The case of Stone v Dobinson [1977] demonstrates a duty can arise in which situations?
Relationship
Statute
Voluntary Assumption
In which situations can a person have a duty to act?
Statute, Voluntary Assumption, Law Enforcement, Contract of Employment, Marriage
Contract of Employment, Statute, Law Enforcement,. Relationship, Voluntary Relationship, Creating a Dangerous Situation
What does the case of Dytham [1979] demonstrate?
You can have a duty under a law enforcement
You have a duty to act when you see something is not right
Which cases demonstrate a duty to act through creating a dangerous situation?
Instan [1893]
Lewis v CPS [2002]
Lowe [1973]
Miller [1982]
Evans [2009]
What do you have to do to discharge a duty?
Take reasonable steps
Look at the defendants state of mind at the time
Which case stated that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution?
Woolmington v DPP [1935]
Woolmington v DPP [1967]
Which can held conduct has to be voluntary?
Winzar v CS Working Police Station [1983]
Winzar v CC of Kent [1983]
What generally comes after a word meaning 'causing'? i.e. ocassioning
Circumstance
Consequence
What do you have to prove in causation?
Causation in Fact - BUT-FOR-TEST = White [1910]
Causation in Law - SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE = Cheshire [1991]
Causation in Law - SUBSTANTIAL = Cheshire [1991] & OPERATING CAUSE.
What do the cases of Latimer (1866) & Pembilton (1874) demonstrate?
You transfer actus reus from A to B & has to be actus reus of the same crime = transferred malice.
You cannot transfer malice until both the mens rea and actus reus have been committed against both the V's.
What does state of affairs mean?
This is part of the mens rea and the defendants state of mind at the time of their actions
This is part of the actus reus and is a word describing some form of conduct
Which case stated that you can not double transfer transferred malice?
AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1997]
AG Reference (No.2 of 1994) [1998]
Unreasonable mistake is what?
Thinking about the risk and unreasonably concluding it would not happen.
Thinking about the risk and running it anyway
Principle of Contemporaneity - Which cases represent mens rea prior to actus reus?
Thabo Meli [1954]
Church [1965]
Fagan v MPC [1969]
Le Brun [1991]
What is negligence?
Failing to take reasonable steps
Failing to take reasonable care
What is it called when a person fails to give reasonable thought to a risk when a reasonable person would have been aware of the risk?
Unreasonable Interference
Unreasonable Inadvertance
What happened in the case of White [1910]?
Put poison in the V's drink causing them to suffer a heart attack & die. Guilty for murder as his actions caused the V's death.
Put poison in the V's drink causing them to suffer a heart attack & die. Was not the cause of her death = causation was missing & so wasn't guilty of murder. Guilty of attempted murder.
Principle of Contemporaneity - Which cases represent the actus reus occurring prior to the mens rea?
Miller [1992]
The mens rea of intention is split in to two: these two are?
Direct & Oblique
Direct & Opaque
If the defendant intends a consequence, if they desire it, it is their purpose or aim - this is ... intention?
Direct
Oblique
Can a defendant be found to have intended a circumstance even if they have not aimed for the consequence to occur?
Yes - Virtually certain
No
Which case stated that you can be guilty of murder if the defendant knew/realised death or GBH was virtually certain?
Woolinmington v DPP [1935]
Woollin [1998]
Oblique intention is a ... test
Objective
Subjective
Negligence is a ... test.
Intention is a ... test.
Subbjective
Virtual certainty of a consequence is evidence of intention states...
Nedrick [1986]
Nedrick [1985]
Maloney [1985] set out what?
Forseeing something as a natural consequence is evidence of intention.
Forseeing something as a natural consequence cannot be evidence of intention
R v Smith [1974] was about what?
Mistake of fact - defendant damaged property believing it was his own
Mistake of law - defendant damaged property believing it was his own
A consequence has to be highly probable for intention states...
Maloney [1985]
Hancock [1986]
G [2003] defined recklessness as...
'A person acts recklessly with respect to...a) circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exists...b) a result when he is aware that it will occur & it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take that risk.'
'A person acts reckless is he does an act which creates an obvious & serious risk that property will be destroyed or damaged & either a) recognised there was some risk but nevertheless went on to do it or b) gave no thought to the possibility of there being such a risk.'
G [2003] took back the definition of recklessness in which cases?
Cunningham [1957] - meaning of recklessness (if aware of the risk)
Brady [2010] - test - was what they did unjustifiable?
Adomako [1994] - test - was it objective?
Brady [2006] - test - was what they did unjustifiable?
Which cases demonstrated a mistake of fact? (must relate to element in the AR)
DPP v Santana Bermudez [2003]
DPP v Morgan [1976]
DPP v B (A minor) [2000]
Why did G [2003] find Caldwell's definition of recklessness wrong altogether?
The subjective test ran counter to the principles of mens rea & should revert to having an objective test
The objective test ran counter to the principles of mens rea & should revert to having an subjective test
Wounding or causing GBH with intent is under which section of the Offences Against the Person Act?
S.20
S.18
Wounding or Causing GBH, under s.20 OAPA can be committed...
Negligently
Recklessly
Assault Ocassioning Actual Bodily Harm is under which section & what doesn't the act involve?
S.18. ABH doesn't involve wounding or intent
S.47. ABH doesn't involve GBH or wound
'Intentionally or recklessly inflicting unlawful force or violence on V without consent' is what?
Physical Assault (Battery)
Psychic Assault (Assault)
'Intentionally or recklessly causing V to apprehend immediate & unlawful force or violence' is what?
A common law battery is touching someone and causing an injury
True
False
A battery...
only involves proof of contact, no injury.
involves proof of contact causing an injury
A battery has to be in some form hostile or agressive
Which case stated that the contact for a battery has to be unlawful else the actus reus is not complete?
Williams (Gladstone) [1987]
Which case stated that you cannot commit an assault by omission?
An assault can occur
By frightening someone
By making them fear something is going to happen
Assault - Which case stated that words can negate apprehension?
Turberville v Savage (1669)
Constanza [1997]
Ireland v Burstow [1998]
Smith v CS of Working (1983)
What did Ireland v Burstow [1998] prove?
Silence cannot negate an assault.
Silence can negate an assault.
Can an assault occur through words?
No - Constanza [1997]
Yes - Constanza [1997]
What happened in the case of Smith v CS of Working [1983]
an assault occurred because the defendant was on the other side of the window and this was classed as sufficiently imminent
an assault didn't occur because the defendant was on the other side of the window and therefore couldn't touch the V immediately and just frightened the V.
A fear of violence 'within a minute or two' might be sufficient to constitute an assault stated...
Lord Diplock in Ireland [1997]
Lord Steyn in Ireland [1997]
The fact that a defendant did not intend to carry out an attack against the V does not mean he didn't constitute an assault. Which case?
Logdon v DPP [1976]
Williams (Gladstone) [1987] proved that assault was...
a strict liability crime
a full mens rea offence
What is the mens rea of S.18 Wounding with Intent
An intent to wound
An intent to cause GBH
Foresight that serious harm would probably not happen is not the same as an intention to cause GBH - must have ulterior intent (mens rea specifies more than you have to do to commit actus reus)
Bryony [1985]
Bryson [1985]
The actus reus of S.20 Wounding is: the defendant unlawfully either:
Wounded
Inflicted Grevious Bodily Harm
Wounded with intent
Inflicted Actual Bodily Harm
S.20 - GBH is 'really serious bodily harm' states:
DPP v Morgan [1961]
DPP v Smith [1961]
Ireland v Burstow [1998] set out that psychological injuries can fall under s.20 IF...
The V was really frightened
It was a recognisable psychological condition
Under S.47 you need to show that the def. intended or foresaw actual bodily harm
Under s.20 OAPA, for the mens rea, it is necessary to show that the defendant intended or foresaw that the V would suffer GBH
C v Eisenhower [1984] stated a wound is...
a break in the continuity of the whole of the skin.
a scratch that draws blood
The court has held when assessing whether injuries are 'really serious' to constitute GBH, the impact of the injuries on a particular V must be taken in to account states:
Saunders [1985]
Rupert [1974]
Bollom [2003]
Can S.20 involve VERY serious psychological harm?
No - Burstow [1998]
Yes - Burstow [1998]
Chan-Fook [1994] stated that harm...
need not be permanent, but it should 'not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant.'
must be permanent and enough to be 'wholly significant'
DDP v Smith [2006] is about
a womans ponytail being cut off = held to be ABH as no need to show pain because harm includes hurt or damage. Court emphasised hair was an intrinsic part to the identify of individual.
a campaign of domestic violence where the def had caused the V to suffer severe psychological harm but this wasn't concluded as an actual recognised illness.
What happened in the case of Saunders [1985]? (S.20 OAPA)
approached a stranger sitting at the roadside. Asked him what his problem was and he was attacked breaking his nose and suffering other injuries.
approached a stranger sitting at the roadside. asked him what his problem was and he said there wasn't one. punched him in face breaking nose & suffering other injuries.
Mens rea for s.20 is that def must intend or foresee (Cunningham Reckless). Not necessary to show def. believed would cause the V harm. Enough to prove he believed he MIGHT. This point stressed in?
Rush (1994) & DPP v A [2001]
Rushmore (1992) & DPP v A [2001]
Sufficient that the def intended or could forsee some harm will result from actions was proved in...
Savage v Parmenter [1982]
Savage v Parmenter [1992]
What is actual bodily harm?
'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort' of the V - Donovan [1934]
'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort' of the V - Chan-Fook [1994]
Even though technically these could involve ABH, the Crown Prosecution Guidelines recommend charging as battery:
grazes, minor bruising, scratches, abrasions, swellings, reddening of the skin, superficial cuts, a 'black eye'
major bruising, distress, cuts, drawing blood, swellings, a 'black eye'
What is the actus reus of murder?
Unlawful killing of another under the queen's peace
Unlawful killing of another person under the queen's peace
Which case set out that a victim of murder has to be a person?
AG Reference (No.4 of 1992) [1998]
AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1998]
Murder is not unlawful if done in self-defence
Does causation have to be proven in murder?
Yes
What happened in the case of R v Blaue [1975]?
V was extremely drunk and ran away from def who was assaulting him - died when feel in to a gutter & was hit by a car.
Girl refused blood transfusion due to her religion after being stabbed by the def 4 times.
What is the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996 about?
It is now the law that a defendant is liable for murder only if the V died within a year and a day of the def's actions.
It used to be the law that the def would be liable for murder only if the V died within a year and a day of the def's actions & this act abolished the rule as it gave rise to difficulties.
In which case did the V, who was extremely drunk, run away from the def who was assaulting him and died when V fell in gutter & was hit by a car?
Corbett [2000]
Corbett [1996]
Corbett [1998]
Corbett [1975]
In which case was the mens rea of murder established?
Caldwell [1981] - def did not intend to kill but intended to cause GBH = sufficient for murder conviction.
Cunningham [1982] - def did not intend to kill but intended to cause GBH = sufficient for murder conviction.
In what circumstances will the def remain liable for causing the death of V when something intervened between D's conduct & death?
Medical intervention (Cheshire [1991]); V refuses medical treatment (R v Blaue [1975]); D's conduct still operative (Blaue); Reasonable attempt to escape by V (Roberts; Corbett [1996])
V ran away and suffered a heart attack (Cheshire [1991]); Failure of medical intervention by medical staff; D's conduct is operative (Blaue); Def committed an assault made worse by a third party
Prior to the mens rea of murder we use now, what was it known as beforehand that was deemed misleading?
Malice anafterthought
Malice aforethought
Intention to kill (express malice) & intention to inflict GBH (implied malice) - which mindset has to be in use for the mens rea of murder?
Both at the same time
Intention to kill
Intention to inflict GBH
Either one must be in use
Def may not have acted with the purpose of killing or causing GBH but it was an extremely likely result of the def's actions. This was set out in?
Woollin [1999] - tested subjectively (def knew, wanted, desired). Jury may fin intention only if the death or GBH was a virtually certain result.
Cunningham [1982] - tested subjectively (def knew, wanted, desired). Jury may fin intention only if the death or GBH was a virtually certain result.
What is voluntary manslaughter?
Where murder is reduced to manslaughter
The same as murder
Murder will be reduced to voluntary manslaughter in which of these circumstances?
Involuntary Intoxication
Abnormality of mental functioning (diminished responsibility)
Insanity
A loss of self-control
The 3 mens rea's of involuntary manslaughter are...
Intending to do unlawful/dangerous act (Constructive Manslaughter)
Negligence
Recklessness
Gross Negligence
Intention
AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1998] found that for a person to be guilty of constructive manslaughter, it must be proved they performed an act which was:
Negligent, dangerous, caused the death of the V
Unlawful, negligent, caused the death of the V
Unlawful, dangerous, caused the death of the V
R v MD [2004] set out what?
If there is a desire or purpose to intend to kill or cause GBH, don't have to use Woollin. Virtual certainty does not need to be discussed if def had direct intent.
Virtual certainty still needs to be discussed even if the def had a desire or purpose to intend to kill or cause GBH as you need to look at whether the reasonable person would have been aware of the risk.
The Court concluded a negligent omission was not sufficient for constructive manslaughter in which case?
Pittwood (1902)
Which cases demonstrated that an unlawful act, under constructive manslaughter, need not be against a person?
AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1998] & Dhaliwal [2006]
AG Reference (No.4 of 1994) [1998] & Dalby [1982]
The cases of DPP v Newbury [1976] & Goodfellow [1986] proved what?
An offence against property is not successful under constructive manslaughter
An offence against property is successful is caused the death of V
Under constructive manslaughter, the unlawful act must be a crime for it to succeed. In which case did the prosecution fail for constructive manslaughter because there was no unlawful crime?
Dhaliwal [2006] - husband was abusive to wife causing severe emotional trauma = committed suicide. Psychological damage is not a crime or unlawful act.
Goodfellow [1986] - husband was abusive to wife causing severe emotional trauma = committed suicide. Psychological damage is not a crime or unlawful act.
Which case defined 'dangerous' as something likely to cause harm (Constructive Manslaughter)?
Dalby [1982]
Goodfellow [1986]
Church [1966]
Dangerousness is to be tested objectively - not need to show def was aware act was dangerous; question is whether a reasonable person would appreciate its dangerous. This point was demonstrated in?
Dawson (1985)
Dalby (1982)
What set of facts are correct for the case of Watson [1989]?
The V was a frail 87 year old man & def broke in to his house. Man had serious heart condition, suffered a heart attack & died. This wouldn't have been foreseeable to the reasonable person just because of the age of the man. The man wasn't convicted because of this reason.
The V was a frail 87 year old man & def broke in to his house. Man had serious heart condition, suffered a heart attack & died. This would have been foreseeable because of frailty of the old man. The def wasn't convicted because wasn't enough evidence to link burglary to heart attack.
Why was the def found guilty in the case of Rogers [2003]?
Supplied the V with heroin with the knowledge the V would administer it & had a weak heart.
Prepared the heroin & applied the tourniquet to V's arm then V self-injected.
What is the difference between the decision in Dias [2002] & Finlay [2003]?
In Dias the def was not found guilty, even though purchased heroin & prepared syringe for V, because the V broke the chain by administering it themselves. In Finlay the def was not guilty because it was not reasonably foreseeable that the V would administer the heroin straight away when it was prepared.
In Dias the def was not found guilty, even though purchased heroin & prepared syringe for V, because the V broke the chain by administering it themselves. In Finlay the def was liable as self-injection didn't break chain as was reasonably foreseeable.
Def killed V foreseeing a risk of death or serious injury is...
Subjective Negligence Manslaughter
Subjective Recklessness Manslaughter
In the case of Carey [2006], where a girl ran away & suffered a heart attack due to unknown heart condition, why could the def not be convicted under constructive manslaughter?
It wasn't the unlawful, dangerous act that caused the death of the V (the punch) - it was the affray because the def's behaviour caused the V to run away. Reasonable person would not have realised this was likely to cause physical injury.
It wasn't know to the def that the V had a weak heart and that her behaviour would cause the V to suffer a heart attack and therefore the link was missing between the actus reus & mens rea.
The unlawful & dangerous act must cause the death of the V. However this was overlooked in the case of ...
Cato [1987] - def supplied heroin to V & with consent he administered it - V died from overdose. CA held that the unlawful act was the possession of the drugs, not the administration which caused the death. Therefore link was missing.
Cato [1976] - def supplied heroin to V & with consent he administered it - V died from overdose. CA held that the unlawful act was the possession of the drugs, not the administration which caused the death. Therefore link was missing.
Which case set definition of subjective recklessness?
Caldwell [1981]
R v G [2003]
In which case did 2 young doctors admit medication wrongly resulting in death?
Adomako [1994]
Singh [1999]
In which case did the def set fire to his house killing wife, son & other woman as a scam because he wanted to move from his council house but couldn't? REALISING A RISK, HOWEVER SLIGHT, OF PHYSICAL INJURY.
Lidar [2000]
Goodfellow (1986)
Gross negligence is a ... test
Misra & Srivastava [2004] confirmed what degree of risk for gross negligence manslaughter?
Must be a risk of GBH
Must be a risk of death
Gross Negligence isn't just negligence, it is serious negligence. Therefore there are 4 elements which are:
D owed duty of care towards V; D breached the duty; Breach caused V's death; Breach (negligence) so gross as to amount to crime.
D owed duty of care to V; D breached the duty; Breach caused injury; Breach was negligent
In Evans [2009] the def supplied sister with heroin. She began to exhibit signs of overdose but def & mother did not call medical assistance = V died. Why was the sister under a duty to act & had a duty of care?
Due to the relationship (sisters).
Because she created a dangerous situation
A subjective state of mind isn't relevant for Gross Negligence as it is an objective test. However, if there is gross negligence, the state of mind can be relevant because it can make that negligence gross - awareness of the risk could tip the balance. Demonstrated in?
R (On Application of Rowley) v DPP [2003]
R (On Application of Rowley) v DPP [1991]
Why was there a conviction of manslaughter in Singh [1999]?
Def followed up complaints about a defective gas fire within a lodging house he run with his father. Contact a gas fitter who did not reasonably foresee that there was a problem with carbon monoxide and caused the death of a lodger.
Def followed up complaints about defective gas fire within a lodging house he run with his father other than to inspect it himself. Lodger died of carbon monoxide poisoning from the fire.
Actus reus of criminal damage is...
destruction to property belonging to another person without lawful excuse
destruction of or damage to property belonging to another without lawful excuse
damage of property belonging to another without lawful excuse
destruction of or damage to property belonging to another person without lawful excuse
Why was there no criminal damage in the case of A (A Juvenile) v R [1978]?
Spitting on a policeman's coat was held to be an assault not criminal damage
Spitting on a policeman's coat was held not to be criminal damage because of the coats material
What happened in the case of Fiak [2005]
Def flooded a police cell by blocking a toilet = resulting in criminal damage
Def pulled his bed apart in a police cell = resulting in criminal damage
Which section of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 sets out the definition of criminal damage?
S.2(1)
S.4(1)
S.1(1)
S.3(1)
In what case did the def do a karate kick believing no harm would be done & smashed a window? = no mens rea - not guilty.
Avon v Shimmen [1986]
Denton [1982]
Painting on a pavement is criminal damage demonstrated the case of...
Hardman v CC of Avon [1986]
Hardman v CC of Avon [1968]
In which case did the def jump on a policeman's hat resulting in conviction of criminal damage?
A (A Juvenile) v R [1978]
Samuels v Stubbs [1972]
In what case did a hacker access an academic network, delete/add files, left messages & change passwords? Proving need not be tangible property for criminal damage.
Whiteley [1991]
Whiteley [1996]
Property & Belonging to Another is under which section of the Criminal Damage Act 1971
S.6
S.10
S.4
S.11
Def intended or was reckless as to damaging property belonging to another is the mens rea for which crime?
Aggrivated Criminal Damage
Criminal Damage
Without lawful (belief in consent - mens rea for criminal damage) is under which section of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?
S.6(2)(a)
S.5(2)(a)
Without lawful excuse is demonstrated in the case of... where the def set fire to machinery after being asked by his employer to do so.
Denton [1999]
The case of Blake v DPP [1993] stated what?
belief in god's consent is not enough
belief in god's consent is enough
Without lawful excuse is a defence to property under which section of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?
S.5(2)(b)
S.5(2)(c)
Under S.5(2)(b) (without lawful excuse defence to property) - the def must be arguing the damage was done in order to protect the property belonging to the def or another believing two things... What are they?
Property is in need of immediate protection & Means adopted are reasonable in all circumstances
Property was deemed dangerous & means adopted are reasonable in all circumstances
What happened in the case of Hunt (1978)?
Def set fire to bedding in block of flats to demonstrate inadequacy of fire alarms = no defence. Did it to show inadequacy of fire alarms not to protect the property.
Def set fire to bedding in block of flats to demonstrate inadequacy of fire alarms = defence. By proving the inadequacy of the fire alarms - protecting property.
In what case did the mother and another person break in to the child's fathers house to remove the child believing the child was at risk? (Child not property)
Baker & Wilkinson [1997]
Baker & Wilkins [1997]
What is aggrivated criminal damage?
Damage done to property during a burglary
Same as criminal damage except property doesn't have to belong to another
Can aggrivated criminal damage be committed by the defendant damaging his own property?
The case of Sangha [1988] proved what?
Def caused fire in a flat that, unbeknown to him, no one was in. However, a reasonable person would have thought there was a risk = doesn't have to be an endangerment.
Def caused fire in a flat that, unbeknown to him, no one was in. However, a reasonable person would have thought there was a risk = does have to be an endangerment to life.
What is the mens rea of aggrivated criminal damage?
must be shown that def intended to destroy or damage property & must show def intended or was reckless to endangerment of a life due to criminal damage.
must be shown that def intended or was reckless in destroying or damaging property & must show def intended or was reckless to endangerment of a life due to criminal damage.
Steer [1987] proved that
there has to be the risk of endangerment from the criminal damage
that endangerment must be a result of the criminal damage
