PROBLEM QUESTION TESTS: CRIMINAL

Question 1

Voluntary Manslaughter - loss of control

Answer 1

(1) There must be a loss of self-control
(2) The loss of control must be caused by a qualifying trigger
(a) Fear Trigger - Fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another.
Must be genuine, but can be unreasonable.
b) Anger Trigger
Extremely grave in character, AND
Caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
Exclusions:
❌ Sexual infidelity alone is not a trigger (R v Clinton)
❌ Revenge killings are excluded (s.54(4))
(3) A person of the defendant’s sex and age, with normal tolerance and self-restraint, would have reacted in the same or similar way
This is the objective test.
Only age and sex are included by default.
Other characteristics are allowed only if they affect the seriousness of the trigger, not tolerance.

Question 2

Voluntary Manslaughter - Diminished responsibility

Answer 2

(1) An abnormality of mental functioning
A “state of mind so different from that of ordinary people that the reasonable person would term it abnormal” (R v Byrne).
(2) The abnormality must be caused by a recognised medical condition
(3) It must substantially impair the defendant’s ability to do one or more of the following:
-Understand the nature of their conduct
-Form a rational judgment
-Exercise self-control
“Substantial” = more than trivial, less than total (R v Golds).
(4) The abnormality must provide an explanation for the killing
It must be a significant contributory factor to the act.
It does not need to be the only cause.

Question 3

Unlawful act Manslaughter

Answer 3

(1) There must be an unlawful act
It must be a criminal offence (not a civil wrong).
An omission is not enough — it must be a positive act.
Case: R v Franklin (civil wrong not enough)
(2) The unlawful act must be dangerous
Apply the objective test from R v Church:
Would a sober and reasonable person recognise that the act carried some risk of harm (not necessarily serious harm) to another person?
The harm must be physical, not just emotional or fear.
Case: R v Dawson (fear not enough)
Case: R v Watson (vulnerability of the victim can be considered if known at the time)
(3) The unlawful act must cause the death
Normal causation rules apply:
Factual causation (but for)
Legal causation (significant contribution)
No intervening act breaking the chain
(4) The defendant must have the mens rea for the unlawful act
They do not need mens rea for harm or death, only for the underlying crime.
Case: R v Newbury and Jones

Question 4

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Answer 4

(1) The defendant owed the victim a duty of care
Use normal negligence principles (e.g. foreseeability, proximity).
Can include special situations such as doctors, landlords, employers, relationships, assumed responsibility.
(2) The defendant breached that duty
Measured by the reasonable person standard.
Consider risk factors: likelihood, seriousness, cost of precautions, etc.
(3) The breach caused the death
Normal causation rules apply again:
Factual + legal causation
No break in the chain
(4) The breach involved a risk of death
The defendant’s conduct must have exposed the victim to a risk of death, not merely injury.
Case: R v Singh, R v Rose
(5) The negligence was gross
The conduct must be so bad that it amounts to a criminal act or omission.
A jury question:
Was the defendant’s behaviour so grossly negligent that it should be judged criminal?
Case: R v Adomako

Question 5

Murder

Answer 5

(a) Unlawful killing
The killing must not be legally justified (e.g., self-defence).
(b) Human being
A living human being.
Includes babies who are fully expelled from the womb.
Excludes people who are “brain dead”.
(c) Under the Queen’s Peace
Not during wartime operations.
(d) any country of the realm.
(e) Causation
The defendant’s conduct must cause the death:
Factual causation: “But for” test (White).
Legal causation: More than a minimal cause (Kimsey).
No novus actus interveniens (break in the chain).

Question 6

Theft (Theft Act 1968, s.1)

Answer 6

To prove theft, the prosecution must show:
(1) Appropriation (s.3)
Any assumption of the rights of the owner.
Can be one right (e.g., taking, using, selling).
Cases: Morris, Gomez, Hinks
(2) Property (s.4)
Includes:
Money
Personal property
Real property (limited)
Things in action (e.g., bank accounts)
Other intangible property
(3) Belonging to Another (s.5)
Property belongs to anyone with possession, control, or a proprietary interest.
Includes:
Lost property (R v Rostron)
Property received by mistake (s.5(4))
Property held for a purpose (Davidge v Bunnett)
(4) Dishonesty (s.2 + Ivey test)
Use the Ivey test:
What were the defendant’s actual beliefs about the facts?
Was the conduct honest or dishonest by the standards of ordinary, reasonable people?
(5) Intention to permanently deprive (s.6)
Treating property as your own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s rights.
Includes borrowing if it is equivalent to an outright taking.

Question 7

2. Robbery (Theft Act 1968, s.8)

Answer 7

To prove robbery, the prosecution must show:
(1) A completed theft
All elements of theft must be satisfied.
(2) Use of force OR threat of force
Force can be minimal (R v Dawson and James).
Threat must cause the victim to fear force.
(3) Force must be used “immediately before or at the time of the theft”
The force must occur during the continuing act of appropriation (Hale).
(4) Purpose of force must be to facilitate the theft.

Question 8

Burglary (Theft Act 1968, s.9) - (s.9(1)(a))

Answer 8

⭐ Burglary (s.9(1)(a))
The prosecution must show the defendant:
Entered
Entry must be “effective” (Ryan says even partial entry counts).
A building or part of a building
Includes inhabited vehicles or vessels.
As a trespasser
Entering without permission or exceeding permission (Jones & Smith).
With intent at the time of entry to commit one of the following:
Theft
GBH
Criminal damage
Intent must exist before or at the moment of entry.

Question 9

Burglary (Theft Act 1968, s.9) - (s.9(1)(b))

Answer 9

⭐ Burglary (s.9(1)(b))
The prosecution must show the defendant:
Entered a building/part of a building as a trespasser (same as above)
Then actually committed or attempted:
Theft or
GBH
Intent is not required at entry — only when committing the further offence.

Question 10

Self Defence

Answer 10

(1) Was the force necessary?
Judged based on the defendant’s genuine belief (even if mistaken).
Case: Gladstone Williams
No duty to retreat.
Pre-emptive force allowed (Beckford).
(2) Was the force reasonable?
Force must be proportionate to the threat.
If defendant used grossly disproportionate force = defence fails.
(Householder cases may allow disproportionate, but never grossly disproportionate.)

Question 11

Insanity (need to add cases into this flashcard)

Answer 11

Disease of the mind
(Internal Factor)
Recognised Medical condition
No understanding of nature / quality of the act
Or if they do, they don’t understand it is wrong.

Question 12

Automatism (need to add cases into this flashcard)

Answer 12

Lord denning: Act of the body with no control of the mind, such as a spasm or a fit.
1. External factor
2. Complete loss of control