Criminal Offences and Negligence in AQA AS LAW02

This is designed to accompany Law02 - Criminal Offences against the Person, and the Tort of Negligence - in AQA AS Law.

HideShow resource information
Preview of Criminal Offences and Negligence in AQA AS LAW02

First 190 words of the document:

AQA LAW
LAW 02
CONSOLIDATED REVISION
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
EXAMINATION STYLE QUESTIONS FOR SECTION A 00 02
ESSENTIAL DEFINITIONS 03 09
actus reus mens rea chain of causation
coincidence of actus reus and mens rea contemporaneity rule
how the law deals with omissions strict liability offences
the doctrine of transferred malice the thin skull rule.
FROM ARREST TO THE START OF THE TRIAL 10 12
1. an eitherway offence
2. an indictable offence
3. a question of bail
ISSUES IN SENTENCING 13 15
1. aggravating and mitigating factors
2. the aims of sentencing
3. the range of sentences
PROVING CRIMINAL LIABILITY THE OFFENCES 16
PROVING CRIMINAL LIABILITY WORKED EXAMPLES 17 22
THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
EXAMINATION STYLE QUESTIONS FOR SECTION B 23
ESSENTIAL DEFINITIONS 24 27
Duty of care breach of duty damage
damages remoteness of damage res ipsa loquitur
THE PROCEDURE TO TRIAL IN A NEGLIGENCE CASE 28 30
Examples of procedure from claim to trial
CALCULATING DAMAGES 31 32
How to set out your answer in calculating damages
PROVING LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE 33 37
Worked examples of how to prove liability for negligence
1

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

LAW 02 SECTION A INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
EXAMINATION STYLE QUESTIONS FOR SECTION A
Tuesday 2 June 2009 1.30pm to 3.00pm
1. George shared a flat with Nina. Whilst Nina was out, Khalid came round to play a video
game with George. Nina intensely disliked Khalid. George was losing and began accusing
Khalid of cheating, Khalid lost his temper and smashed his game controller into George's face.
George's face was deeply cut and started to bleed heavily.…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

ESSENTIAL DEFINITIONS
Actus reus
A criminal offence usually requires both a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty
mind (mens rea). The actus reus of a crime is the voluntary, deliberate act of
the defendant. If the defendant's act is not voluntary, there can be no
crime. This can be seen in Hill v Baxter (1958). In this case the court gave
examples of situations where a driver of a car would not be driving
voluntarily.…read more

Page 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

Mens rea
Mens rea is the Latin phrase for the `guilty mind'. In most but not all crimes
(strict liability offences), it is necessary to prove the state of mind of the
defendant was `guilty' at the time he committed the actus reus.
The main levels of mens rea are (1) direct intent, (2) indirect intent, and (3)
recklessness. The mens rea can also be negligence but only where the
negligence is so gross as to be criminal: Adomoko (1994).…read more

Page 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

Chain of Causation
In order to prove the defendant committed a crime, we must show that it
was the act of the defendant that caused the injury to the victim and not
some other cause. In other words, there must be a direct link from the
defendant's conduct to the consequence for the victim. This is known as
the chain of causation.
In most cases causation is not an issue.…read more

Page 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

The Court disagreed and said that
the stabbing was the substantial, operating cause of the victim's death. The
chain of causation was unbroken. The conviction for murder was upheld.…read more

Page 7

Preview of page 7

Here's a taster:

Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea - contemporaneity rule
In order for a criminal offence to take place, both the actus reus and the
mens rea must be present at the same time (unless it is a strict liability
offence). In most cases, the defendant forms the guilty intention, then
more or less immediately commits the guilty act, and the victim is injured
or killed (Camplin, 1978).…read more

Page 8

Preview of page 8

Page 9

Preview of page 9

Here's a taster:

HOW THE LAW DEALS WITH OMISSIONS
In Law, the normal rule is that an omission (failure to do something)
cannot make a person guilty of an offence. For example, if A is drowning
and B does not hold out his hand to save him, B has committed no
offence.
However, for common law crimes an omission may be sufficient for the
actus reus, the guilty act, where the defendant has a duty of care towards
the victim, and breaches that duty.…read more

Page 10

Preview of page 10

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »