Model Answers Law03

These are full marks model answer frameworks for answering any question in Law03 following the essay technique 'IDEA' 

All you need is to add the application to the case in the question you're answering. 

Topics include-

-Murder

-Unlawful Act Manslaughter

-Gross Negligence Manslaughter

-Diminished Responsibility

-Loss of Control

- 5 defences (Insanity, Intoxication, Self Defence, Automatism, Consent)

-Theft

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: laura
  • Created on: 01-03-15 23:18
Preview of Model Answers Law03

First 298 words of the document:

IDEA : MURDER
I
D could be charged with V's murder.
D
Murder is the common law offence defined by Lord Coke in 1797 as "the
unlawful killing of another human being under the queens peace with
malice afterthought expressed or implied"
E
The killing must be deemed unlawful and therefore not in self defence
etc, the killing must be of another human being, meaning that the victim
cannot be a brain stem dead patient or a foetus, it cannot take place
under the queens peace meaning that a killing cannot be classed as
murder if it was against an active enemy in warfare (Clegg)
It must also be proven that D is the cause of A's death. It must be proven
that they were the factual cause of the death and therefore the 'but for'
test is used. 'But for' the D's actions, would V be dead? (White) it must
then be proven that D is the legal cause of V's death. To be the legal
cause, you do not have to be the only cause, just a more than minimal
operating cause (Smith, Cheshire, Pagett) and there cannot be any
events which break the chain of causation, novus actus intervenies. This
can be things such as victims unforseeable acts (Williams) 'acts of God'
such as lightening strikes and palpably wrong medical care (Jordan)
The MR of murder as defined in Lord Cokes classic definition is "malice a
forethought expressed or implied" meaning that For D to have the
necessary MR for murder they can either intent to kill or intent to commit
Gbh.

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

IDEA: LOSS OF CONTROL
I
D could potentially use the partial defence of loss of control.
D
Loss of Control comes from s.54 of the Coroners and justice act 2009.
E
To use this defence the D must have lost control, this loss of control need
not be sudden but a long time lapse could lead a jury to see 'considered
desire for revenge' (Ibrams &Gregory) this loss must be due to a
qualifying trigger.…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

IDEA: DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
I
D could potentially use a partial defence of diminished responsibility.
D
Diminished responsibility defence comes from s.2 (1) homocide act 1957.…read more

Page 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

IDEA: UNLAWFUL ACT MANSLAUGHTER
I
D can be charged with Unlawful Act Manslaughter
D
E
The D must commit an unlawful act. This must be a criminal act, not a
civil wrong (Franklin) It must also be an act not an omission (Khan &
Khan).…read more

Page 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

IDEA: INTOXICATION
I
D could be use the defence of Intoxication
D
Intoxication can be through alcohol or drugs
E
You must first ask whether the D was intoxicated voluntarily or
involuntarily. Voluntary intoxication is where the D has chosen to either
consume alcohol or drugs. Involvuntary intoxication is where the D's drink
has been spiked or a drug they were taking had an unforeseen side
effect.…read more

Page 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

IDEA: INSANITY
I
D could potentially use a defence of insanity
D
The rules for Insanity come from (M'Naghten 1843)
E
A defendant must be laboring under a defect of reason, from a disease of
the mind causing them to not know the nature and quality of their act and
to not know what he was doing was wrong.…read more

Page 7

Preview of page 7

Here's a taster:

IDEA: SELF DEFENCE
I
D could potentially use a defence of self defence
D
Self defence is a common law defence, now consolidated in statute.
(Criminal justice and Immigration Act 2008)
E
You can use self defence to defend yourself, another person or your
property.…read more

Page 8

Preview of page 8

Here's a taster:

IDEA: AUTOMATISM
I
D could potentially use a defence of Automatism
D
Automatism is an act done by the muscles without the control of the mind
(Bratty)
E
A defendant must show a complete loss of control to use Automatism.
This requires that there is a `total destruction of voluntary control' and
impared or reduced control is insufficient.…read more

Page 9

Preview of page 9

Here's a taster:

IDEA: CONSENT
I
D could potentially use a defence of consent.
D
The general rule of consent is that you cannot consent to more than
minor harm. Your consent can be implied through the everyday joslings
of life (Wilson v Pringle) A defence of consent can be used when the D
has given permission for more than minor harm.
E
Consent must be valid.…read more

Page 10

Preview of page 10

Here's a taster:

IDEA: GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER
I
D can be charged with Gross negligence Manslaughter
D
The rules for Gross negligence manslaughter come from (Adamako)
E
The D must have a duty of care towards the V following the rules from
civil law (Donoghue and Stephenson) (Caparo). The D must have then
breached the duty causing the death of the V.…read more

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »