Criminal Law

Mindmap of main points for a2 law on ocr board :) bit hectic but yer!

HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • Criminal Law
    • Actus Reus
      • Ommissions
        • General rule: an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence
          • Stephen J in 19th Century case: "A sees B drowning and is able to save him by holding out his hand.  A abstains from doing so in order that B may be drowned.  A has committed no offence
          • There are 6 exceptions to this general rule where the defendant has a duty of care.
            • Voluntary
              • Stone v Dobbinson (1977)
            • Statutory
              • E.g. failing to report a road traffic accident
            • Contractual
              • Pitwood (1902)
            • Relationship
              • Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
            • Duty through an official position
              • Dytham (1979)
            • Duty arising through a chain of events
              • Miller (1983)
              • Santana - Burmudes (2003)
        • There are 6 exceptions to this general rule where the defendant has a duty of care.
          • Voluntary
            • Stone v Dobbinson (1977)
          • Statutory
            • E.g. failing to report a road traffic accident
          • Contractual
            • Pitwood (1902)
          • Relationship
            • Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
          • Duty through an official position
            • Dytham (1979)
          • Duty arising through a chain of events
            • Miller (1983)
            • Santana - Burmudes (2003)
        • The Duty of Doctors - the decision to stop treating a patient is not a criminal ommission if it is in the patients best interets
          • Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)
      • Causation
        • Intervening acts
          • An act of a third party
          • Victims own Act
            • Must be sufficiently serious and independant of D's conduct
          • A natural but unpradictable event
        • Legal Cause
          • De Minimus Rule
            • Kimsey (1996)
            • "More than a slight or trifling link."
          • Thin Skull Rule
            • Blaue (1975)
        • Medical Treatment
          • General Rule - Medical treatment won't break the chain of causation
          • Smith (1959)
            • Poor treatment affecting recovery up to 75% but original attacker was still convicted...
              • "substancial and operative cause"
            • Cheshire (1991)
              • D convicted after tracheotomy goes wrong.
                • Despite wounds being "virtually healed". Treatment must be "totally independant" of D's actions.
              • Jordan (1956)
                • Defendant was aquitted - very unusual and critisised decision
                  • Gave antibiotics which v was alergic to - described as "palpably wrong"
        • Factual Cause
          • But For test
            • Paget (1983)
      • The physical element of a crime
        • An act, Failure to act or state of affairs.
          • State of affairs are rare cases in which the defendant is guilty even though they have not commited the actus reus voluntarily
            • Larsonneur (1933)
            • Winzar v Cheif Constable of Kent (1983)
          • Act or ommision must be voluntary
            • Mitchell (1983)
            • Hill v Baxter (1958)
    • Mens Rea
      • Intention
        • Direct
          • Intending a specific consequence to occur.
        • Oblique
          • D's actions bringing about a consequence they didn't intend.
            • Shankland (1986)
        • AKA Specific intention
        • Defined in Mohan (1975): "D has to have aimed to bring about the prohibited consequence.  Motive is not relevant as to whether the defendant has intention.
      • Recklessness
        • We now only have subjective recklessness.
          • Caldwell(2003)
        • AKA Basic Intention
      • Transferred Malice
        • Latimer (1886)
        • Pembliton
      • The mental element or state of mind that D must possess at the time of committing the conduct stated in the Actus Reus.
      • Knowledge
        • Sweet v Parsley
      • Coincidence of AR and MR
        • Thabo Meli v R (1954)
        • Church (1965)
    • Strict Liability
      • Crimes that do not require mens rea
        • Pharmaceutical society of GB c Storkwain LTD. (1986)
      • Absolute Liability
        • Larsonneur (1933)
        • Winzar v Cheif Constable of Kent (1983)
      • Part SL crimes
        • Prince (1875)
        • Hibbert (1869)
      • No Fault/Due dilligence usually unavailable
        • Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)
        • Gammon Tests
          • Gammon (Hong Kong) LTD. v Att. Gen. of Hong Kong (1984)
          • 1) presumtion can only be set aside if words of act make it clear the crime is one of SL.
            • 2) presumption is particularly strong for truly criminal crimes
              • 3) Presumption can only be displaced if the law is concerned with public safety.
                • 4) should only apply where it increases vigilence
      • No defence of mistake
        • Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)
        • Sherraz v De Rutzen (1895)
      • Not many common law SL offences
        • Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay news (1979)
      • Courts presume mens rea is needed
        • Sweet v Parsley
      • For: public protection, social unity, encourage higher standards, easier to enforce, save time, save money, mostly small fines, blameworthiness can be taken into account when sentencing.
        • Against: imposes liability on the blameless, those unaware of risk may be liable, no evidence it improves standards, contrary to h/r, social stigma
    • Theft
      • s1 = definition of theft
        • "dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."
      • S2 doesnt define honesty but give occasions when a persons actions might be considered honest.
        • 2(1)(a) - if you believe you have a legal right to the goods
          • Robbinson (1977)
        • 2(1)(b) - if you believe you would have had consent.
          • Holden (1991)
        • 2(1)(c) - if the owner cannot reasonably be found
          • Small (1988)
      • The main test for dishonesty is set down in Ghosh (1982)
        • 1) dishonest by the standards of reasonable person? 2) did D realise their actions were dishonest by this standard?
      • Dishonesty is a matter for the jury
        • Feely
        • Inportance of considering your own reasonable standards of honesty.
          • Boggeln v Williams
          • Gilks
          • Landy
      • S3 = appropriation
        • "Any assumption of the rights of the owner"
          • Anderton v Burnside
          • Morris (1983)
          • Pitham v Hehl (1977)
          • Lawrence (1971)
          • Gomez (1993)
          • Hinks (2000) LEADING CASE
          • Atakpu and Abrahams (1994)
          • R v Hopkins (1997)
          • Dip Kaur v Chief Constable for Hampshire (1981)
      • S4 = Property
        • "money and all other property real or personal including...tangible property
          • Personal property
            • Includes body parts - Kelly and Lindsay (1998)
            • Is disgarded matter property? Yes - R v Marshall
            • Illegal drugs can be property - R v Smith (2011)
          • Intangible property
            • Information not intangible property - Oxford v Moss (1979)
            • Electricity not property - Lowe v Blease (1970)
            • Preddy (1996) - figures on a screen not property
              • Sorted in Theft Amendment act.
          • 4 (3) - wild plants not property unless picked for material gain.
            • 4(4) - wild animals are not property.
              • 4(2) - doesn't usually include things that are part of the land.
          • Passage of ownership
            • R v McHugh (1976)
            • Corcoran v Wheat (1977
          • S5 - belonging to another
            • "property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having posession or control of it, having any propriety rights or interests."
            • Davidge v Bunnet (1984)
              • Att Gen Ref 1 of (1983)
                • R v Marshall
                  • R v Turner (1971)
                    • R v Rostrain (2003)
                      • Boggeln v Williams
                        • Landy and Gilks
                          • Greestain (1975)
                            • Woodman (1974)
                              • Collingson (2000)
                                • Webstar (2006)
      • S 6 - Intention to permanently deprive
        • Borrowing may amount to perminant deprevision
          • DPP v Lavender (1994)
          • R V Vellumyl (1989)
          • R v Lloyd (1985)
          • R v Beachham (1857)
        • Any effect on the quality, quantity, appearance or value may make borrowing permanent deprevision
    • Burglary
      • S9 of the TA (1968)
        • 9(1)(a)
          • Enters a building or part of a building with intent to steal, inflict GBH or do unlawful damage
        • 9(1)(b)
          • Having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser D steals or attempts to steal or inflicts or attempts to inflict GBH.
        • Entry
          • "Effective and substancial"
            • Collins (1972)
              • effective entry
                • Brown (1985)
                  • Doesn't need to be either
                    • Ryan (1996)
        • Building or part of a building
          • Includes inhabbited places
            • B and S v Leathley (1979)
            • Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986)
          • Part of a building
            • Walkington (1979)
              • Untitled
  • An act, Failure to act or state of affairs.
    • State of affairs are rare cases in which the defendant is guilty even though they have not commited the actus reus voluntarily
      • Larsonneur (1933)
      • Winzar v Cheif Constable of Kent (1983)
    • Act or ommision must be voluntary
      • Mitchell (1983)
      • Hill v Baxter (1958)
  • Foresight of consequences is not the same as intention, only evidence for the jury to infer it.
  • R v Scalley (1995)
    • Judge misdirection- jury not told that they could convict but did not have to.
    • R v Woollin
      • After misdirectrion - HOL used Nedrick without 2 questions and swopping infer for find.
      • R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
        • Jury not given the 'may find' step but conviction was upheld because it was "impossible" to see how the jury would not have found intention.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »