| Facts/Ratio | Case |
|---|
| Mens rea offence specific. Intention, required for? | |
| Two types are? | |
| Shotgun, jury intention can be assumed if highly probable | |
| Was result virtual certain? Reduced to manslaughter as it wasn't here | |
| Baby thrown, tantrum, quashed as at trial a broader (substantial risk) test was used | |
| Steyn modifies test for murder, needs (i) | |
| (ii) | |
| Was there recklessness as to whether harm would occur? (Gas metre, asphyxiated neighbour) | |
| Old test: Was the risk obvious to reasonable person? | |
| No more. Boys camping,fire to papers under bin, spread, burned supermarket. | |
| j) Its ok to blame for taking the risk, but not if it wasn't perceived | |
| Confirmed that the test is? | |
| Negligence, only relevant to? (Discussed there) | |
| Limitations,can't create an intent to kill child when only GBH, mum-foetus-baby too far.. | |
| Core rule, not liable for? | |
| But, duty to act may arise due to (i) | |
| Bedridden anorexic sister, 61, manslaughter upheld. | |
| Methodrome,man dies, one has DofC as were friends, 4 hours by side, supplied, other only attempting assistance. | |
| Or as there is (ii) | |
| Failed to feed child, murder. | |
| Died in childbirth,mother didn't get midwife. No DofC as over 18 | |
| Blocked by voluntary act,W in labour, hated hospitals, died, M not liable for manslaughter | |
| (iii) if you knew, or ought to have known, that you were | |
| 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. | |
| Inverse.Must turn off but still only omission to struggle.Not act.Doc not liable. | |
| 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'. | |
| Car, policeman foot. One action,turning off ignition helped | |
| Causation in fact. Poisoned drink, death by heart attack, would have happened 'but for' | |
| 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. | |
| Human shield case. Here the police actions were not voluntary so didn't break the chain. The man got manslaughter. | |
| D stabbed W, life machine turned off, didn't break chain, moral act. | |
| 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. | |
| Jehovas witness stabbed, refused hospital died. V as you find them. Not unreasonable doesn't break chain. Otherwise relative justice. | |
| j)'means the whole man, not just physical man' | |
| Unlawfully killing person in being. In being? Here foetus can't be killed. | |
| Killing? Legal definition is brain stem death | |
| Mens rea for murder? | |
| 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 love | |
| Now, under Coroners and Justice Act 2009? | |
| 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 1957 | |
| 'suddenly and temporarily' not master of their mind. | |
| Onus on? | |
| 'Sudden' gendered? DV, petrol to kill, couldn't raise defence | |
| Question of what provokes. D killed baby. 1st instance, crying can't provoke, 2nd instance it was a question for jury. It may provoke. | |
| a) Purist view, only characteristics about provocation should be considered. Not those of loss of control | |
| 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. | |
| 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. | |
| 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 abnormal | |
| 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 r | |
| Brain damage caused by booze is still brain damage | |
| Manslaughter, two types? | |
| Constructive requires that the act was? | |
| Football tackle may be dangerous, but not 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. | |
| Degree of harm: if reasonable people see some harm (van, impotence, assault, unconscious, river) Also coincidence case. | |
| 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) | |
| Reprehensible conduct, confirms above, not too vague. Doesn't breach rule of law. Citizen would know. (ill in care home, not recognised) | |
| 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 recklessness | |
| Violent offence 1. No touching required? | |
| Actus reas | |
| Mens rea | |
| Penalty, under s.39 CJA? | |
| (ABH case) Shows the actus resus, apprehension of imminent harm. 800 letters, 1 by hand 'immediate fear' | |
| (ABH case) also shows it. Silent phone calls here. | |
| j) common sense, what else would she fear? 'a thing said is a thing done' | |
| Staring at window. Still imminent even though behind glass. | |
| Violent offence 2? | |
| Mens rea | |
| Actus Reus | |
| Force can be via object. Also omissions. (car, copper, foot) | |
| Needle, police check, dishonest assurance enough | |
| Cinema, metal bar to block, fire, many injured. | |
| This was for restrain not attention so was battery. (copper, prostitute, arm) | |
| 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. | |
| 5th offence is? | |
| Actus Reus | |
| Mens rea. There must be intent to cause GBH. Leading case? | |
| Consent. Who proves? | |
| 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. | |
| Hard to reconcile. Convicted of s.47. Part asphyxiation, burnt breasts. Assault occasioning abh. | |
| 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 con | |
| Confirms above. Can't consent to unknown risks. A failure to disclose is dishonesty. | |
| LC proposal that spreading HIV with intent or recklessly rejected in | |
| GENERAL DEFENCES. First defence: Common law and s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967 | |
| Conditions are (i)? | |
| (ii) | |
| (iii) | |
| Force. Disrupting maize drilling, tied to tractor, this is force. Low threshold, unfair that they would get defence for using greater force. | |
| 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. | |
| Threat must be imminent, collects money from bank, knuckle duster in pocket while not at work. Truncheon in van. Threat not imminent here. | |
| Don't have to show reluctance to fight, no duty to retreat (fight at party) | |
| Reasonableness includes? | |
| Jamaica, ganja, shot bush, 'unexpexted anguish' can't weight to nicety, jury don't need special directions, appeal dismissed | |
| Question whether force reasonable (objective) in situation as D belived it to be (subjective). Couple fight, pushing, he carried her out of house. | |
| Excessive force. On duty soldier, car passed, 10 yards away, shot and killed woman. | |
| As D believed them to be. D though another being mugged, actually citizens arrest, consider mugged. | |
| 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 defence | |
| 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 | |
| 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. | |
| But, consorting with criminals doesn't automatically mean barred from raising duress. Conviction unsafe, should let jury consider. | |
| Driver for prostitution, woman's bf threatened him and family, breaks safe, wields knife 4,000. Can't claim. | |
| Can't claim duress if you consort with criminals. Bingham. Test of foresight is? | |
| Hale: Test should include subjective element, e.g. | |
| 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 | |
| a) Controversial though, an 'indulgent decision' | |
| Driving son to work, otherwise he gets the sack and wife suicide. Duress of circ ok here. | |
| The test is whether (i) | |
| and (ii) | |
| Necessity. Requires an? | |
| Shipwrecked, cannibalism. No necessity, not a defence to murder. | |
| 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 cl | |
| Tried to kill Peel, secretary by mistake, delusions, jury accepted insane. | |
| Who proves? | |
| Requires (i) | |
| The insanity must cause the defect, this can't be accidental. Here depression didn't cause defect and shoplifting | |
| (ii) | |
| 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, | |
| (iii) | |
| Automatism from epilepsy, kicked friend, but doesn't fit (i) or (iii) | |
| Who proves? | |
| 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. | |
| But jury agreed no intent here. Sheets, LCD, snake. | |
| 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) | |
| 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. | |
| Attempts. Mens Rea | |
| Doesn't apply to crimes of? | |
| 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. | |
| Number of acts undone, not at counter, even in post office. Appeal allowed no actus reus here. | |
| 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. | |
| Metal equipment in hedge, examined lock on barn. Being watched so fled. LIable for attempted burglary. | |
| 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. | |
| A+A. V stabbed after being chased down alley. D only chased. Not enough to aid and abet, questionable. | |
| 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. | |
| Just that the act must be (i) | |
| D laced friends drink, friend drink driving. Knew he would drive over the limit so guilty of 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 here | |
| Both attacked cop with wooden post, other knifed him. Claimed to have fled scene. Appeal allowed. | |
| j) Weapon must be very different and more lethal to escape JE liability | |
| 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. | |
| Two fight in car park, nurse shot by one. G liable for JE of murder. Kill/GBH in foresight of both. | |
| Knife fundamentally different to metal and wood. Party, x-box, chased and stabbed. | |
| 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? | |
| s.2 Requirements the same but penetration by anything, must be? | |
| 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. | |
| Conclusive presumptions. Purposes. Bogus medical study, machines and masturbating, deception as to purpose. | |
| 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 wi | |
| 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 'free | |
| Act. Removing 'natures string' to prevent your fits. This is deception about the act. | |
| 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 | |
| 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? | |
| s.74. There is no consent if no? | |
| 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. Courts | |
| 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. | |
| 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? | |
| 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. | |
| Caused child to watch porn. Liable under s.4. Shows that touching and sexual gratification are not required. | |
| s.6. Be aware of? | |
| Dovetailed with participation, you can aid these crimes | |
| Mens Rea in POA 1986 s.6 | |
| Proof that its rare? | |
| 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. | |
| 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? | |
| Bath, knife. Narrowed hypothetical person test as threat direct. But broader scope as put him there, in the bathroom. | |
| Mens rea requires? | |
| 'Sunderland are shite', scarf, £400 under s.5. | |
| 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? | |
| Flexible approach to hate crimes. | |
| Multiple claimants all detained. Protestor of conference about building war helicopters not proportionate. Art 5 infringed. Under digger, in front of shotgun both were. | |
| Requires no offence just? | |
| 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? | |
| Power to evict vehicles is compatible with ECHR. | |
| Pre-act. Store manager breach not enough, must be 'acting as the mind of the company' | |
| Causation case. Implies that grossly negligent act of employee may break chain. | |
| Must establish a duty, tortm harm reasonably forseeable/proximity/fair and just. | |
| 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. | |
| Trench collapsed. Industry guidance ignored and man dies. Company liable. | |
| a) criticises substantial breach by management requirement, Southall train crash may not be caught | |
| 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. | |
| Agent must be acting in scope of employment. Manager not liable when employee sells booze out of hours. | |
Scrawntape
Plays
Quiz not verified by Sporcle
Show Comments