439160
| Frage | Antworten |
| Definition of Murder | Coke: Unlawfully killing a person in being under the queens peace with malice aforethought (year and a day rule has been abolished) |
| AR of murder | Unlawfully killing another person (through an act not an omission) |
| MR of murder | Malice a forethought (The intention to kill or to cause GBH) |
| The two types of intention | Direct intention: where the consequences are desired Oblique intention: where the consequences are not desired but virtually certain to happen (rule of evidence only) |
| How do you identify oblique intention: | The Nedrick/Woolin test: two stage test 1. Was the result virtually certain? 2. Did the defendant appreciate this? |
| What is causation and when is it applied? | Causation is applied in AR to determine whether D caused V's death: Factual Causation: The 'but for test' Legal Causation: De minimis test Intervening Acts: Novus Actus interveniens |
| What does the thin skull rule dictate and in what case was this applied? | That you take your victim as you find them as seen in Blaue |
| Can the acts of a third party break the chain of causation? | Yes, as seen in Pagett and Cheshire |
| Does medical treatment break the chain of causation? | If it is grossly negligent as seen in Jordan however, in general it will not as seen in Cheshire |
| What are absolute liability offences and give an example of a case? | Absolute liability offences are offences for which the prosecution need not prove mens rea in relation to ANY element of the actus reus as seen in state of affair cases: Larsonneur and Winzor v Chief Constable of Kent |
| Why do strict liability offences exist? (what are the benefits of them) | Promotion of care (To protect people) Deterrent value (ensures compliance to avoid criminal prosecution) Easier enforcement (no MR needed) |
| What is an omission and is there a criminal liability for an omission? | The general rule is that there is no criminal liability for failing to act. Thus, a defendant will not be criminally liable for an offence by his failure (or omission) to perform an act. |
| What are the six exceptions to the general rule for an omission? | • where there is a special relationship between D and V • where D voluntarily assumes responsibility of V • where there is a contractual duty • where public office creates a duty to act • where D creates a dangerous situation he has a duty to avert such danger • where statute imposes a duty on D to act |
| Give a case for special relationships in relation to omissions | Downes : Where there is a special relationship between D and V, D is under a positive duty to act. This was then confirmed in Gibbins and Proctor |
| Case for Voluntary assumption of responsibility and legal principle | Stone and Dobinson: Where the defendant has voluntarily assumed responsibility for the victim a positive duty to act may be imposed on the d. |
| Case and legal principle for Contractual duty | Pittwood (train case): A contract can create a positive duty to act. |
| Case and legal principle for Public office (Public duty) | Dytham (The Police case): Public office can create a positive duty to act. |
| Case for and legal principle for Creation of a dangerous situation | Miller: A defendant who is responsible for creating a dangerous situation has a duty to prevent a prohibited result from occurring |
| When can there be criminal liability for an omission in Statutory exceptions? | Where a statute imposes a duty on the defendant to act, then his failure to do so will amount to a criminal offence. For example, failing to provide a police officer with a specimen of breath is an offence under s.6, Road Traffic Act 1988. |
| How do you apply the but for test? (factual causation) | But for the defendant’s conduct/omission, would the victim have died? If yes – V would have died anyway, D is not the factual cause of death. If no – V would not have died but for D’s conduct/omission, D is the factual cause of death. |
| How do you apply the de minimis test? (Legal Causation) | Were the accused’s actions more than a minimal or slight or trivial cause of the result? |
| What do you ask during the novus actus interveniens stage? | Was there present a new intervening act/event that breaks the chain of causation between the accused’s actions and the result |
| Can the acts of the victim break the chain of causation? | If the act of the victim is reasonable then no it doesn't however, if the acts of the victim are unreasonable then yes as seen in Roberts |
| What is direct intention? | Where a consequence is wanted (or desired) |
| Which type of recklessness is used currently in the UK? | Cunningham recklessness (Subjective recklessness) |
| What is the Cunningham recklessness test? | The test requires proof that 1) D was aware of the existence of the unjustifiable risk 2) and nevertheless went on to take it |
| Must the actus reus and mens rea coincide? | The principle of coincidence provides that the actus reus and mens rea of a criminal offence must coincide. However, courts have attempted to get round this requirement by creating several theories, such as the ‘continuing act’ theory in Fagan v MPC and 'single transaction theory' in Thabo Meli |
| What is transferred malice? | Where the defendant has the mens rea to commit an offence against a particular person or property, but he commits the actus reus of that offence against a different person or property as it gets transferred as seen in Latimer (belt case) |
| What are strict liability offences? | Strict liability offences are those which do not require mens rea to be proved in respect of AT LEAST one element of the actus reus. As seen in Woodrow |
| What are the two main types of homicide? | 1) Murder 2) Manslaughter |
| Which case defined what grievous means and what does it mean? | It was defined in DDP v Smith: Grievous=Really serious (it's also up to the jury to decide whether something is serious or not) |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.