Criminal cases

Random Entertainment Quiz

Can you name the Criminal cases??

Quiz not verified by Sporcle

embed
 plays        
How to Play
Facts/RatioCase Trigger
Mens rea offence specific. Intention, required for?INTENTION (think purpose)
Two types are?
Shotgun, jury intention can be assumed if highly probableOBLIQUE.
Was result virtual certain? Reduced to manslaughter as it wasn't hereNeds,paraffin, letterbox, child dies...
Baby thrown, tantrum, quashed as at trial a broader (substantial risk) test was used Baby, not a soft landing..
Steyn modifies test for murder, needs (i)
(ii)a) If yes to both may or must they find murder?
Was there recklessness as to whether harm would occur? (Gas metre, asphyxiated neighbour)RECKLESSNESS (risk-taking)
Old test: Was the risk obvious to reasonable person?
No more. Boys camping,fire to papers under bin, spread, burned supermarket.Overruled Caldwell confirms Cuningham
j) Its ok to blame for taking the risk, but not if it wasn't perceived
Confirmed that the test is?So subjective element. But not if intoxicated.
Negligence, only relevant to? (Discussed there)NEGLIGENCE
Limitations,can't create an intent to kill child when only GBH, mum-foetus-baby too far.. TRANSFERRED MALICE
Core rule, not liable for? ACTUS REUS, no single thread
But, duty to act may arise due to (i)
Bedridden anorexic sister, 61, manslaughter upheld. ROCKY relationship with the house elf. Aggravated as Social Service visits, police-call ambulance
Methodrome,man dies, one has DofC as were friends, 4 hours by side, supplied, other only attempting assistance. Sinking in meth...
Or as there is (ii)
Failed to feed child, murder. That leftover food isn't gubbins..
Died in childbirth,mother didn't get midwife. No DofC as over 18Stables, babies...
Blocked by voluntary act,W in labour, hated hospitals, died, M not liable for manslaughterEveryone, ordinarily, hates hospitals..
(iii) if you knew, or ought to have known, that you were Duty to take reasonable steps arises..
Heroin overdose,no ambulance called.
j) mum duty due to relationship, half-sister duty from contributing to dangerous situation
Smoker,mattress,went to other room. Created a dangerous situation directly so there was a duty to take reasonable steps. Act not dropping fag but failing to act, had to be for coincidence
Inverse.Must turn off but still only omission to struggle.Not act.Doc not liable.HIllsborough,Goff.Can't be an act as would be euthanasia
Canadian case. Housemate, (a) Baker says fairer labellin.
Coincidence. Hit one man-not dead yet, rolled him off a cliff-dead. There was coincidence as all part of 'one transaction'.COINCIDENCE of actus and mens required. Thankfully there was a coincidence..
Car, policeman foot. One action,turning off ignition helpedYour foot is far gone
Causation in fact. Poisoned drink, death by heart attack, would have happened 'but for'CAUSATION
In law. Must be?
Free will, contextual, 'common sense', Here self-injection broke the chain.
Doc administered drug allergic to, stab wound almost healed, doc operative cause. GNM. Silly doctor with FF cup in a dangerous country
Human shield case. Here the police actions were not voluntary so didn't break the chain. The man got manslaughter.D not main cause but still substantial and operative
D stabbed W, life machine turned off, didn't break chain, moral act.Steel support. M for moral.
Car lift, woman jumps out. V's actions. Not about whether they were reasonable, but if they were reasonably foreseeable to ordinary person..
Glastonbury. Consider the 'agony of the moment'. But don't define crime due to V's response. Glastonbury, hitchiker robbed, jumped out - no evidence to say force other than response, not enough. WILsons wilder days before meeting DAVID
Jehovas witness stabbed, refused hospital died. V as you find them. Not unreasonable doesn't break chain. Otherwise relative justice.(A)llow..
j)'means the whole man, not just physical man'But this is caveat on reasonable forseeability test. Couldn't have known JW
Unlawfully killing person in being. In being? Here foetus can't be killed. HOMICIDE - ACTUS REUS
Killing? Legal definition is brain stem death
Mens rea for murder? MENS REA
Intention governed by? Death/GBH must be a virtual certainty and D appreciated this was the case
s.1 Murder Act 1965 - penalty is?
Motive not considered, malevolent/familial loveBut sentence reduced 9 - 5 years
Now, under Coroners and Justice Act 2009? Not sudden, needs trigger, no sexual infedility
Implies provocation still relavant. Contrary to statute sexual infidelity can be taken in conduct with the whole course of conduct.
Old law defence? Under Homicide Act 1957PARTIAL DEFENCES TO MURDER
'suddenly and temporarily' not master of their mind.
Onus on?
'Sudden' gendered? DV, petrol to kill, couldn't raise defence'slow burn' recognised but defer to Parlament. New evidence of battered woman so DR.
Question of what provokes. D killed baby. 1st instance, crying can't provoke, 2nd instance it was a question for jury. It may provoke.Doubted whether it provokes..
a) Purist view, only characteristics about provocation should be considered. Not those of loss of controlWhose the reasonable person?
Purist view began. Only age and sex and those about the gravity of the provocation.
Provoked about glue-sniffing. HofL this should be included as its about the provocation. Addicted for MORE. Murder - manslaughter
Then. Here there was a stabbing, arg about carpentry tools, D had psychiatric condition that reduced self-control.
j)Broader view, you can consider psychiatric, no neat dichotomy, mental gymnastics otherwise.
Overturned above. Narrow view here. D was an alcoholic murdered gf, pleaded alcoholism made more likely to be provoked. Arg that DR is there for a reason
Next defence. s.2 Homicide Act.
Onus is on?
Abnormality of the mind. Here it is so different that a reasonable man would term it abnormalBurnt mind..
Alcohol dependancy syndrome. Homeless man. Confirmed that abnormality must be established. Then question of whether drinking was an involuntary result. Needs more than failure to rNot a simple would he have done it but for booze test.
Brain damage caused by booze is still brain damageDamage by booze not a plank of...
Manslaughter, two types?
Constructive requires that the act was?CONSTRUCTIVE - Involuntary 1.
Football tackle may be dangerous, but not unlawful.Unlawful
Stabs pregnant woman, assault the unlawful act. As no mens rea for murder.
Pushing paving stone off bridge is dangerous. Reasonable person has to foresee harm for it to be dangerous.Dangerous
Degree of harm: if reasonable people see some harm (van, impotence, assault, unconscious, river) Also coincidence case.Through her in the river behind the...
Of knowledge: Would the sober, reasonable bystander, knowing what D knows have foreseen harm? (psychiatric, replica shotgun, petrol station)
Causation case...
GNM. Was the act so negligent its criminal? (Anaesthetist, oxygen tube, 6 mins) GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER - Involuntary 2
Reprehensible conduct, confirms above, not too vague. Doesn't breach rule of law. Citizen would know. (ill in care home, not recognised)Miserable care home/Hypothetical person can as, dubious.
So. GNM requires? (i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
GNM for half-sister here, questions whether its too broad..s
Reckless manslaughter. Man hanging onto car, driver prosecuted on subjective recklessnessRECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER - Involuntary 3?
Violent offence 1. No touching required?VIOLENT OFFENCES
Actus reas (ii) ASSAULT
Mens rea
Penalty, under s.39 CJA?
(ABH case) Shows the actus resus, apprehension of imminent harm. 800 letters, 1 by hand 'immediate fear'Constantly sending letters/Proximity insignificant
(ABH case) also shows it. Silent phone calls here. Psychiatric harm is GBH
j) common sense, what else would she fear? 'a thing said is a thing done'Arguably too broad.. conduct alone.
Staring at window. Still imminent even though behind glass.
Violent offence 2?(i) BATTERY
Mens rea
Actus ReusActus reus...
Force can be via object. Also omissions. (car, copper, foot)
Needle, police check, dishonest assurance enoughLIzard... bermudan drugs
Cinema, metal bar to block, fire, many injured.Brother being violent at cinema
This was for restrain not attention so was battery. (copper, prostitute, arm)Restrain with a COLLar
j) battery widely drawn so law not involved in degrees/exception for exigencies of everyday life
3rd offence. s.47 Offences Against the person act
Mens rea
Actus Reus
Steyn, doesn't include 'mere emotions', psychological harm here.
4th offence. s.20.
Mens rea
P doesn't have to prove full extent foreseen. Here baby mishandled, broken bones, the subjective foresight of consequences but not magnitude required.
Just some harm. Extent of consequence may be unforseen (pub, glass slipped, cut and s.20 liable)
Actus reus?
That means both layers. Einstein, physicist, physical skin.
5th offence is?
Actus Reus
Mens rea. There must be intent to cause GBH. Leading case?
Consent. Who proves?CONSENT
You can only consent to some activities (genital torture, P not required to prove no consent)
You can consent to this. Tattoo on bum. Autonomy and privacy respected.Willful
Hard to reconcile. Convicted of s.47. Part asphyxiation, burnt breasts. Assault occasioning abh. Bee's harmful ways..
Knew he had HIV. Didn't say. 1st instance followed Brown, convicted as you can't consent. CofA: No. Should be put to the jury. But its not unsafe as he didn't say and you can't conD knew HIV positive and had sex with two women
Confirms above. Can't consent to unknown risks. A failure to disclose is dishonesty. As above, but sex with three women.
LC proposal that spreading HIV with intent or recklessly rejected in
GENERAL DEFENCES. First defence: Common law and s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967GENERAL DEFENCES
Conditions are (i)?Threat to property unclear
(ii)
(iii)
Force. Disrupting maize drilling, tied to tractor, this is force. Low threshold, unfair that they would get defence for using greater force. Force. Tractor in the bay
Physical characteristics of D can be considered, not psychiatric, thats for DR. (D shot burglars)
Threat. Unloaded pistol in cupboard ok. Was told he'd 'be done in', moved house, still threatened, was the most pacific means.Pacific (v)egan
Threat must be imminent, collects money from bank, knuckle duster in pocket while not at work. Truncheon in van. Threat not imminent here. Van, Right-handed punch, knuckles.
Don't have to show reluctance to fight, no duty to retreat (fight at party)
Reasonableness includes?Old law applies still..
Jamaica, ganja, shot bush, 'unexpexted anguish' can't weight to nicety, jury don't need special directions, appeal dismissedJamaica, palm tree.
Question whether force reasonable (objective) in situation as D belived it to be (subjective). Couple fight, pushing, he carried her out of house. Chucked out of house! Ow!
Excessive force. On duty soldier, car passed, 10 yards away, shot and killed woman. Lib dems at war/Good e.g. of degree
As D believed them to be. D though another being mugged, actually citizens arrest, consider mugged.Scholar, tried to intervene/controversial allows racism
As D believed them to be but it doesn't apply if drunk. Here a guys friend punched him while asleep, he woje up and really punched him back. Died mistake cant be relied on if volun
Second defenceDURESS
Not a defence to?
Who proves?
Threat of violence from man that prob killed before, D killed. Not duress here as (i) murder and (ii) man should put himself second But how can I be a hero?
Above upheld that the test is (i)
and (ii)
Armed robbery at sub-post offices, one 'nutcase' killed postmaster with shotgun, other claimed duress. No, freely chose to hang out with them so liable.Not blunt post office..
But, consorting with criminals doesn't automatically mean barred from raising duress. Conviction unsafe, should let jury consider. Being a sheep not automatically barred
Driver for prostitution, woman's bf threatened him and family, breaks safe, wields knife 4,000. Can't claim.Leading case
Can't claim duress if you consort with criminals. Bingham. Test of foresight is?
Hale: Test should include subjective element, e.g.Protecting DV victims..
a) DV 'falls short' of duress.
Qualities that make one just pliable are not relevant/only if in category e.g. pregnant/can't be self-induced life drinking (electrical goods, pub, petrol bomb, claimed low IQ, no
Girls, perjury, were told they would be cut up. Duress imminent although in court, could have gone to police. Needs to neutralise D's will at the time they committed the crime Imminence? Georgia and Rachel are the two girls..
a) Controversial though, an 'indulgent decision'
Driving son to work, otherwise he gets the sack and wife suicide. Duress of circ ok here. DURESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES
The test is whether (i)
and (ii)
Necessity. Requires an?Necessity
Shipwrecked, cannibalism. No necessity, not a defence to murder. Those dursleys are awful/Sentence reduced death - 6 months
Inevitable, proportionate and required. Applies here. Sad case, one must die.
Weed used for medicinal purposes. No necessity here. Proof of pain not enough, too subjective and no immediate threat. Must retain objectivity, but means wife in Martin couldn't clSmall eggs don't quash pain.
Tried to kill Peel, secretary by mistake, delusions, jury accepted insane.INSANITY
Who proves?
Requires (i)
The insanity must cause the defect, this can't be accidental. Here depression didn't cause defect and shopliftingMrs... English teacher, bit dappy, shoplifting.
(ii)Faculty and understanding
Mind must be affected by internal disease. Nurse assaulted patient. Has diabetes. Took excessive insulin, not eaten, hypoglycemic state (low blood sugar). From insulin so external,Contrast hyperglycemia, may be internal.
(iii)
Automatism from epilepsy, kicked friend, but doesn't fit (i) or (iii)
Who proves?INTOXICATION
What crimes?
a) Its never actually a defence, just proof of no specific intent
Voluntary and still aware so booze not relevant here. Attacked pub landlord, drink and booze, noisy in cell.
Hard to prove no intent. Man rubs penis against cop, 'a drunken intent is still an intent'/not remembering irrelevant.Could __ the sound..
But jury agreed no intent here. Sheets, LCD, snake.Sheets stuffed between/note voluntary intoxication here
Getting drunk to commit the crime wont work, not for 'dutch courage'
Involuntary intoxication then may rely even if crime not of specific intent. (gf gave tranquilizers, thought painkillers, lit cupboard, arson, intoxication negatives intent)Involuntary intoxication/ That cupboard is rock _
Question is whether D reasonably believed it would make them violent
Not automatic though. Have to gauge amount of fault. Coffee laced by 3rd party, assaulted boy. D still at fault. Dirty grunge times in __ /Causation point
Attempts. Mens ReaINCHOATE OFFENCES, ATTEMPTS
Doesn't apply to crimes of?Can't intend to attempt to do thing this way...
Actus Reus (i)
(ii)
Appeal allowed. This was just recklessness as to whether GBH occurred due to reckless driving, no intent so cannot attempt gbh. Punk driving with punk hair
Number of acts undone, not at counter, even in post office. Appeal allowed no actus reus here. Red post office, like the soup
In boys school loo, cider, knife, rope. Insufficient evidence for an attempted kidnapping.
j) the question is 'had he moved into the realm of execution?'
Attempt to poison, not factual cause of death. But liable for attempt.
Looser here. Got ferry tickets, packed, told teacher dentist. Teacher suspicious so left without taking children. More than mere prep. Guilty of attempted kidnapping. Massive bird carrying children away
Metal equipment in hedge, examined lock on barn. Being watched so fled. LIable for attempted burglary. Metal equipment used to make
Threw to ground, exposed penis. Attempted rape. No penetration required.
CAA s.1 can still be guilty if?
Arrested at customs, confessed dealing drugs but suitcase only snuff and vegetables. Still guilty of attempt to deal drugs.
j) 'Objective innocence not consonant with law of attempts'
Reform proposed by?
Have two crimes instead, these are (i)
and (ii)
Participation. Mens Rea. Driving man and gun in caravan to house to kill enough. Just need 'mere knowledge'. Man killed 12 hours later, not too remote. PARTICIPATION. Attempts irrelevant here.
A+A. V stabbed after being chased down alley. D only chased. Not enough to aid and abet, questionable. Actus Reus. AIDING AND ABETTING. Those two men.
Watched rape three times, no evidence that crime encouraged. Not guilty of aiding.
Above case shows there must be (i)
(ii)
You can counsel without being the cause. Here contract killing enough. Killer hadn't started new enterprise.COUNSELLING
Just that the act must be (i) Contact between parties and some connection between advice and crime
D laced friends drink, friend drink driving. Knew he would drive over the limit so guilty of procuring. PROCURING
Man driving car for ulster terrorists, bomb pub. It was one of the most obvious possibilities so liable. On the 'shopping list' of crimes.
Joint enterprise liability requires?
Cannabis dealer shot. D claimed only wanted to get weed. Unclear whether aware of gun. Appeal dismissed. JE hereJOINT UNLAWFUL ENTERPRISE.
Both attacked cop with wooden post, other knifed him. Claimed to have fled scene. Appeal allowed.Knife through BNP flag
j) Weapon must be very different and more lethal to escape JE liabilityDoesn't address use of weapon. Question of fact.
Knowledge of stanley knife, but not longer knife. Not fundamentally different to escape JE liability.
Gang attack with bats, one knifes V. Fast-moving. No evidence of principle, JE liability for all. Appeal, only foresaw GBH. Rejected, that's enough for JE of murder. Consonant with murder.
Two fight in car park, nurse shot by one. G liable for JE of murder. Kill/GBH in foresight of both. What if G was shot.
Knife fundamentally different to metal and wood. Party, x-box, chased and stabbed. Men and their x-boxes..
j) In CA in above. There should be uniformity for all complicity and common element causation
Withdrawal must be express and requires action. Mere repentance not enough. Extent of agency contingent on level of involvement.
A agreed to kill but then didn't show up. This was not enough for withdrawal, something positive is required.
s.1 SOA 2003 Rape. Who proves? SEXUAL OFFENCES Life
s.2 Requirements the same but penetration by anything, must be?Life (s.3 sexual assault = 10 and s.4 sexual activity=10 yrs or life if penetration)
Last 3 need sexual touching.s.78. Ambiguous and circs can prove sexual. Def not sexual and circ can't make it sexual. Here buttock fetish, spanking. No such provision in canada, problems.
Conclusive presumptions. Purposes. Bogus medical study, machines and masturbating, deception as to purpose.CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS D cannot claim belief in consent. Apply to all offences. Professor...
Purposes.'Cassey' filmed 16 year old boy masturbating online. Deception as to purposes as pretended for sexual gratification but actually to embarrass as daughters ex. Convicted wiPurpose. Inverse application of provision/Pretending sexual gratification when not/Problem really as s.76(2)(b) limited to known person.
a) This could extend to pretending for sex but secretly after baby
Act. D pretending to be police texts 'keep having sex'. Not deception about act itself, that was still about gratification, so no conclusive presumption. But still rape as no 'freeAct. Pretend to be police = cheater...
Act. Removing 'natures string' to prevent your fits. This is deception about the act.Act. (Flattered into)
To be sure, failure to disclose HIV does not give rise to a conclusive presumption.
D entered bedroom, sex with V. Realised V mistaken as thought bf. Didn't disclose. Presumption doesn't apply as D did nothing to impersonate. Need objectivity. But covered by lack Impersonating Person known to C. s.76(2)(b)
j) Pre-2003 only applied to husband and wife. This is broader. Interesting dicta, 'with her husband, or another'
s.75 SOA 2003. Who proves that there was consent?EVIDENTIAL PRESUMPTIONS
s.74. There is no consent if no?CONSENT IN GENERAL
Awful. Lift home, girl raped in car, dragged inside. Took trousers off when asked. She submitted, didn't consent. Subjective position of V considered, violence not required. CourtsOH no!
Girl sick, passes out, wakes up being raped. He argued she could consent despite being drunk.
j) Question for jury not about level of drink but capacity to choose. Here she could not choose.
Homeless girl, 14, minicab office, knew man he had abused her before. Agreed to £3.25 for sex. Conviction of rape upheld. Apparent agreement not real.Badge from Cameo awful minicab driver.
But here a false promise to pay prostitute £25 and use condom did not vitiate consent. Was not about act. But then not homeless, this is job, different.
s.1 SOA?All the circumstances/men only/D must believe not just think there is consent.
No cases yet, mens rea probably what an objective 3rd party would think. In?
s. 3 SOA?
Must intend sexual touching. Grabbing trousers sexually is enough. CHECK Court spanking case?
Caused child to watch porn. Liable under s.4. Shows that touching and sexual gratification are not required.That porn is dull..
s.6. Be aware of?
Dovetailed with participation, you can aid these crimesPUBLIC ORDER
Mens Rea in POA 1986 s.6
Proof that its rare?s.1. RIOT. Actus Reus. Can still only convict one.
s.11 requirement?
Critical mass.Were required to give notice as route relevant to common or customary. Hale obiter, this isn't s.1 anyway. Aunt likes to go cycling...
Kettle proportionate here. World debt, violence intended, couldn't cordon without her, not distressed, interview after rather than creche..
j) 'impossible exercise to identify all', restriction not arbitrary, Art 5 right to liberty not infringed. Balance.
s.2. As above except no common purpose and?s.2. VIOLENT DISORDER
Bath, knife. Narrowed hypothetical person test as threat direct. But broader scope as put him there, in the bathroom. s.3. AFFRAY. I'm LEAving the bath.
Mens rea requires?s.4. FEAR OF VIOLENCE
'Sunderland are shite', scarf, £400 under s.5.s.4A INTENTIONAL HARASSMENT / s.5 HARRASMENT WITHOUT INTENT (fine only)
But, defaced American flag at protest. s.5 charge. ECtHR, disproportionate to Art 10 right to liberty / there must be a risk of violence before there can be a breach of the peace.
Recommended remove 'insult'
Onus on?Harassment Act 1997 s.1 / 2 or more times, causing distress, speech
Flexible approach to hate crimes. HATE CRIMES s.29. / s.29 CDA offences on grounds of race worse punishment / Anti-terrorism act, includes religion s.39.
Multiple claimants all detained. Protestor of conference about building war helicopters not proportionate. Art 5 infringed. Under digger, in front of shotgun both were. BREACH OF THE PEACE/Common law/s.40 POA
Requires no offence just?BINDING OVER. s.115 Mag Act can be put in custody.
ECtHR. Hunt saboteurs being bound over to be on good behavior. This was a vague interference with Art 10.
Crime and Disorder Act 1994. s.1. Only need?ASBOs. Breach is criminal.
Power to evict vehicles is compatible with ECHR. TRESPASS Criminal Justice and PO 1994 s.61. Aggravated s.68 / s.14 Inciting greater punishment.
Pre-act. Store manager breach not enough, must be 'acting as the mind of the company'CORPORATE LIABILITY
Causation case. Implies that grossly negligent act of employee may break chain.
Must establish a duty, tortm harm reasonably forseeable/proximity/fair and just. Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act 2007
Civil law appropriate? Crim about protecting individuals, ideas like CN should not be extended. Here vol assumption of care by lorry driver for immigrants in container.
Relative to the expected level of care a that type of company.Also statute says conduct 'in the circumstances'
Trench collapsed. Industry guidance ignored and man dies. Company liable.
a) criticises substantial breach by management requirement, Southall train crash may not be caughtSouthall, driver not paying attention but managers may be too far removed for causation.
s.37 Health and Safety at work Act means?
Vicarious liability. Here, D let cafe run where soliciting occurred, never around. Full delegation so had mens rea. Vicarious liability. Delegated responsibility exception to rule that D has mens rea.
Agent must be acting in scope of employment. Manager not liable when employee sells booze out of hours. Cantuccini with your illegal booze Adam?

Friend Scores


  Player Best Score Plays Last Played
You You haven't played this game yet.

You Might Also Like...

Extras

Created Jun 6, 2012ReportNominate
Tags:case, criminal, ratio, trigger