Basis for legal causation- D's act made significant contribution to the outcome
Acts of the victim do not break the chain of causation in rare circumstances where their act is reasonable given the circumstances
Transferred malice principle- MR of one offence transferred to another
Continuing Act Principle- AR and MR do not coincide, ruled that they can be judged as continuing
Principles for Voluntary Manslaughter(Loss of Control, Diminished Responsibility) found in this Act
Loss of Control Voluntary Manslaughter- 'slow burn' effect acknowledged
Loss of Control Voluntary Manslaughter- Did the defendant lose self control? Subjective
Loss of Control Voluntary Manslaughter- Intoxication not a defence unless ion intoxicated person would have done the same
Diminished Responsibility Voluntary Manslaughter- Has to be a properly established condition
Diminished Responsibility Voluntary Manslaughter- Needs to be a link between the abnormality of mental functioning and the death of the victim
Diminished Responsibility Voluntary Manslaughter- Intoxicated because of alcohol dependency syndrome still allows defence to be used
Unlawful Act Involuntary Manslaughter three stage test outlined in this
Unlawful Act Involuntary Manslaughter- Unlawful act needed, not just immoral act
Unlawful Act Involuntary Manslaughter- Must be an act rather than an omission
Unlawful Act Involuntary Manslaughter- D must have had the MR of the unlawful act
Unlawful Act Involuntary Manslaughter- Unlawful Act must be dangerous, with risk of physical injury
Gross Negligence Involuntary Manslaughter- Four Stage Test- D has DoC to V, D breaches this, breach causes death, breach was grossly negligent
Gross Negligence Involuntary Manslaughter- Must be reasonably forseeable that the breach of DoC would lead to a. serious and obvious risk of death
Cannot consent to harm except in certain circumstances
Assault-Words can amount to an assault in some cases
Assault- Needs to be apprehension of immediate harm rather than future harm
Standard of Recklessness- D was aware that his conduct could cause a particular result, and this risk was an unreasonable one to take
Battery- Contact can be minimal
Assault occ. ABH- Needs to be harm greater than mere touching
Assault occ. ABH- Psychological injuries suffice if it is diagnosable
Assault occ. ABH- D did not have to forsee ABH
Malicious Wounding or GBH- Wound defined as a break in the continuity of the skin
Malicious Wounding or GBH- GBH defined as 'Really serious bodily harm'
Consent to Harm- Rough and undisciplined horseplay reflected as an exception
Consent to Harm- Name branded on buttocks, treated differently to Brown as it is similar to piercing and it is consensual in matrimonial home
Consent to Harm- Brown case applied here for people getting weird bodily adaptations- Dr Evil
Consent to Harm- Ruled that giving HIV in consensual sex can amount to GBH if V does not know there is a risk of HIV transmission
GBH- Psychological harm distinguished from bad psychological state- student jumped from a window due to fear, not a novus actus interveniens
Harassment- Course of conduct must involve at least two incidents which must be linked
Harassment- Ruled that two instances of violence in 6 months does not equal course of conduct
Fear of Violence- Conduct must amount to harassment
Fear of Violence- Must be a specific fear that violence be used
Rape- Case which outlawed marital rape
Rape- A deception needs to have been intentional, deception needs to relate to the nature and purpose of act
Deception as to the nature of the act- D removed condom without the realisation of V
Rape- An impersonation of someone personally known to V can negate consent
Rape- V must actively agree to penetration
Rape- Intoxicated consent is still valid
Consent- Choice has to be free and informed with no fear involved
Murder- Thin Skull Rule, need to take the victim as they come
Legal Causation- Actions of D need to be the operating cause of death with no break in the chain of causation
Test of intention- Death or GBH was a virtual certainty, and D knew that this was the case
Theft- Property includes intangible things such as confidential information
Theft- Abandoned property does not belong to anyone therefore the appropriation of this is not theft
Theft- You do not need to know that the property is in your control so long as it is factually under your own control
Theft- Can still be liable for theft if the intent is conditional upon finding something worth stealing
Theft- Dishonesty Test, must determine whether the acts of the victim were dishonest on the defendant's subjective knowledge of the facts
Robbery- Force used only has to be minimal
Robbery- Force must be used at the time of theft or immediately before
Burglary- D must enter the building, but not all of his body needs to enter
Basic Criminal Damage- Damage may be minimal, however the cases are inconsistent in supporting this
Basic Criminal Damage- Sub. Reck. -Must be shown that D was aware of a risk of causing criminal damage, and in the circumstances known to him, it was unreasonable to take this risk
Basic Criminal Damage- Must also intend or be reckless as to whether the property belonged to another
Basic Criminal Damage- Defence of Property- Must be proven that the property being protected belonged to someone
Basic Criminal Damage- Defence of Property- The property is in immediate need of protection
Basic Criminal Damage- Defence of Property- The damage done is done in order to protect the property
Aggravated Criminal Damage- Property does not have to belong to another
Aggravated Criminal Damage- No need to show that the destruction of property actually endangered life
Defences-Necessity- No general defence of necessity in English law, however can be accepted in some circumstances
Defences-'Best Interests' Necessity established
Defences-'Net saving of life necessity' denied in this case as the victim was not unique
Defences-'Net saving of life necessity' denied in this case as the victim was unique
Defences-Duress- Threat of rape is considered threat of serious harm
Defences-Duress- Threat to property, reputation or of minor injury cannot constitute duress
Defences-Duress- Threat must be to D or someone for whom D would regard themselves as responsible for
Defences-Duress- D must have reasonable grounds to believe that he is facing a threat
Defences-Duress- Certain characteristics can affect the 'firmness' of D such as age, gender, PTSD, pregnancy, serious disability. Being anxious or low IQ not relevant
Defences-Duress- D must have taken all possible and reasonable opportunity to escape from the threat, such as with police intervention
Defences-Duress- D must not have laid himself open to the threat of serious harm or death
Defences-Duress- D cannot rely on internal duress- threats that come from within himself
Defences-Self Defence- Self Defence not available when D causes the attack in the first place
Defences-Self Defence- If D acts solely out of revenge or retaliation and not to defend himself, another or a property, defence is not available
Defences-Self Defence- D cannot rely on justifying circumstances if they were not aware of them- if he did not know that V posed a threat to someone
Defences-Self Defence- Must have been reasonable to use force in the circumstances as D genuinely believed them to be(subjective)
Defences-Intoxication- If D still formed the MR of the crime despite intoxication, they are guilty
Defences-Intoxication- If intoxication is involuntary, and D was so intoxicated that he could not form the MR, then D is not guilty
Defences-Intoxication- If D performs a crime of specific intent(murder/theft) and was so intoxicated that MR is not formed, they are not guilty
Defences-Intoxication- If alcohol is taken for dutch courage to allow them to commit it, then no defence is available
Defences-Intoxication- If intoxication means that they are not liable for murder, they are probably liable for something else- good prosecution practice needed
Defences-Automatism- Defined within this as a 'total loss of voluntary control'
Defences-Automatism- Loss of voluntary control has to come from an external cause
Defences-Automatism- There must be no prior fault by the defendant
Defences-Insanity- Insanity defined in these
Defences-Insanity- Must be suffering from a defect of mental reasoning, a mere failure to use power of reason is not enough
Defences-Insanity- Does not equate with what a medic would recognise as a mental disorder or illness- legal, not medical definition
Get the best of Sporcle when you Go Orange. This ad-free experience offers
more features, more stats, and more fun while also helping to support Sporcle. Thank you for
becoming a member.
In order to create a playlist on Sporcle, you need to verify the email address you used during registration. Go to your Sporcle Settings to finish the process.
robkelley
Plays
Quiz not verified by Sporcle
Show Comments