pram but hadn't intended to kill him

Question 36

recklessness

Answer 36

recklessness is a lower level of MR, it only needs to be considered when D doesn't have intention. to prove that D is reckless, it must be shown that D is aware of a risk of the consequence happening, but deliberately goes ahead and takes it anyway. recklessness is subjective

Question 37

cunningham 1957

Answer 37

recklessness- D tore a gas meter from a wall in order to steal money in the meter. gas escaped and seeped through to an adjoining property, poisoning the neighbour. since D did not realise there was a possibility of this happening, he wasn't reckless

Question 38

R V G 2003

Answer 38

recklessness- criminal damage is a crime which can be committed recklessly. however, in this case the two defendants (aged 11 and 13) hadn't realised the danger of a fire spreading uncontrollably to a nearby supermarket. it was only fair to judge the boys against the risks they had foreseen

Question 39

negligence

Answer 39

a person is negligent if he or she fails to meet the standards of a reasonable person. it is objective because D does not have to realise this

Question 40

Adomako 1994

Answer 40

an anaesthetist was liable for gross negligence manslaughter when he took several minutes to notice a breathing tube had disconnected during an operation. a reasonable anaesthetist would have noticed within a couple seconds

Question 41

strict liability

Answer 41

- do not require mens rea to be proved in relation to at least once element of the actus reus - these offences are the exception to the general rule that both AR and MR is require for criminal liability - most concern road traffic offences or breaches of health and safety legislation, but they can include issues of social concern

Question 42

Callow V Tillstone 1900

Answer 42

a butcher was convicted of selling contaminated meat even though it had been certified as fit for human consumption by a vet. because it was a strict liability offence, D was guilty, even though he had taken responsible care not to commit the offence. the butcher was not at fault in any way

Question 43

Cundy V Le Cocq 1884

Answer 43

strict liability- D was charged with selling alcohol to a drunk person. it didn't matter that D didn't know the person was drunk. the offence was complete when the sale took place and the person served was drunk

Question 44

Harrow V Shah 1999

Answer 44

strict liability- a staff member in a newspaper place sold a lottery ticket to a 13 year old who looked much older. the owners were liable, despite telling their staff not to see tickets to anyone underage

Question 45

Sweet V Parsley 1971

Answer 45

D rented a farmhouse to students who, unknown to her, used it to smoke cannabis. the court reiterated the general rule that MR is required in order for D to be guilty of a crime. parliament doesn't intend to make criminals of people who aren't blameworthy

Question 46

B V DPP 2000

Answer 46

strict liability- a 15 year old boy asked a 13 year old girl on a bus to have oral sex believing she was over 14. D was charged with inciting a child under 14 to commit gross indecency, which carried a maximum sentence of 2 years. the court quashed D's conviction and said MR was needed for this serious offence

Question 47

transferred malice

Answer 47

D can be guilty if he or she intends to commit a crime against A but instead commits the crime against B

Question 48

Latimer 1886

Answer 48

transferred malice- D aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub. the belt bounce off the man and struck a woman in the face. D was guilty of an assault against the women, even though he hadn't meant to hit her. applying the principle of transferred malice the MR directed at the man was transferred to the woman

Question 49

Gnago 2011

Answer 49

transferred malice- a passerby was shot in a gang shootout in which D had participated. the person who fired the shot was never caught, but would have been guilty of murder under the principle of transferred malice

Question 50

Pembliton 1874

Answer 50

transferred malice- D threw a stone at V missed and smashed a window instead. D wasn't liable for the damage to the window because the MR couldn't be transferred from a crime against a person to a crime against a property

Question 51

continuing act

Answer 51

this is where an initial AR. provided at some point while the AR is still going on, D forms the MR, then the AR and MR are said to coincide

Question 52

Fagan 1986

Answer 52

D drove on to a police officer's foot by mistake. when D realised what he had done and refused to move the car, he gained the MR. the AR was treated as a continuing act and therefore it didn't matter if the MR was formed a little afterwards

Question 53

serious of connected acts

Answer 53

this is where there is an initial MR. D then performs a series of acts which connected together from the AR. the AR and MR still said to coincide

Question 54

Thabo Meli 1954

Answer 54

series of connected acts- D attacked V, intending to kill him. they then rolled what they thought was his dead body off a cliff to make it look like an accident. however, V was actually unconscious at this point and died some time later from exposure. the first act was accompanied by MR but wasn't the cause of death (so no AR)

Question 55

manslaughter

Answer 55

a broad term which ranges between intentional killing and accidental death

Question 56

voluntary manslaughter

Answer 56

term given to those situations in which the accused would be convicted of murder, that is, D possess the necessary mental intent at the time of the killing, but because of a special defence D is only convicted of manslaughter two special defences: - loss of control - diminished responsibility

Question 57

involuntary manslaughter

Answer 57

unlawful killing where the actus reus of murder has been committed, but without the necessary mens reas for murder. two ways of committing involuntary manslaughter= unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter

Question 58

murder

Answer 58

Lord Coke gave the famous definition: "the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the King's peace with malice aforethought, express or implied

Question 59

actus reus of murder

Answer 59

the unlawful killing of a human being under the King's peace within any country of the realm by an act or omission it must be shown that the defendants acts or omissions were the factual and legal cause of death

Question 60

factual causation

Answer 60

but for D's conduct, V wouldn't have died

Question 61

legal causation

Answer 61

D's act or omission was a more than minimal cause of V's death

Question 62

A-G's Reference (No.3 of 1994)

Answer 62

it was decided a foetus killed in the womb cannot be a victim of murder. for a child to be considered a human being, they must have an existence living independently of its mother

Question 63

Malcherek 1981

Answer 63

it was deiced that a brain dead person is no longer considered a reasonable creature in being

Question 64

king's peace

Answer 64

this excludes killing an enemy solider in battle when the country is at war. however, enemy soldiers who have been captured or surrendered are protected by the law of murder

Question 65

Blackman 2017

Answer 65

killing an enemy combatant after they were seriously injured and no longer a threat was considered a killing under the King's peace

Question 66

within any country of the realm

Answer 66

this includes killing a person anywhere in the UK. exceptionally, a British citizen can be tried in British courts for a murder that was committed overseas

Question 67

mens rea of murder

Answer 67

- malice aforethought - express malice aforethought means intention to kill - implied malice aforethought means intention to cause serious harm - intention to cause GBH is sufficient

Question 68

Vickers 1957

Answer 68

D struck V with several bows during a burglary of V's shop. the court decided that where D intends to inflict GBH and V dies, this is enough for murder

Question 69

foresight of consequences

Answer 69

in most cases of murder, a direct intention to kill or do GBH. however, situations can arise when D intends one thing but the actual consequence which occurs is another. if D foresaw the actual consequence of death or GBH, then he may be found guilty of indirectly intending murder

Question 70

actus reus

Answer 70

physical element

Question 71

mens rea

Answer 71

mental element, thinking part, guilty mind

Question 72

Matthews v Alleyne 2003

Answer 72

Ds pushed from a bridge into a fast flowing river, knowing that he couldn't swim. he fell 25 feet and drowned.

Question 73

loss of control

Answer 73

covers situations where D causes death but at the time of the killing lost self-control and reacted as a "normal person" might have in D's situation

Question 74

s.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Answer 74

(1) a person who kills may be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder where there exists- (a) a loss of self-control, (b) the loss of control had a "qualifying trigger", and (c) a person of D's sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self- restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or similar way to D

Question 75

loss of self-control

Answer 75

this means a loss of ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or a loss of normal powers of reasoning

Question 76

Jewell 2014

Answer 76

loss of self-control- D shot V point blank range using a shotgun and fled the scene. at his trial, D claimed that when he got out of his van outside V's house, "I did it because I lost control. I couldn't control my actions. I couldn't think straight. My head was f**ked up. It was like an injection in the head, an explosion in my head." the court decided that there was insufficient evidence of D having lost his self-control, but there was overwhelming evidence that this was a planned execution

Question 77

details of loss of control

Answer 77

- judged subjectively - did D actually lose control at the time of the act or omission which caused V's death? - the loss of control need not be sudden: s.54 (2). it may follow from the cumulative impact of earlier events - however, s.54 (4) specifically excludes situations where D has acts "in a considered desire for revenge."

Question 78

qualifying trigger

Answer 78

D's loss of control must be attributable to a "qualifying trigger." the qualifying triggers permitted are set out in s.55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009. either trigger is sufficient or it may be a combination of both that caused D to lose control and kill

Question 79

s.55(3): the "fear" trigger

Answer 79

D fears serious violence from V against D or another identified person. this is decided subjectively

Question 80

Ward 2012

Answer 80

s.55(3)- D killed V after V had attacked D;s brother. D didn't fear serious violence towards himself. s.55(3) applied as D feared V would use serious violence towards his brother (who was an identifiable person)

Question 81

s.55(4): the "anger" trigger

Answer 81

things said or done (or both) which are: (a) of an extremely grave character and (b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Question 82

Zebedee 2012

Answer 82

s.55(4)- D lost control when his 94 year old father, who had Alzheimer's repeatedly soiled himself. neither conditions were satisfied

Question 83

Hatter 2013

Answer 83

s.55(4)- the court decided that "the breakup of a relationship, of itself, will not normally constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and entitle the aggrieved party to feel a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Question 84

sexual infidelity

Answer 84

the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded

Question 85

Clinton 2012

Answer 85

sexual infidelity- V told D she was having an affair and taunted him saying that she has slept with five men and gave graphic details. she also laughed after discovering he had been looking at suicide websites. the court decided that on its own sexual infidelity cannot qualify as a trigger, but it would be wrong to exclude it where sexual infidelity forms an essential part of another possible trigger

Question 86

incitement

Answer 86

a person may not raise a qualifying trigger if they incited the thing done or said or the violence

Question 87

Dawes 2013

Answer 87

incitement- D found his wife and V asleep on the sofa with their legs entwines. D claimed that V then attacked him with a bottle and that is why he fatally stabbed V

Question 88

revenge

Answer 88

s.55(4) excludes situations where D has acted "in a considered desire for revenge."

Question 89

normal person test

Answer 89

s.54 (1)(c) requires that a person of the defendant's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant, might have reacted in the same or similar way

Question 90

degree of tolerance and self-restraint

Answer 90

this is a question for the jury to decide, it is an objective test as D is expected to show a normal degree of self-control. apart from sex and age, the jury cannot consider any circumstances of D that might have made him or her have less self-control

Question 91

circumstances of the defendant

Answer 91

the jury must look at all of D's circumstances apart from those whose only relevance is to bear on D's general capacity for tolerance and self-restraint: s.54 (3). so a short temper, tendency to fly off the handle, or prejudices such as racism or homophobia aren't circumstances as they would only serve to lower D's capacity for tolerance below the normal level expected

Question 92

rejmanski 2017

Answer 92

normal person test- D was a former solider who lost it and killed V after V made negative comments about his military service. court of appeal decided that in this case PTSD had to be excluded from the description of a normal person and there was insufficient evidence that it was relevant to D's conduct

Question 93

asmelash 2013

Answer 93

circumstances of the defendant- D claimed V was abusive which made D angry and lost control, killing V. court decided that D was drunk wasn't one of his circumstances that had to be considered as it only related to D's general capacity to exercise tolerance and self restraint. however, if d had a severed problem with alcohol and was mercilessly taunted about this, to the extent it constituted a QT: it may then form part of the circumstances for consideration

Question 94

might have reacted in the same or similar way to D

Answer 94

this defence will fail if the jury considers that the "normal person" might have lost control but would not have reacted in the same way

Question 95

Christian 2018

Answer 95

normal person test- D stabbed 2 victims to death during an altercation in their shared living accommodation about the temp of the water in the shower. despite their being evidence of loss of control, the judge ruled that the defence shouldn't be left to the jury as D's reaction was so extreme and so protracted that no jury could conclude that a normal person might have reacted or behaved in the same or similar way

Question 96

van dongen 2015

Answer 96

D repeatedly kicked V about the head and body when V was lying on the ground. while a normal person may have lost control, they would not have reacted in this way

Question 97

diminished responsibility

Answer 97

defined by s.2 homicide act 1957 and amended by s.52 coroners and justice act 2009. a person who kills may be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder if he of she was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which- (a) arose from a recognised medical condition (b) substantially impaired D's ability to: i) understand the nature of his conduct; or ii) form a rational judgement; or iii) exercise self-control, and (c) provides an explanation for Ds acts and omissions in killing

Question 98

abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 98

it is presumed that the test for abnormality of mental functioning is whether D's mental functioning was so different from that of an ordinary human being that the reasonable person would term it abnormal. it must also now arise from a "recognised medical condition."

Question 99

Byrne 1960

Answer 99

D was a sexual psychopath who strangled and mutilated a woman. medical evidence showed his abnormality of mind meant he was unable to control his perverted desires

Question 100

key elements of DR

Answer 100

1. abnormality of mental functioning 2. recognise medical condition 3. substantial impairment 4. explains the killing

Question 101

recognised medical condition

Answer 101

this includes psychological and physical conditions according to established medical classification, including - psychotic condition (Golds 2016) - post-natal depression (Boots 2012) - mental disorder (Brennan 2014) - alcohol dependency syndrome (Wood 2008) - depressive illness (Dietschmann 2003) - Asperger's syndrome (Jama 2004) - battered spouses' syndrome (Hobson 1997) severe learning difficulties may also be included, but "normal immaturity" on the part of the child shouldn't qualify for a defence of diminished responsibility

Question 102

substantial impairment

Answer 102

the abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair D's ability to do one of 3 things: 1. to understand the nature of his conduct s.52 (1A) (A) e.g. D suffers from delusions and kills a person thinking he is an alien, or D's mental age is vastly lower than his or her real age 2. to form a rational judgement s.52 (1A) (b) e.g. D thinks irrationally that V is persecuting him and about to attack him (paranoia) or D suffers from schizophrenia or BSS 3. to exercise self-control s.52 (1A) (c) e.g. D know that he is strangling V, but has an uncontrollable urge to do this (Byrne) the impairment must be beyond merely trivial, but D's mental functioning need not be totally impaired. what amounts to "substantial" impairment is a matter of degree for the jury in each case Golds 2012

Question 103

provides an explanation for D's conduct

Answer 103

D has to prove that the abnormality of mental functioning provided an explanation for his acts (or omissions): s.52 (1C) an abnormality of mental functioning will provide an explanation for D's conduct if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing D to carry out the conduct. s.52 (1B) - needs to be a casual connection between the AMF and the killing. the AMF need not be the only factor which caused D to do or be involved in the killing, however it must be a significant factor. this is particularly important where D is intoxicated at the time of the killing

Question 104

DR and intoxication

Answer 104

- D chose to get drunk and claims AMF - intoxication and a pre-existing AMF - intoxication due to addiction or dependency

Question 105

unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 105

where D causes the death of V through an unlawful and dangerous act, without malice aforethought for murder, and with only the mens rea for the unlawful act (Newbury and Jones 1976)

Question 106

gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 106

where D causes death by breaching a duty of care towards V in a grossly negligent way. D's act or omissions must fall so far below the required standard of care that it goes beyond mere compensation and amounts to a crime

Question 107

key elements of unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 107

1. D must do an unlawful act 2. that act must be dangerous on an objective test 3. the act must cause the death 4. D must have mens rea for the unlawful act

Question 108

unlawful act

Answer 108

there must be an act- an omission is insufficient (Lowe 1973)

Question 109

lamb 1967

Answer 109

D and his friend were fooling around with a loaded revolver. unfortunately, one of them was killed, but no "unlawful act" existed because they didn't properly understand the mechanism of such a gun and hadn't expected it to fire. V wasn't therefore in fear of being short

Question 110

dangerous

Answer 110

the unlawful act must be "dangerous" on an objective test, such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other people to, at least, the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm (Church 1965)

Question 111

goodfellow 1986

Answer 111

D set fire to his council house with the motive of getting rehoused. he had no intention to endanger life but unfortunately his wife, son and his son's girlfriend were all killed D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. it did not matter that his act of arson wasn't directed at anyone

Question 112

JM + SM 2012

Answer 112

following a fight in a nightclub, V died from a ruptured artery that was a rare injury to have occurred the test for danger is whether a sober and reasonable person would foresee the risk of some harm. it didn't matter that they wouldn't foresee the particular type of harm that occurred

Question 113

dawson 1985

Answer 113

V died from a heart attack when Ds held up a petrol station to satisfy the danger test, the risk of harm must be a risk of physical harm. a risk of emotional disturbance is NOT enough by itself

Question 114

watson 1989

Answer 114

V died of a heart attack 90 minutes after being burgled the burglary became dangerous as soon as the old man's frailty would have been apparent to the reasonable person

Question 115

bristow, dunn and delay 2013

Answer 115

V had been hit by vehicles used by Ds to commit burglary of a workshop that was located down a long lane. there was a risk that someone might try to intervene to prevent escape. the circumstances of the burglary meant that a reasonable and sober person would foresee the risk of some harm

Question 116

causation

Answer 116

the unlawful act must cause death in fact and law. must be proven the breach of duty caused the death. this means that the usual rules on causation apply

Question 117

kenndey 2007

Answer 117

d prepared an injection of heroin and water for v to inject himself. v self-injected and died v's voluntary act in injecting himself broke the chain of causation between D's supply and V's death

Question 118

mens rea for unlawful act

Answer 118

D only requires the mens rea for the initial unlawful act; there is no need to prove that D realises the act is dangerous or unlawful, or even that D foresees a risk of harm

Question 119

newbury and jones 1976

Answer 119

mens rea for unlawful act- youths had thrown paving slabs from a bridge onto a passing train and killed the guard. d only needs to have the MR of the unlawful act. it was not necessary to prove that D foresaw any harm from his act

Question 120

key elements of gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 120

1. the existence of a duty of care owed by D to V 2. a breach of that duty of care which causes death 3. gross negligence which the jury considers to be so bad as to be criminal

Question 121

duty of care

Answer 121

there must be a duty of care owed by the D to V. this is a question of law and for the trial judge to decide

Question 122

adomako 1994

Answer 122

duty of care- an anaesthetist failed to notice a breathing tube had become disconnected during an operation. V had a heart attack and died. it was decided that the civil principles of negligence apply including the neighbour principle in donoghue v stevenson, a duty of care is owed to anyone it is reasonably foreseeable may be harmed by D's negligent acts or omissions

Question 123

singh 1999

Answer 123

duty of care- a faulty gas fire caused the death of tenants. the landlord was held to have a duty to maintain the property

Question 124

litchfield 1998

Answer 124

duty of care- a ship's captain set sail even though he knew the fuel was contaminated. the engine failed and crew members drowned. the captain owed a duty of care to the crew

Question 125

winter 2010

Answer 125

duty of care- d's owed a duty of care to inform firefighters attending a fire at their premises that they were storing unlicensed fireworks. two firefighters died from an explosion

Question 126

stone and dobinson 1977

Answer 126

duty of care- d's had voluntarily undertaken a duty to care for their anorexic relative, but were liable for her death when they failed to get medical help

Question 127

evans 2009

Answer 127

v self injected with heroin supply by V's half sister and collapsed. she and her mother didn't seek medical help as they feared getting into trouble. the mother clearly owed a duty to her daughter. her half-sister also owed v a duty of care under the "miller principle" of creating a dangerous situation and failing to minimise it

Question 128

wacker 2002

Answer 128

the bodies of 58 illegal immigrants were discovered in d's lorry. they had suffered because the driver had closed the air vents to keep the noise down and avoid detection when crossing the channel. the driver had voluntarily assumed a duty of care when he closed the vents and was in breach of it by not opening it. it was irrelevant that the decreased had entered into an arrangement. knowing it was unlawful and knowing that they were accepting a degree of risk

Question 129

breach of duty which causes death

Answer 129

if d falls below the standard of the reasonable person performing the duty in question, he or she will be in breach of the duty. whether there is a breach is a factual matter for the jury to decide

Question 130

risk of death

Answer 130

d's conduct must involve a foreseeable risk of death at the time of the breach. just because the breach id duty was a cause of death, it doesn't mean there was a foreseeable risk of death at the time of the breach

Question 131

singh 1999

Answer 131

the tenants death from carbon monoxide poisoning was a foreseeable risk if the gas fire was not maintained properly by the land lord

Question 132

misra 2004

Answer 132

risk of death- hospital doctors failed to identify and treat v for an infection after his knee operation, causing v to die. d's manslaughter conviction was upheld. the foreseeable risk related to death. a risk of serious injury would not be enough

Question 133

batemen 1925

Answer 133

"gross" was defined as negligence which went beyond a mere matter of civil compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and deserving of punishment

Question 134

adomako 1994

Answer 134

it was stressed that the jury had to decide whether having regard to the risk of death involved, D's acts or omissions were so bad in the circumstances that it was criminal negligence

Question 135

sellu 2016

Answer 135

during a routine knee operation, the patient suffered a perforated bowel. despite many opportunities, D failed to perform life saving procedures. the jury need to identify the line that separates serious or even very serious mistakes of lapses, from conduct which is "truly exceptionally bad" and such a departure from that standard of a reasonably competent doctor amounted to criminal

Question 136

assault

Answer 136

defined in common law but charged under s.39 criminal justice act 1988

Question 137

assault actus reus

Answer 137

- actions or words (smith v woking police 1983, the act was looking at a woman in her nightclothes through a window. words alone could be enough and even silent phone calls as in ireland 1999) words can also prevent an assault by making it clear that violence is not going to be used, e.g. tuberville v savage 1669, where D placed a hand on his sword and said "if it weren't assize time, I would not take such language from you..." - which cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful force (threat of violence must be "immediate." a threat to inflict harm in the future isn't assault. but, it's been widely interpreted. smith v woking, the threat of violence was considered immediate, even though D was still outside V's home

Question 138

assault mens rea

Answer 138

intentionally or recklessly causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force - logdon 1976, D pointed an imitation gun at V in jest did not realise it was a replica and was terrified. although D didn't intend to carry out the threat, he was reckless as to whether V would apprehend such violence

Question 139

battery

Answer 139

defined in common law but charged under s.39 criminal justice act 1988

Question 140

battery actus reus

Answer 140

- applying unlawful force to another person (collins v wilcock 1984, it was decided that "any touching of another person, however slight, may amount to a battery." - touching someone's clothes while they are wearing them is equivalent to touching the person, e.g. thomas 1985. battery can also be committed by an indirect act such as a booby trap, e.g. DPP V K 1990, where D put acid in a hand drier - an omission can form a battery. santana-bermudez 2003, D failed to tell a police officer that he had a needle in his pocket when being searched

Question 141

battery mens rea

Answer 141

- intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force to V - MR of battery defined in venna 1976, where D was judged to have committed battery recklessly when struggling with a police officer who was trying to arrest him

Question 142

assault occasioning actual bodily harm

Answer 142

s.47 offences against the person act 1861

Question 143

ABH actus reus

Answer 143

- assault or battery which causes ABH - miller 1954, ABH was defined as "any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort", provided it is more than trivial. harm is not limited to injury to the skin, flesh and bones - DPP v Smith 2006, it was held that cutting off V's ponytail amounted to ABH - T v DPP 2003, momentary loss of consciousness amounted to GBH - ABH can also include

Question 144

ABH men’s rea

Answer 144

- intentionally or recklessly causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force - intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force to V - no need to intend or be reckless as to whether ABH is caused

Question 145

Savage 1991

Answer 145

D threw beer into V’s face , however the glass slipped from her hand and cut V. It was sufficient that D had the MR of battery

Question 146

Maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH

Answer 146

S.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Question 147

Maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH AR

Answer 147

- wounding or inflicting GBH - wounding means breaking the skin, not internal bleeding as in Eisenhower in which a blood vessel was burst - any cut could be treated as wound, provided it breaks two layers of skin

Question 148

DPP V Smith

Answer 148

GBH was defined as serious harm

Question 149

Bollom 2004

Answer 149

The severity of injuries should be assessed according to V’s age and health

Question 150

Brown and Stratton 1997

Answer 150

Several minor injuries amounted to GBH

Question 151

Burstow 1997

Answer 151

D stalked V making threatening phone calls, sending hate mail, stole washing from line etc, covers serious psychiatric injury

Question 152

Dica 2004

Answer 152

D infected 2 women with HIV, infecting someone with a biological diseases may be GBH

Question 153

Wounding or causing GBH with intent MR

Answer 153

- intention to cause GBH or intention to resist (with foresight of some harm) - MR of S.18 usuallly occurs whose D intends to cause serious injury - intention can be direct or indirect

Question 154

Belfon 1976

Answer 154

Confirms that being reckless as to causing serious injury isn’t enough. Intention to wound is not enough

Question 155

Morrison 1989

Answer 155

D dived through a window to escape arrest, dragging the police officer through broken glass. D was convicted s.18. It wasn’t enough that D intended to resist arrest and was reckless as to whether this caused V some injury

Question 156

Wounding or causing GBH with intent

Answer 156

s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Question 157

Wounding or causing GBH with intent AR

Answer 157

- wounding or causing GBH - AR of s.18 is identical to s.20 so “wounding” means breaking to layers of skin and GBH means “serious harm”

Question 158

Maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH MR

Answer 158

- intentionally or recklessly causing some harm - not necessary to intend serious harm or even realise there is a risk of causing serious harm

Question 159

Paramenter 1991

Answer 159

D threw his baby into the air and caught him. D wasn’t guilty of s.20 because he did not realise there was a risk of any injury

Question 160

Evaluation of assault and battery

Answer 160

- S.39 CJA 1988 doesn’t make it clear that assault and battery are 2 distinct offences and creates confusion by referring f to both as “common assault” - the terms “assault” and “battery” aren’t defined - judges decisions seem at odds with lay people’s assumptions. Most people would think “assault” meant a physical attack and not just a threat while most people think “battery” meant a severe beating - there should be a clear definition for lay people

Question 161

S.47 Assault occasioning ABH evaluation

Answer 161

- “assault” is as misleading as battery can also form the basis of a s.47 offence - “occasioning” is an old fashioned word for “causing” - “ABH” isn’t defined in the OAP Act 1881 and the statute leaves the MR of s.47 unclear - the AR + MR don’t correspond - this is unfair because it goes against the principle of criminal law that people should only be responsible for what they foresee - constructive intent forces people to take responsibility for their conduct - the sentence jumps from 5 years even though D may not have intended or foreseen a risk of the injury caused

Question 162

S.20 maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH evaluation

Answer 162

- the phrase “grievous bodily harm” is an old fashioned term and father courts rely on case law for definition - the inclusion of “wound” theoretically includes minor injuries, serious wounds could simply be treated as GBH - s.20 just says “maliciously” suggests evil intent but in common law it means intention or recklessness as to some harm - there used to be some confusion over whether the verb “inflict” required application of physical force - the AR and MR don’t correspond, D doesn’t foresee serious injury, just some harm - the sentence is the same as s.47 even though D has caused a much more severe injury

Question 163

S.18 maliciously wounding or causing GBH with intent evaluation

Answer 163

- there is some overlap with the criticisms of s.20 since they have both the same AR - the verb “cause” is used in s.18, while s.20 uses the verb “inflict”. There uses it be debated over whether they mean different things or apply in different ways - in s.18, D must intend GBH while trying to resist arrest are charged with the same crime as those who set out to cause serious injury - the maximum sentence jumps to life even though the injury is the same as in s.20. This can be justified if D intended GBH but perhaps not if he or she only intended to resist arrest

Question 164

Language problems

Answer 164

- language is inconsistent with the expectations of lay people, in law “assault” is apprehension of violence, but to a lay person assault may mean a physical attack and “battery” may imply a serious attack - key terms aren’t explained in the Act, courts have defined ABH in Miller and decided “assault” includes battery as well - language is out of date, instead of saying “causing”, s.47 uses the word “occasioning” which is out of date, s.20 and s.18 use the words “grievous” and “maliciously” which are not commonly used in today’s language

Question 165

Lack of statutory definitions have enabled judges to be creative

Answer 165

Courts have used case law to modernise and keep the law up to date as well as fill in gaps. Dica extended GBH so that it includes biological disease, while Chan Fook and Burstow have extended injury to include psychiatric harm

Question 166

Sentencing is illogical

Answer 166

Compared to common assault (6 months), 5 years for s.47 is a big step up and doesn’t reflect the level of MR needed for the offence. S.20 shares the same maximum sentence as s.47 tho it being far more serious, compared to s.20 life imprisonment for s.18 is a big step up

Question 167

“Wounding” seems too minor

Answer 167

Eisenhower defines wounding as breaking 2 layers of skin. This could be relatively minor but given wounding is part of s.20 and s.18 we would expect it to be the equivalent of GBH

Question 168

AR and MR don’t correspond

Answer 168

- s.47 only need MR for the assault/battery - s.20 only needs foresight of some harm or injury - s.18 can have the required MR by intending to resist arrest with foresight of some harm only

Question 169

Ideas for reform- update confusing language

Answer 169

- “assault” and “battery” could be renamed as “threatened assault” and “physical assault” - the phrases “actual bodily harm” and “grievous bodily harm” could be dropped in favour of “injury” and “serious injury” - the verb “causes” should be used consistently across all offences

Question 170

Ideas for reform- provide a clearer hierarchy of offences

Answer 170

- “threatened assault” and “physical assault “ should still have a max sentence of 6 months, as in the case under current common assault - law commission propose splitting s.47 into 2 new offences: aggravated assault and intentionally or recklessly causing injury - recklessly causing serious injury should replace s.20 and have a max sentence of 7 years - intentionally causing serious injury should remain as s.18 with a maximum sentence of life

Question 171

Ideas for reform- ensure offences conform to the “correspondence principle”

Answer 171

- each offence should provide a clear and accurate label for the conduct in question - so the “news s.47” should require D to intend or foresee the risk of injury, a fairer way of assessing D’s blame - the “new s.20” should require D to be reckless as to serious injury. Foresight of some harm would no longer be enough - the alternative MR of resisting arrest under s.18 should be removed

Question 172

Theft Act 1968 s.1

Answer 172

A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

Question 173

AR of theft

Answer 173

- appropriation - property - belonging to another

Question 174

MR of theft

Answer 174

- dishonesty - intention to permanently deprive

Question 175

Appropriation

Answer 175

Defined in section 3: “any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation”

Question 176

Pitham and Hehl

Answer 176

D offered to sell furniture belonging to another man who was in prison at the time. The court decided that the appropriation was complete at that point, even if the furniture wasn’t sold. D has rights of the owner to offer the furniture for sale

Question 177

Morris

Answer 177

D changed the price of an item in a supermarket to that of a lower priced item, but didn’t get through the checkout. Assuming any one right of the owner is enough. Theft is complete at that moment if accompanied by dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive.

Question 178

Later appropriation

Answer 178

Appropriation include situations where “D has come by the property without stealing it, and later assumes the right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner, s.3 (1)

Question 179

Consent and appropriation

Answer 179

An appropriation can take place even with the consent of the owner

Question 180

Lawrence

Answer 180

An Italian student got into a London taxi. The journey should have cost 50p but D took £1 off the student and a further £6 from the student. The court followed that this amounted to theft.

Question 181

Gomez

Answer 181

D worked in an electrical shop. His accomplice entered the shop and bought £17,000 of goods using stolen cheques. D convinced the owner ship that he was safe to accept such cheques. The court followed the decision in Lawrence and confirmed that an appropriation can take place even with the owners consent.

Question 182

Hinks

Answer 182

D befriended a rich man of low intelligence. She convinced him to withdraw £300 a day and put it in her account. The £60,000 that she had received from the victim was an appropriate regardless of it being a gift.

Question 183

Property

Answer 183

Defined in s.4: “property includes money and all other property real or personal including things in action and other intangible property.”

Question 184

Property which can be stolen

Answer 184

- money - personal - real - things in action - other intangible property

Question 185

Things which can’t be stolen

Answer 185

- confidential information, Oxford v Moss- D was a student who took an exam paper, read the questions and then returned it. D couldn’t be charged with theft of info on the paper. If he had kept the exam paper this would have been theft of the paper itself. - fungus, flowers fruit and foliage, s.4 (3) provided they are growing wild and not for sale - wild creatures: s.4 (4) provided they aren’t tamed or in captivity

Question 186

Belonging to another

Answer 186

Defined in s.5: “property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control over it, or having any proprietary right or interest”

Question 187

Possession or control

Answer 187

Usually the owner has possession and control, but the prosecution doesn’t have to prove who the owner is

Question 188

Turner

Answer 188

D took his own car from a garage that had required it without paying. He was found guilty if theft as the garage had possession of the car and the right to retain it until the repairs were paid for

Question 189

Woodman

Answer 189

A company was in control of scrap metal on its site without knowing it was there. It had been left by a purchaser who bought the scrap metal, but didn’t want that bit. D took the remaining scrap metal and was convicted of theft, even though the company was unaware there was any scrap left

Question 190

Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates Court

Answer 190

D took bags of goods that had been deposited outside a charity shop as well as bags from the rear. The bags outside remained property of the give until the charity shop took possession and the bag in the bin were in possession of the charity shop were collected by waste collection services

Question 191

Proprietary interest

Answer 191

Once someone has a proprietary right or interest it doesn’t matter that someone exists who has a better right

Question 192

Webster

Answer 192

D was awarded a medal but the Ministry of Defence sent him two by mistake. Even though D had possession and control, the MoD retained a proprietary interest so it was theft when D tried to sell it on eBay.

Question 193

Property received under an obligation may be treated as belonging to another

Answer 193

S.5 (3) provides that where property is received by D and D is under an obligation to deal with it in a particular way, it may be theft if D fails to do so

Question 194

Hall

Answer 194

A travel agent took deposits for air flights but then went bankrupt. D’s obligation wasn’t clear so it was not a theft when he was unable to return the money.

Question 195

Klineburg

Answer 195

D took payment for a time-share apartment to be paid into a trust company until the apartment was built. D’s obligation to pay the deposit into the trust fund was clear, so D was guilty when he failed to do this

Question 196

Davidge v Bunnett

Answer 196

D was given money by flatmates to pay the gas bill, but spent it on Christmas present instas. D was guilty of theft as there was a legal obligation to deal with the property in a particular way

Question 197

Property received by mistake

Answer 197

S.5 (4) provides that where a person receives a persons property by mistake and is under a legal obligation to return it to the owner, then the property is regarded as belonging to the person entitled to its return

Question 198

A-G’s Reference (No.1 of 1983)

Answer 198

D was overpaid by her employers. She decided not to repay the money. The court decided D was legally obliged to return it under s.5(4), even tho she had taken ownership of the money when it was paid into their bank

Question 199

Lost property

Answer 199

Lost proprrt still belongs ro the original owner and can be stolen. In the other hand, abandoned protest cannot be the subject of a theft. Whether property is lost or abandoned is a question of fact for the jury to decide.

Question 200

Small

Answer 200

A car had been left in the same place for 2 weeks with its doors locked and keys in the ignition. The car had a flat battery, no petrol and a flat tyre. D helped himself to the car. The court decided there was no theft as the property had been abandoned

Question 201

Dishonesty

Answer 201

When D appropriated the property, he or she must be dishonest. There is no statutory definitions of dishonesty, but s.2 identifies 3 situations that aren’t dishonest: s.2 (1) (a)- D believes he has a legal right to deprive the other s.2 (1) (b)- D believes in the others consent s.2 (1) (c)- D believes the owner can’t be found by taking reasonable steps

Question 202

Holden

Answer 202

D was charged with theft theft of scrap tyres from Kwikfit where he was employed. He sad that he had seen other employees taking home scrap tyres and thought it was permitted. As the test is subjective, all D had to show was that he honestly believed he had a right to do it

Question 203

Ivey/Barton + Booth test

Answer 203

If none of the above apply, the jury must use common sense in determining whether D was honest or dishonest. However, if guidance is still needed the jury must apply a 2 part test set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos

Question 204

Barton + Booth

Answer 204

D’s ran a care home where over 20 years they stole money from residents. The CoA adopted the test for dishonesty from civil law: 1. What was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts? 2. Was his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?

Question 205

Section 2(2)

Answer 205

Makes it clear that an appropriation can still be dishonest even though the accused was willingly to pay

Question 206

Intention to permanently deprive

Answer 206

An intention to permanently deprive clearly exists if D intends the owner to lose their property forever. S.6 makes clear that D mat still intend to permanently deprive “without meaning the owner to permanently deprive/lose the thing itself.” - where D intends to treat property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights - where property is borrowed in circumstances equivalent to an outright taking

Question 207

Velumyl

Answer 207

D dishonestly took £1000 from his employer’s safe. He said intended to return an equivalent amount. D was still guilty as he did intend to permanently deprive his employer of the original notes and coins

Question 208

Lavender

Answer 208

D took doors from a council property and used them to replace the doors on his girlfriends council flat. He argued that there was no theft as he simply switched the doors from one property belonging to the council to another. There was an intention to permanently deprive as D’s intention was to treat the doors as his own to dispose of regardless of the rights of the council

Question 209

Borrowing property in circumstances equivalent to an outright taking

Answer 209

In Lloyd, D was a projectionist who took a film overnight to make an illegal copy and replaced it damaged the next day

Question 210

Conditional intent

Answer 210

If D picks up property to assess whether there is anything worth stealing and puts it back after deciding there isn’t, D will not have an intention to permanently deprive

Question 211

Easom

Answer 211

D rummaged through a handbag and then returned it without finding anything worth taking. The court decided that a conditional intention to deprive isn’t enough for theft

Question 212

Theft Act 1968 s.8

Answer 212

A person is guilty of robbery if they steal; and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being subjected to force

Question 213

AR of robbery

Answer 213

- theft - use (or fear of the use) of force

Question 214

MR of robbery

Answer 214

- MR for theft - intent to use force in order to steal

Question 215

Robinson

Answer 215

A man owed D’s wife £7. D approached the man and threatened him. During a struggle V dropped a £5 note and D took it claiming he was still owed £2. If D held an honest belief that he had a right in law to take the property, he wouldn’t be dishonest

Question 216

Corcoran

Answer 216

D hit V in the back and tugged at her bag. She let go of it and fell to the ground. D’s ran off without it. The theft was complete so D’s were guilty of robbery

Question 217

Use of force

Answer 217

Only a minimal amount of force is required, provided it is on the person: Dawson and James, where the jury was entitled to decide that “nudging” in order to steal amounted to force

Question 218

Clouden

Answer 218

D wrenched a shopping basket from V’s hand. Using force on the bag was effectively using force on the victim.

Question 219

P v DPP

Answer 219

D snatched a cigarette from V’s hand without touching V in anyway. It couldn’t be said force was used “on a person.”

Question 220

Fear of the use of force

Answer 220

The threat is sufficient, even if V isn’t actually frightened by D’s actions

Question 221

B and R v DPP

Answer 221

V was surrounded by 5 other schoolboys who took his phone and money. V said that he hadn’t felt threatened. D’s had sought to put V in fear of force

Question 222

On any person

Answer 222

The person threatened need not be the person stolen from

Question 223

Force immediately before at the time of theft

Answer 223

There is no case on what sort of time period is covered by “immediately before”, but the courts have taken a realistic approach to “at the time of.”

Question 224

Hale

Answer 224

D’s forced their way into V’s house. D1 put his hand over V’s mouth to stop her screaming while D2 went upstairs and seized a jewellery box. Before leaving the house they tied up V. D’s argued that the theft was complete as soon as D picked up the jewellery box, so the use of force in tying up CV was not at the time of the stealing. There was force immediately before the theft when D1 put his hand over V’s mouth. In addition, tying V up was using force at the time of the theft as the act of appropriation can be considered continuing.

Question 225

Lockley

Answer 225

D stole beer from a shop and then used force on the shopkeeper who tried to stop him from escaping

Question 226

Force in order to steal

Answer 226

The force must be used in order to steal. So, if the force wasn't used for this purpose, then any later theft will not make it into robbery

Question 227

Vinnall

Answer 227

Ds punches V who fell off his bike. D1 told him: "Don't try anything, I've got a knife." V ran away, chased by Ds. Ds later returned and took his bike. Force wasn't used in order to steal so there was no robbery, but 2 separate offences

Question 228

Burglary

Answer 228

statutory offence under s.9 (1) Theft Act 1968

Question 229

Section 9 (1) (a)

Answer 229

D enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to: - steal anything in the building or - inflict GBH to any person in the building or - do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it

Question 230

Section 9 (1) (b)

Answer 230

D, having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser: - steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or - inflicts or attempts to inflict GBH on any person in the building

Question 231

Section 9 (1) (a) AR + MR

Answer 231

- entry of a building or part of one as a trespasser - MR for trespass and intent to commit theft or GBH or damage

Question 232

Section 9 (1) (b) AR + MR

Answer 232

- Entry of a building or part of one as a trespasser and theft or GBH - MR for trespass and MR for theft or GBH

Question 233

Collins

Answer 233

It was said that trespass must involve "substantial and effective entry into a building"

Question 234

Brown

Answer 234

D was standing on the ground outside but leaning in through a smashed shop window rummaging through goods. Entry only had to be effective

Question 235

Ryan

Answer 235

D was trapped when trying to get through a window into a house at 2:30am. His head and arm were inside the house but the rest of his body was outside. The fire brigade had to be called to release him.

Question 236

Building

Answer 236

S.9 (4) includes inhabited places such as houseboats or caravans as there is no exact definition

Question 237

B and S v Leathley

Answer 237

A 25 foot long freezer container had been kept in a farmyard for over 2 years as a storage facility. It rested on sleepers, had doors with locks and was connected to the electricity supply.

Question 238

Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould

Answer 238

A lorry trailer with wheels which had been used for over a year for storage, had steps providing access and was connected to the electricity supply was held not to be a building

Question 239

Rodmell

Answer 239

D stole power tools from a garden shed. A garden shed is a part of a person's home

Question 240

Part of a building

Answer 240

This covers situations in which D may have permission to be in one part of the building but doesn't have permission to be in another part

Question 241

Walkington

Answer 241

D went into the counter area in a shop and opened a till. This amounted to entry of a part of a building as the area was clearly marked and customers weren't permitted

Question 242

Trespasser

Answer 242

Where a person has permission to enter they aren't considered a trespasser

Question 243

Collins

Answer 243

D went past a house where he knew a young lady lived. He climbed a ladder up to her window and peered in where she was lying naked. He took off his clothes and when the lady woke up she invited him in to have sex thinking D was her bf, when she realised it wasn't her bf.

Question 244

Theft

Answer 244

Theft is under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968

Question 245

Going beyond permission

Answer 245

Where D goes beyond the permission given, he or she may be considered a trespasser

Question 246

Smith and Jones

Answer 246

D went to his father's house in the middle of the night and took 2 TVs without the father's permission. The father stated that his son wouldn't be a trespasser in the house; he had a general permission to enter

Question 247

A-G's References (Nos 1 and 2 of 1979)

Answer 247

D admitted he intended to steal anything lying around. Conditional intent will suffice for burglary. All that is required is intent to steal at the time of the entry. It isn't necessary to prove what was the object that D intended to steal

Question 248

What is attempts defined under

Answer 248

Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s.1 (1)

Question 249

Definition of attempts

Answer 249

If a person with intent to commit an offence does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, they are guilty of attempting to commit the offence

Question 250

AR of attempts

Answer 250

An act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence

Question 251

MR of attempts

Answer 251

with intent to commit that offence

Question 252

Gullefer

Answer 252

D jumped onto a race track in order to have the rece declared void to allow him to reclaim his bet. D hadn't attempted to steal his money back so his actions were merely preparatory.

Question 253

Boyle and Boyle

Answer 253

Ds damaged door of the premises they were seeking entry to. Ds attempted to burgle so their actions were more than merely preparatory

Question 254

Campbell

Answer 254

D was in the street outside a post office wearing dark glasses with an imitation weapon and a threatening note in his pocket. D hadn't attempted to rob the post office, his actions were only preparatory

Question 255

A-G's Reference (No. 1 of 1992)

Answer 255

D dragged a young woman to a shed, lowered his trousers and interfered with her private parts. His penis remained flaccid

Question 255

Geddes

Answer 255

D was found in the boys toilets at school with a knife, rope and masking tape. D hadn't attempted false imprisonment just putting himself in the position to commit the offence. The court said 2 questions should be considered: 1. Has D moved from planning or preparation to execution and implementation? 2. Has D done an act showing he was trying to commit the full offence or had he only got as far as getting ready, or putting himself in a position, or equipping himself to do so?

Question 256

Tosti

Answer 256

D had driven to the scene of a planned burglary, concealed metal cutting equipment in anhedge, and approached the door of a barn and examined the lock. D had attempted to burgle, he had gone beyond mere preparation

Question 257

Whybrow

Answer 257

It was decided that for attempted murder D must intend to kill (intent to cause GBH isn't sufficient)

Question 258

Recklessness

Answer 258

Recklessness isn't enough, even if recklessness would suffice for the main offence

Question 259

Millard and Vernon

Answer 259

Ds repeatedly pushed against a wooden fence at a football ground. Ds could only be convicted of attempting to damage property if they intended to damage it- recklessness would have been sufficient for the full offence

Question 260

Conditional intent (attempts)

Answer 260

where a person intends to do something if a certain condition is satisfied

Question 261

A-G's Reference (No.1 and 2 of 1979)

Answer 261

the CA said that conditional intent will suffice if provided the indictment is carefully worded so that D isn't charged with attempt to steal a specific item but with an attempt to steal some or all the contents of the bag

Question 262

S.1 (2) Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Answer 262

Makes clear that a person can be guilty of an attempted crime even though on the facts the commission of the offence is impossible

Question 263

Anderton v Ryan

Answer 263

D bought a cheap video recorder believing it was stolen. In actual facts the goods weren't stolen. The court decided that D wasn't guilty of attempting to handle stolen goods because, even when she had done all she set out to do, there was actually still no crime, it was legally impossible

Question 264

Shivpuri

Answer 264

D received a suitcase which he thought contained prohibited drugs but was actually just harmless vegetable matter. D can attempt an offence that is legally impossible

Question 265

Taaffe

Answer 265

D imported foreign currency into the UK, believing it to be a crime. In fact, it wasn't against the law, so although in his own mind Taaffe was attempting to commit an offence he could not be liable

Question 266

S.76 (3) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Answer 266

whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be

Question 267

Williams

Answer 267

D thought a youth was being attacked and intervened. In fact he was being arrested. Whether force is necessary is decided on the basis of D's genuine belief

Question 268

S.76 (5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Answer 268

makes it clear that if D's mistake was due to voluntary intoxication D cannot rely on that mistaken belief, Taj

Question 269

Should D retreat?

Answer 269

D isn't under a duty to retreat, but the possibility that D could have retreated is a factor in deciding if the degree of force was reasonable

Question 270

Bird

Answer 270

D argued with her ex bf on her bday and poured a drink over him. He slapped her and pinned her against the wall. She punched him in the face and claimed she forgot she had a glass in her hand. There is not duty to retreat before using force in self defence

Question 271

The degree of force used

Answer 271

Force must be reasonable, this is judged objectively. If the force is used after all danger is over, or when the attacker is running away, then self defence is unlikely to succeed

Question 272

Martin

Answer 272

D shot a burglar in the back as he ran away and killed him. The threat had passed and therefore use of the gun was excessive

Question 273

Hussain

Answer 273

D chased a robber who had threatened his family and beat V up with a cricket bat. The attack was so savage that the bat broke in pieces and V was left with permanent brain damage

Question 274

S.76 (6) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Answer 274

the degree of force will not be reasonable if it is disproportionate

Question 275

s.76 (7) CJI 2008

Answer 275

- D isn't expected to weigh the amount of force to a 'nicety' - the fact that D honestly and instinctively thought the level of force was necessary, is strong evidence that it was reasonable

Question 276

S.43 Crime and Courts Act 2013- householder cases

Answer 276

householders who use a disproportionate level of force to protect themselves or others will not automatically be regarded as having acted unlawfully

Question 277

Grossly disproportionate

Answer 277

using a level of force that is grossly disproportionate in the circumstances will not be regarded as reasonable and the defence will fail

Question 278

Collins v Sec of State for Justice

Answer 278

A householder caught a burglar in his home at night and held him in a headlock resulting in irreversible brain damage. No prosecution was brought against the householder. The burglar's father challenged the legality of this decision, but his claim was rejected

Question 279

Honest mistake

Answer 279

Self defence is available where D is mistaken as to the need for force, even where the mistake D made is unreasonable. If it wasn't allowed where D honestly believed he or she was about to be attacked, then D is at risk of being imprisoned when he or she wasn't really at fault. This affords no protection to the innocent victim whom D has assaulted due to a mistaken belief (Gladstone Williams)

Question 280

Pre-emptive strike

Answer 280

- it is sensible that there is no duty to retreat before use of force in self defence - people are allowed to defence themselves before they are attacked by delivering the 'first blow' - A-G's Reference (No. 2 of 1983) D's shop had been targeted several times during riots. D prepared petrol bombs in advance of the next attack. The court ruled that D doesn't have to wait until attacked before he or she can use force. They can act to prevent force - imminence of the attack will be crucial in determining reasonableness (Salih)

Question 281

Excessive force

Answer 281

- the all or nothing approach in self defence is harsh - there is no partial defence where the use of force in self defence was justified, but D used excessive force in the circumstances - this can be unfair on a person who kills another and ends up with a life sentence for murder (Martin)

Question 282

Householder cases evaluation

Answer 282

- gives householders the right to use a higher level of force against intruders, provided it isn't grossly disproportionate - some argue that a householder is morally justified in using any amount of force - In Martin, the courts wouldn't take into account D's personality disorder when considering self-defence

Question 283

Ideas for reform of self defence

Answer 283

- in mistake cases, limit the defence to mistakes that are 'reasonable' as well as honest - proposals for reform of homicide laws in 2007 suggested a partial defence to murder of killing in response to serious violence, which would reduce the charge to manslaughter - section 55 (3) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 introduced a "fear" trigger in the defence of loss of control which may provide a partial defence for those who use excessive force in self-defence but it still needs to be proved that D lost control at the time of the killing - allow householders to use any force on intruders which they consider necessary in self defence

Question 284

Consent

Answer 284

- consent is a defence to assault and battery - it isn't a defence to ABH or greater harm unless it comes within established exceptions: A-G's Reference (No. 6 of 1980) - it is never available for murder (Nicklinson 2014)

Question 285

A-G's Reference (No.6 of 1980)

Answer 285

Ds had agreed to settle their differences through a street fight and tried to rely on the defence of consent

Question 286

General rule on consent and recognised "exceptions"

Answer 286

consent is only available for common assault and not bodily injury unless it comes under a recognised exception in the public interest. Street fighting isn't in the public interest, but the following maybe: - reasonable surgical procedures - body art - properly conducted games and sports - horseplay - dangerous exhibitions

Question 287

Medical procedures

Answer 287

if a patient who is mentally capable refuses an operation or even a blood transfusion, then such treatment cannot be given

Question 288

Wilson

Answer 288

D branded his initials onto his wife's buttocks with he consent, using a hot knife. This was said to be similar to a tattoo or other forms of body art, so consent was a legitimate defence

Question 289

R v BM

Answer 289

D carried out body modification procedures including the removal of a customer's ear, nipple and the division of a customer's tongue. Consent was no defence to s.20 OAPA 1861

Question 290

Barnes

Answer 290

serious injury was caused by a heavy tackle in an amateur football match. Consent can be a defence in physical contact sports if within the rules of the game. The court need only intervene when the conduct is extreme or seriously grave

Question 291

Jones

Answer 291

teenagers were given the "bumps" by a group of older boys and sustained serious injury. Consent was allowed for rough physical play provided there was no intent to cause injury

Question 292

Aitken

Answer 292

The principle had been extended to adult horseplay. RAF officers set alight a drunk colleague who was wearing a fire resistant suit, causing serious burns. They honestly believed he would have given consent, so convictions were quashed.

Question 293

Brown

Answer 293

consenting males took part in a sadomasochistic activities for sexual pleasure. They were charged with s.47 and s.20 offences. Consent wasn't permitted because of the cruelty and degradation involved.

Question 294

Consent must be genuine or real

Answer 294

must consent to: - the nature and quality of the act - the identity of the person carrying out the act - consent isn't real if a patient consents to one type of treatment but a different one is carried out - consents to a medical professional carrying out a treatment but the person is unqualified

Question 294

Tabassum

Answer 294

D persuaded women to allow him to measure their breasts for the purpose of preparing a database for sale to doctors. The women only consented because they thought that D had medical training, consent doesn't actually exist as the act consented to isn't the act actually done

Question 295

Richardson

Answer 295

A dentist carried out work after being suspended from practice. The patients wouldn't have consented to the treatment had they known. However, the court decided the patients had consented to the treatment. D hadn't deceived the patients as to her identity as a dentist. She was still a qualified dentist albeit suspended from practice at the time

Question 296

Patterson

Answer 296

A surgeon was convicted of nine counts of wounding with intent when he carried out life changing operations for no medically justifiable reason. His victims had consented to the nature of the act but not the quality of the act

Question 297

Implied consent

Answer 297

consent is "implied" by the courts to minor touching to prevent this giving rise to battery

Question 298

Mistaken belief in consent

Answer 298

A mistaken belief that the victim is consenting can be a defence provided the mistake is genuine, even if that belief was unreasonable (Jones and Aitken)

Question 299

Olugboja

Answer 299

V submitted to sexual intercourse after having witnesses the rape of her friend. There was a difference between submission and real consent

Question 300

Burrell v Harmer

Answer 300

D tattooed 2 boys aged 12 and 13. The boys had consented to the tattoo. However, it was held that the boys consent was ineffective since the court was of the opinion they were unable to comprehend the nature of the act

Question 301

Defence of consent is necessary

Answer 301

- important not to criminalise activities which are socially useful such as sport or surgery - however, some sports such as boxing permit deliberate harm - surgery often involved intentional violence resulting in actual or sometimes serious bodily harm - justified as a patient's health is at risk, provided consent is given - what actually amounts to reasonable medical procedures leads to difficulties regarding cosmetic surgery and body modification (R v BM) - modifications can lead to profound long term consequences and may seek body modification are vulnerable to mental illness

Question 302

public policy

Answer 302

- it could be said courts are imposing their own moral values in deciding what is in the public interest - in brown, it wasn't lawful to engage in sadomasochistic activities in wilson bottom branding was lawful even though the injury was worse than that in brown and needed medical attention - the court regarded the branding as tattooing rather than inflicting pain for sexual pleasure - the law is inconsistent and reflects the bias of the judged which favours heterosexuals over homosexuals - however, in emmett consent wasn't allowed to "high risk" sexual activity between a heterosexual couple which resulted in D's wife suffering burns to her eyes and breasts

Question 303

s.74 sexual offences act 2003

Answer 303

makes it clear that consent to sexual penetration is only a defence if agreement is by choice and the person has the capacity to choose. this is decided by looking at the context in which the activity took place, whether V was targeted and their vulnerability. this places a burden on the jury to decide and its liable to result in inconsistent decisions

Question 304

horseplay

Answer 304

- questionable whether consent should be allowed in cases of horseplay, especially when it results in serious injury if victims didn't actually consent - the behaviour in jones and aitken could be seen as bullying, it reinforces gender stereotypes and encourage a "lad" culture - however the courts took the view that there was no intent to injure in these cases and if D had a genuine belief in consent they should be allowed the defence - there is inconsistency in granting the defence to Ds who mistakenly believed in consent without asking, but denying it to Ds who actually sought it before acting dangerously in cases like brown or R v BM. the courts clearly condone horseplay, but "disapproved" of sadomasochism and body modification even if the behaviour was fully consensual

Question 305

consent and euthanasia

Answer 305

- lots of controversy over whether people who wish to die should have the right to be helped to do so - the law recognises that people are entitles to take their own life, but if anyone helps bring about the death they may face a charge of murder or assisted suicide - in nicklinson, N suffered a catastrophic stroke which him completely paralysed. the only part of his body he was able to move was his head and eyes. the sc refused to grant a right to be killed in case it undermined the rights of other disabled persons and diminished the value of life

Question 306

ideas for reform of consent

Answer 306

- the LC proposed that D should be able to rely on V's consent to an act intended to cause injury, or likely to cause injury, but not to an act intended or likely to cause serious injury - LC recommended removing the defence of consent for injuries resulting from horseplay and sexual activities - they suggested keeping surgical treatment, tattooing etc as special cases, but adopting special rules in relation to boxing - it may be preferable to leave the law to develop on a case by case basis rather than leave it to parl that may lead to injustice in some cases

Question 307

duress

Answer 307

common law defence which leads to acquittal. it is available for all crimes except murder and attempted murder

Question 308

duress by threats

Answer 308

it is an excuse where D was forced to commit the crime by threats of death or serious injury. although D has both AR + MR of the crime, D wasn't truly at fault

Question 309

key test set out in Graham

Answer 309

1. was D forced to act as he did because he reasonably feared serious injury or death? and if so 2. would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing D's characteristics, have responded in the same way?

Question 310

key elements of duress by threats

Answer 310

- a threat of death or serious injury - no safe avenue of escape - the threat was imminent - a direct link between the threat and the crime

Question 311

threat of death or serious injury

Answer 311

the threat must be to D or someone for whom they reasonably fell responsible, such as their partner or immediate family. this could extend to wright, a threat to D's bf was included

Question 312

valdarrama-vega

Answer 312

D imported cocaine from Colombia because of death threats, financial pressured and threats to expose his homosexuality. the threat to D's life meant he could plead duress but financial duress and threats of his homosexuality aren't enough

Question 313

no safe avenue of escape

Answer 313

there must be no reasonable opportunity to avoid the crime

Question 314

gill

Answer 314

D was threatened with violence unless he stole a lorry. Since D had an opportunity to raise the alarm and didn't use it, duress wasn't available as a defence

Question 315

hudson v taylor

Answer 315

Ds, who were prosecution witnesses in a court case, lied on oath after threats were made to cut them if they identified the man on trial. defence was allowed for perjury on the basis that police protection might not be effective

Question 316

immediacy of the threat

Answer 316

the threat must be hanging over D at the time he or she commits the offence. it doesn't have to be immediate, provided it is "imminent" or almost immediate

Question 317

abdul hussain

Answer 317

6 muslims, who were fugitives in sudan, feared being deported back to iraq to face savage treatment and death. to avoid this they hijacked a plane and landed it the UK. the threats which Ds feared had to operate on their minds so as to overbear their will at the time they did the crime

Question 318

direct link between the threat and the crime

Answer 318

D can only use the defence of duress if the threats are in order to make him or her commit a specific offence

Question 319

cole

Answer 319

D owed money and was threatened with a baseball bat if he didn't repay it, so D carried out 2 robberies. duress wasn't allowed. must be a connection between the threat and the crime committed

Question 320

self induced duress

Answer 320

duress isn't available if D brings the situation on themselves

Question 321

sharp

Answer 321

D joined a gang of armed robbers but then claimed he wanted to withdraw and war was threatened with violence. D knew the gang was likely to use violence when he joined, so he wasn't allowed to claim duress

Question 322

sheperd

Answer 322

D joined a gang of shoplifters but didn't know they were violent. duress was available as D had no knowledge the gang was likely to use violence

Question 323

hasan

Answer 323

D was a minder for a prostitute who claimed he was forced to carry out burglary by the prostitute's violent bf. if D voluntarily associates with criminals he cannot rely on duress unless he didn't foresee they would try to make him commit an offence

Question 324

characteristics allowed

Answer 324

relevant to ability to resist threats - age - pregnancy - serious disability - possibly gender - some mental health conditions

Question 325

characteristics not allowed

Answer 325

- low IQ - timidity - homosexuality - self induced abuse

Question 326

howe

Answer 326

D took part in killing young men under a threat to his own life. Duress isn't a defence to murder

Question 327

ashleigh wilson

Answer 327

D, aged 13, helped to murder his mother because he was too frightened to disobey his father. duress is no defence to murder but vulnerable D might be to threats

Question 328

gotts

Answer 328

D, aged 16, attempted to kill his mother under a threat to his own life from his father. duress shouldn't be available for attempted murder either

Question 329

duress of circumstances

Answer 329

where D acts under duress, not because of a specific threat from a person, but because of the surrounding circumstances

Question 330

willer

Answer 330

D was forced to drive on the pavement to escape a gang of youths who had surrounded his car down an alley. D may have driven recklessly under duress

Question 331

conway

Answer 331

D drove recklessly because he thought his passenger was about to be attacked. D could have a defence because it was "duress of circumstances"

Question 332

martin

Answer 332

D's wife threatened to kill herself if D didn't drive her son to work. D did this even though he was disqualified. duress of circumstances was available.

Question 333

pommell

Answer 333

D was found in bed with a loaded machine gun. he claimed that he had taken if off another man to prevent him using it, and was going to take it to the police in the morning. duress of circumstances was available to all crimes except murder

Question 334

necessity

Answer 334

necessity involved the claim that D's conduct was lawful because, on a choice of 2 evils, the choice of avoiding the greater harm was justified

Question 335

dudley and stephens

Answer 335

Ds murdered a fellow young sea man in order to save their own lives from starvation. they were found guilty of murder. killing an innocent life to save one's own doesn't justify murder

Question 336

Ref (mental patient: sterilisation)

Answer 336

F had been a voluntary in-patient at a hospital for over 20 years. she developed a sexual relationship with a fellow patient. her mother and medical staff were concerned that she wouldnt cope with pregnancy and raising a child. other methods of pills werent practical for her. they sought a declaration that it would be lawful for her to be sterilised. f was incapable of giving valid consent she didnt appreciate the implications of the operation

Question 337

Re A (conjoined twins)

Answer 337

the twins were both born with one having no proper heart or lungs. both would die if they werent seperated. the court had to decide whether the twins should be separated, even tho the operation would result in the death of the weaker twin. it was lawful for the doctors to operate

Question 338

shayler

Answer 338

a former member of the security service disclosed secret info to the press, claiming the disclosure was necessary to safeguard members of the public. no defence was available

Question 339

differences between duress of circumstance and necessity

Answer 339

DOC: - an excuse - in the circumstances d's will was overborne by fear - subject to the same rules as duress by threats - not available for murder necessity - a justification - d did not act of fear but did the right thing in the circumstances - not generally available except in a few limited cases - may be available for murder

Question 340

insanity defence

Answer 340

insanity is a common law defence. it leads to a special verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity"

Question 341

insanity legal definition from m'naghten

Answer 341

- everyone is presume sane; - d must prove that at the time of committing the act, he was "labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act or if he did, he didnt know what he was doing was wrong"

Question 342

burden of proof

Answer 342

the burden of proving insanity is on the defence, on the balance of probabilities

Question 343

key elements of insanity

Answer 343

1. a defect of reason 2. resulting from a disease if the mind 3. causing D not to know either the nature and quality of their act or what they did was wrong

Question 344

defect of reason

Answer 344

it must be more than a momentary confusion and amount to a complete deprivation is reasoning power

Question 345

Clarke

Answer 345

D claimed she didn’t realise she had put items from a supermarket in own bag whilst suffering from absent mindedness caused by depression. The trial judge said this was a plea of insanity so D changed her plea to guilty to avoid this but later appealed

Question 346

disease of the mind

Answer 346

the defect of reason must be due to a disease of the mind. The disease can be mental or physical

Question 347

Kemp

Answer 347

D has arteriosclerosis. This affected blood supply to d’s brain and caused temporarily unconsciousness. While in this state D attacked his wife with a hammer

Question 348

Sullivan

Answer 348

D suffered from epilepsy. During a fit, d attacked an 80 year old neighbour. Especially is treated as a disease of the mind

Question 349

Hennessy

Answer 349

D suffered from diabetes. D failed to take insulin and took a car without consent, while in a diabetic state. Diabetes is treated by the courts as a disease of the mind

Question 350

has to be internal factor

Answer 350

- a seizure caused by the disease of diabetes is treated as insanity - a seizure caused by external factors is treated as automatism

Question 351

Burgess

Answer 351

D suffered from a sleep disorder. D tried to strangle his gf in his sleep. D had a disease of the mind and the sleep disorder was internal

Question 352

External factors

Answer 352

If D doesn’t know what they are doing, this could be due to an external cause and not cause D was suffering from a disease

Question 353

Quick

Answer 353

D was a nurse who had diabetes. He took insulin but failed to eat and attacked a patient while in a diabetic state. D’s aggression wasn’t caused by the “disease of diabetes but caused by an external factor, insulin”

Question 354

Voluntary intoxication

Answer 354

Where D suffers from a psychotic episode due to voluntarily taking an intoxicating substance, this would again amount to an external factor and insanity wouldn’t apply

Question 355

Coley

Answer 355

D had a bad experience on cannabis and attacked his neighbour with a knife. D was guilty of attempted murder and couldn’t use the defence of insanity

Question 356

Not knowing the nature and quality of the act

Answer 356

Includes situations where D isn’t fully conscious or, if conscious, D doesn’t understand or know what they are doing

Question 357

Oye

Answer 357

D had a psychotic episode during which he stacked a police woman, believing she was a demon. The CoA substituted a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity as D hadn’t known what he was doing

Question 358

Not knowing the act was wrong

Answer 358

If D knows the nature and quality of their actions, they can only use the defence of insanity if they do not know their actions are legally and morally wrong

Question 359

Windle

Answer 359

D’s wide constantly spoke of suicide. D gave her 100 aspirin tablets and she died. D also had a mental illness. He said, “I suppose they will hang me for this.” Even though he was morally justified, he know his actions were legally wrong so he couldn’t plead insanity

Question 360

Keal

Answer 360

D was charged with attempted murder after attacking his father, mother and grandmother. He had a history of mental health problems. At the time of the attack, d’s father begged him to stop because it was killing him and d responded, “ I know, I’m sorry, I don’t want to, I’m sorry dad.” Insanity isn’t available to d who knew what they were doing was legally and morally wrong

Question 361

automatism

Answer 361

common law defence which leads to acquittal

Question 362

bratty

Answer 362

- an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflect or action or a convulsion - or an act done by a person who isn't conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or sleep walking

Question 363

key elements of automatism

Answer 363

- an involuntary act - the cause of the automatism must be external

Question 364

an involuntary act

Answer 364

this requires a loss of control by the "mind" over the movements of the body. reduced or partial control isn't enough for automatism

Question 365

A-G's reference (no.2 of 1992)

Answer 365

d was driving a lorry on the motorway and crashed into a car on the hard shoulder, killing 2 people. d claimed he was "driving without awareness" included by the repetitive nature of motorway driving. there must be "total destruction of voluntary control"

Question 366

external cause

Answer 366

examples: - a blow to the head - a fit of sneezing - an attack by a swarm of bees - ptsd

Question 367

hill v baxter

Answer 367

"a person shouldn't be made liable at the criminal law who, through no fault of his own, becomes unconscious when driving, as, for example, a person who has been struck by a stone or overcome by a sudden illness, or when the car has been put temporarily out of his control owing to his being attacked by a swarm of bees"

Question 368

R v T

Answer 368

D was raped. 3 days later she took part in a robbery. she claimed she was suffering from ptsd and had acted in a "dream-like" state. exceptional stress from a traumatic event could be "an external factor" which might cause automatism

Question 369

self induced automatism

Answer 369

self induced means that d knows his conduct is likely to bring about an automatic state

Question 370

bailey

Answer 370

d was a diabetic who hit v over the head after taking insulin and failing to eat enough

Question 371

specific intent offences

Answer 371

intention must be proved, e.g. murder, s.18 and theft self induced automatism is a defence

Question 372

basic intent offences

Answer 372

recklessness is enough, e.g. manslaughter, s.20 and s.47 self induced automatism isnt a defence if d was reckless

Question 373

hardie

Answer 373

d took valium thinking it would calm him down. it had an unexpected effect and he set fire to the wardrobe d hadnt been reckless and should have been able to raise the defence of automatism

Question 374

insane automatism

Answer 374

- internal factor - m'naghten rules apply - burden of proof on defence - special verdict - stigma

Question 375

non insane automatism

Answer 375

- external factor - bratty rules apply - burden of proof on prosecution - acquittal - no stigma

Question 376

intoxication

Answer 376

common law defence which is only available in limited circumstances based on failure to form mens rea due to alcohol, drugs or other substances

Question 377

whether the defence will be available depends on:

Answer 377

- whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary, and - whether the offence is charged one of specific intent or basic intent

Question 378

voluntary intoxication

Answer 378

this is where d has chosen to take an intoxicating substance. defence to specific intent offences provided d is so intoxicated they havent formed the mens rea

Question 379

Sheehan and Moore

Answer 379

Ds, who were very drunk, threw petrol over a homeless person and set fire to him. They were too drunk to have formed an intent to kill him or cause GBH. Because Ds didn’t have mens rea for murder, intoxication was a defence

Question 380

Gallagher

Answer 380

D decided to kill his wife and drank a lot of whisky to give himself “the bottle” to carry it out. His conviction for murder was upheld. If d has the MR then he is guilty

Question 381

Majewski

Answer 381

D went on a drink and drug binge, then assaulted 3 people and the arresting police officers. Majewski was convicted of s.47 oapa 1861as its a basic intent offence he was reckless when he got drunk

Question 382

Allen

Answer 382

D drank homemade wine had a much greater effect on him then he expected. While under the influence he committed sa. He claimed he was so drunk he did not know what he was doing and he hadn’t voluntarily put himself in that position as the wine was much stronger than he realised. The intoxication was voluntarily even though he hadn’t realised the strength of it

Question 383

Involuntarily intoxication

Answer 383

This is where d didn’t know they were taking an intoxicating substance. It includes situations when prescribed medication is taken as directed and an unpredictable effect

Question 384

Hardie

Answer 384

D took Valium tablets which had an unexpected effect. D cannot be guilty of a basic intent offence because he hadn’t been reckless in getting intoxicated

Question 385

Kingston

Answer 385

D’s coffee was drugged by men intending to blackmail him. He was then showed a 15 year old boy who was asleep and invited to abuse him. D did so and was photographed by the blackmailer. D said he wouldn’t have committed this act is sober. Even though d’s drink was spiked, involuntary intoxication wasn’t a defence

Question 386

Link between intoxication and mistake

Answer 386

If a mistake is induced by intoxication there is rarely a defence

Question 387

Lipman

Answer 387

D took LSD and had hallucinations. He suffocated his gf to death believing she was a snake trying to attack him. D didn’t have the mens rea for murder however he was reckless in voluntarily taking the drug so was guilty of manslaughter

Question 388

S.76 (5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Answer 388

If an intoxicated mistake is about self defence or prevention of crime, D will never have a defence whether the crime is one of specific or basic intent offence

Question 389

Taj

Answer 389

D began abusing drugs and alcohol and a child which eventually brought on a psychosis that made him hear voices and become aggressive and paranoid. The psychosis would linger for a while even after the intoxication wore off. D drank heavily and layer he became convinced he saw a man trying to detonate a bomb. He attacked and nearly killed him but pleased self defence, this defence failed.