LAW (LA3) -Offences

•AR- Words (Wilson), actions (Ireland) or both (Read v Coker). Lord Steyn: A thing said is a thing done'. V must apprehend (believe) immediate violence will occur (lamb;light;logdon), there is no need to prove the violence would actually occur (Ramos). Immediate simply means imminent threat or near future - the immediate future. If V believes they could be attacked at any moment immediacy is satisfied (Constanza).

•MR- Intention or subjective recklessness (Cunningham) as to the AR. Aim and purpose (Mohan), or realize the risk that it could result and taking that risk. 

•AR- No need for harm to occur, the slightest touching is sufficient (Collins v Wilcock) providing it is more than everyday contact. Touching a skirt (Thomas). Occur through action (Fagan V MPC) or omission (Miller). Direct or indirect (DPP V K; Haystead).

•MR- Intention or subjective recklessness (Cunningham) as to the AR. Aim and purpose (Mohan), or realize the risk that it could result and yet go ahead and take that risk. 

•AR- The Assault or Battery causing actual bodily harm.

•Injury = not so trivial it would be regarded as insignificant (Chan Fook). Can include something that interferes with V’s health or comfort (Miller). Physical or Psychological (Ireland;Burstow). -Psychological must be more than mere emotion & medically evidenced.

•Causation: D’s voluntary conduct must = factual (White) and legal (Pagett) cause of ABH.

  •MR- (ASSAULT/BATTERY) Intention or subjective recklessness (Cunningham) as to the AR. Aim and purpose (Mohan), or realize the risk that it could result and yet go ahead and take that risk. NB: No need to prove D intended or was reckless as to the ABH just that they have the MR for the assault or battery (Savage). 

•AR- Wound = both layers of skin broken, internal bleeding is not a wound (JCC V Eisenhower). GBH = Serious harm (Smith;Saunders) – what the ordinary man in the street regards as serious. Physical or psychological (Constanza) or transmission of a disease (Dica;Konzani). Jury can take into account: age & health of V when deicing if injuries = serious (Bollom). 

•Causation: Causation: D’s voluntary conduct must = factual (White) and legal (Pagett) cause of wound/GBH.

•MR- Intention or subjective recklessness as to causing some harm, D need not  intend or foresee the wound/GBH (Mowatt). He need only intend or foresee that some harm might occur (DPP V A). 

•AR- Wound = both layers of skin broken, internal bleeding is not a wound (JCC V Eisenhower). GBH = Serious harm (Smith;Saunders) – what the ordinary man in the street regards as serious. Physical or psychological (Constanza) or transmission of a disease (Dica). Jury can take into account :age & health of V when deicing if injuries = serious (Bollom). NB: If PC involved prove D resisted lawful arrest..

•Causation: Causation: D’s voluntary conduct must = factual (White) and legal (Pagett) cause of wound/GBH.

•MR- Intention (direct or oblique) to cause serious harm (GBH). Must be D’s aim or purpose (Mohan) . If the D has a different aim then the jury may direct the jury to oblique intent under Nedrick;Woollin guidelines. They can find intent if satisfied that D foresaw GBH as virtual certainty. Isn’t automatically intent but strong evidence from which the jury can find intent but don’t have to (Matthews & Alleyne). 

* In addition section 18 includes GBH arising from intent to resist lawful arrest. It must be D’s aim or purpose to cause some harm (whilst resisting lawful arrest) or realised the risk an still went ahead to take that risk (Morrison). There is no need to prove intention or recklessness as to wound/GBH as injuries are associated with resisting arrest (same MR as section 20)

•Common law offence attracting mandatory life sentence •AR- Committed by a VOLUNTARY ACT or an OMISSION.

Omission: D had a legal duty to act, but fails to act, resulting in V’s death:

Duty arising from a dangerous situation (Miller), Special relationship (Gibbins and Proctor), Contractual duty (Pittwood), Assumption of responsibility (Stone and Dobinson).

NB: D’s conduct must be unlawful and he must be in control, acting voluntarily.

•Causation- Murder = result crime so causation must be established:

D’s voluntary conduct/Omission must = factual (White) and legal (Pagett) cause of V’s death.

•MR- Intention to kill or cause serious harm: Direct intention- Simple direction: Aim or purpose (Mohan) or Oblique intent- Nedrick/Woollin direction: Jury satisfied D foresaw death or serious injury as a virtual certainty, this is strong evidence from which jury can find intention (Matthews & Alleyne) 

Factual causation : ‘But for’ test (White) But for D’s conduct, the consequences wouldn’t have happened

Legal causation: De minimis principle (Pagett) D doesn't have to be sole or main cause, simply make more than a minimal contribution

Intervening Acts: -3rd person  (Cheshire) Only where 3rd party's actions are regarded as being ‘extraordinary’ and so potent in bringing about the consequence that D’s contribution is regarded as insignificant.

-Acts of victim (Roberts) Only when V does something unexpected & unforeseeable will it break the chain of causation, self neglect doesn’t break chain

-Acts of God; Something unforeseeable & unexpected

Thin skull rule (Blaue) D must take V as he finds them

Transferred Malice

•Where D’s intended victim is different from the actual V, the MR can be transferred, providing D had the MR for intended victim (Latima). MR cant be transferred from different crimes i.e. Person to property (Pembilton).

Coincidence

•The AR and MR in criminal law must coincide. Two principles:

Continuing act- As long as the MR was there at some stage, it can be regarded as a continuing act and so coincidence satisfied (Fagan)

Single transaction principle-  Sequence of events that cannot be separate, so long the MR was present at some point of transaction coincidence satisfied (Thabo Mali).

•Unlawful act: Must be a criminal offence, not breach of civil law (Franklin). It must be an act not an omission (Lowe). The  act in itself must be unlawful, not something that becomes unlawful (Jennings). The elements of the unlawful act (base crime) must be prove in full-AR/MR (Lamb). The unlawful act can be any criminal offence, even if it is aimed at property (Mitchell).

•Dangerous act: Dangerousness is an objective test (Church test), there must be an obvious risk (to the reasonable person) that some harm would result from D’s actions, confirmed in Dawson.

•Causation: D’s conduct must = factual (White) and legal (Pagett) cause of V’s death.

•Based on D having a duty. Offence = committed where D owes them a duty of care, breaches that duty in a negligent way and causes V’s death.

•Stage 1: Duty to act must be established: under normal rules of negligence or a duty arising in the criminal law governing omissions.

•Stage 2: There must be a breach of duty: established using civil law- according to the standards of the reasonable man or reasonable competent professional.

•Stage 3: Obvious risk of death: Objective test, must be obvious risk of death to the reasonable man.

•Stage 4: Breach must cause death: legal and factual causation.

•Stage 5: It must be grossly negligent: No need to give jury specific guidance as to MR. However, where there is subjective or objective recklessness this will provide an indication that there is gross negligence. Other forms of MR would also suffice (Adomako-Lord Hewart)