Criminal Law Powerpoint revision

Hi Guys this slightly overlaps with my AQA powerpoint as it has Offences against the person and Mens rea and Actus Reus. But it also includes Murder, Involuntary and voluntary manslaughters aswell as some general defences. Hope its as useful as the last one.

Powerpoint Presentation 127.87 Kb

Slides in this set

Slide 1

Preview of page 1

Recklessness Result Crime
R v G and Another - Clarified law, requires the D's conduct to result
subjective in something that is prohibited.
Is the D aware that there is a risk?
Do they take that risk anyway? 1 4 Conduct Crime
where the conduct (behaviour) of
the D is the AR
Oblique Intention Coincidence Rule
R v Woolin. ­ You know a Need for the AR and MR to
consequence is virtually Mens Rea coincide
`Guilty Mind' Fagan v MPC ­ AR was a
certain to occur, but this was
not what you were aiming for. 2 3 continuing act.
Involuntary acts
Direct Intention You are only ever punishable
R v Mohan ­ Where your Actus Reus in law if the act you
aim is the desired
`Guilty Act' committed was voluntary!
outcome. You want the
consequence of your 2 Burgess ­sleepwalking, the
action to happen. 3 act was involuntary.
Transferred Malice 1 Definition
R v Latimer ­ The MR for The conduct or state of affairs which
the act against the a particular offence prohibits.
intended victim, is The AR is usually committed through
transferred onto the
accidental victim.
4 a voluntary act, taking into account
the surrounding circumstances…read more

Slide 2

Preview of page 2

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
4 unlawfully inflict a
wound or GBH on
Smith v SI of Woking Police ­ another person.
immediate not necessarily 3 JCC v Eisenhower ­
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

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
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

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
that is so different from contributing to the V'
that of an ordinary man Diminished
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

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
(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

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.
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


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »