Other slides in this set

Slide 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

Assault Section 18
AR ­ The D must cause the V AR ­ D must maliciously and unlawfully cause a wound or
to apprehend Immediate GBH on another person.
Unlawful Physical Violence. JCC v Eisenhower ­ wound = breaking both layers of skin.
Ireland ­ silent phone calls. DPP v Smith ­ GBH = very serious harm
MR ­ I or R as to the V's MR ­ Intention to wound or do some GBH.
apprehension of Immediate
Unlawful Physical Violence ­ 5 Established in R v Parmenter
Lamb ­ no MR, apprehend
means expect not fear
1 Offences
Section 20
AR ­ D must
Constanza ­ words alone Against the maliciously and
Tuberville v Savage ­ words
can negate an assault.
Persons Act
1861
4 unlawfully inflict a
wound or GBH on
Smith v SI of Woking Police ­ another person.
immediate not necessarily 3 JCC v Eisenhower ­
instant
Battery
2 Section 47
AR ­ The D must carry
wound = breaking
of both layers of
AR ­ The D must apply Unlawful out and Assault or skin
Physical Force on another Person. Battery which causes DPP v Smith ­ GBH
Collins v Wilcock - touching ABH to another = very serious
MR ­ I or R as to the application of person. harm
Unlawful Physical Force ­ Venna ABH defined in Miller MR ­ I or R as to
Thomas ­ Touching Clothing MR ­ I or R as to the some harm.
Haystead v CC of Derbyshire ­ minor Assault or Battery. Mohan ­ direct
injuries Defined in Roberts Woolin - oblique…read more

Slide 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

Definition ­ The unlawful Malice Aforethought ­ an
Intervening Acts
killing of another human intention to cause death of
3rd Party Involved ­ R v
being under the queens serious injury.
Pagget, foreseeable and
peace with malice R v Cunningham ­ HofL,
reasonable response.
aforethought. Lord Coke intention to cause serious
V's Attempt to escape ­
(1604) harm is enough.
1 Direct, R v Mohan, D's aim.
Oblique, R v Woolin, Virtually
R v Williams, be in
proportion to the threat.
Unlawful Killing (AR) ­
Refused Medical
lawful if in self defence, Certain.
abortion or turning off a
life machine, R v
7 Attention ­ R v Blaue,
take the V as you find
Murder them.
Malcherels & Steel.
2 Common Law
Offence
Inadequate Medical
Treatment ­ R v Jordan,
Human Being (AR) ­ a foetus
operating and
is not classed as a human
being as a human being has
3 4 6 substantial cause.
Under the Queen'
to have `an existence
independent of the mother' s Peace (AR) ­ the 5 Factual Causation - criminally
Attorney General's killing of an liable if his conduct made a
Reference (no 3 of 1994) enemy during was significant contribution to the
(1996) - `violence towards a is not murder. death. But For test, R v White
foetus which results in harm Killing a prisoner Legal Causation ­ must be more
suffered' after the baby has of war would than a minimal cause with no
been born alive can give constitute intervening actions to break the
criminal liability. murder. chain of causation.…read more

Slide 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

Definition ­ A partial DR and Intox ­ 2 situations An explanation of D's
defence that will reduce the D is suffering from DR and acts ­ s52(1)(c), AMF
D's conviction from Murder Intox simultaneously, Jury provides an
to Voluntary Manslaughter. should disregard Intox and explanation for D's
Sentence is no longer consider DR, R v Dietschmann. actions.
mandatory but to the Alcohol dependency becomes S52(1)(d), this
judges discretion 1 the RMC, Jury should follow
normal rules to see if RMC
explanation is
provided if the A was
Abnormality of mental
functioning ­ a condition
6 cause the AMF, R v Wood. a the cause or at least
significantly
that is so different from contributing to the V'
that of an ordinary man Diminished
Responsibility
5 s death.
that the reasonable man
will regard it as abnormal, S52 Coroners and
Substantial Impairment of
R V Byrne 2 Justice Act 2009
4 Mental Responsibility ­ S52
Arsing from a Recognised Medical Condition ­ 3 (1)(b) ­ Understand the nature
of his conduct,
Medical evidence is necessary to support the claim. It Form a rational Judgement,
is for the jury to decide if the D has a RMC that caused Exercise self Control.
the abnormality. R v Egan ­ `the word
R v Speake ­ Mental Deficiency substantial meant more than
R v Smith ­ Pre-menstrual Tension some trivial degree of
R v Gittens ­ Chronic Depression impairment, but less than
R v Ahluwalia ­ Battered Woman Syndrome total impairment'.…read more

Slide 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

Definition ­ This defence replace provocation. Objective Test
LOC does not have to be sudden a time lapse between the s.54(1) ­ Court will ask
qualifying trigger and the reaction can still be LOC. The whether a person of D's own
longer the delay the less likely the defence will hold as it sex & age, with a normal
will be more likely a pre-meditated murder. degree of tolerance and self-
Qualifying Triggers
1 restraint and in the D's
circumstances would have
s.55(3) ­ LOC is triggered by acted in the same way to D.
a fear of serious violence, Loss of Control s.54(3) ­ `circumstances', all
involves a subjective test, S54 & S55 things except those that
unreasonable fears still Coroners and affect D's capacity for SR & T
qualify, Fear must be against
the D or an identifies person
2 Justice Act Relevant ­ years of abuse
Non-relevant ­ aggressive
2009
(not general public). personality
s.55(4) ­ TSOD must amount 4 R v Mohammed
to circumstances of an
extremely grave character, D
3 Limitations - s.55(6), 3 restrictions on the availability of
must have a justifiable sense the qualifying triggers.
of being seriously wronged (a) ­ If the D did something to incite the serious violence
(objective), R v Doughty. to provide an excuse for violence ­ disregard, R v
s.55(5) ­ both or a Johnson.
combination of factors from (b) - If the D did something to incite the TSOD causing his
s.55(3) and s.55(4) may be sense of being seriously wronged, disregard
present. (c) ­ anything said or done in connection with sexual
infidelity is to be disregarded, AG for Jersey v Holly.…read more

Slide 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

Definition ­ sometimes called Mens Rea ­
Constructive Manslaughter. R v D needs to have the MR of the Unlawful Act. E.g.
Lowe ­ There must be an act not If the act is Assault ­ I or R as to causing the V to
apprehend serious violence.
omission.
1 DPP v Newbury and Jones ­ No need for D to
Unlawful Act ­ act must be foresee that his acts may cause `Death or Serious
criminal not tortuous. 5 Injury'.
Must have unlawful act e.g. A,
B, s.47, s.20, s.18, Burglary,
Theft, Robbery etc. Unlawful &
Franklin ­ no knowledge of Dangerous Act Causation ­
Victim, no criminal act. 2 Manslaughter Dalby ­ V injected voluntary
Lamb ­ No fear therefore no breaks chain.
Assault and not a criminal act.
4 Kennedy ­ Prepared drug
3 `encouraged or assisted'.
Dias ­ No offence of
Dangerous Act ­ Injecting.
Church ­ Sober & Reasonable Bystander Test Rogers ­ acting in concert (s.
Dawson ­ SARB not aware of 60 year olds conditions. 23 OAPA)
Watson ­ SARB should be aware of 87 year olds Kennedy no 2 ­ no offence
condition. of injecting "in the case of a
Ball ­ what is dangerous should be judged on a fully-informed and
reasonable persons assessment not what D knew or reasonable adult".
thought.…read more

Slide 7

Preview of page 7
Preview of page 7

Slide 8

Preview of page 8
Preview of page 8

Slide 9

Preview of page 9
Preview of page 9

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »