UNIT 3

ACTUS REUS

Unlawful killing:

Act or omission - Pittwood, Miller, Stone and Dobinson, Gibbons and Proctor, Statutues

Causation - Factual - White, Pagett. Legal - Kimsey

No intervening act - Medical (Cheshire, Jordan), 3rd party (Pagett), Victims act (Roberts)

Lawful killing examples: Re A, self defence

Reasonable creature: Braidead (Malcherek+Steel) Foetus (Attorney Gen Ref No 3)

Under the queens peace: Killing prisoner of war sufficient

MENS REA:

Direct intent: Cunningham, Vickes

Oblique intent : Woolin, Matthews and Allyne

D must prove they had a LOSS OF CONTROL

- Need not be sudden, Ahluwhalia

The loss of control mustve had a QUALIFYING TRIGGER

- Fear of violence, Ahluwhalia

- Things said or done that constitutes an extremely grave character, Doughty

Infidelity excluded, Clinton

Person of D's SEX AND AGE with normal tolerance and self restraint must act in a similar way

- Eg Camplin

- None of D's other characteristics taken into account, Jersey v Holley

REVENGE IS NOT JUSTIFIED

ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FUNCTIONING

- R v Byrne

Caused by a RECOGNISED MEDICAL CONDITION

- Smith (PMT)

- Gittens (Depression)

- Battererd woman syndrome (Ahluwhalia)

Substantially impared ability to EXERCISE SELF CONTROL, FORM RATIONAL JUDGEMNET AND UNDERSTAND NATURE OF CONDUCT

Which provides an EXPLANATION for defendant being a party to the killing

Abnormality caused by drink/drugs not accepted, alcoholism may be (Tandy)

When a person dies as a result of another persons negligence

Bateman - conduct of accused show such disregard for life and safety of others

Andrews - hgih level of negligence

ACTUS REUS - defined in Adomako

- duty of care, Donoghue v Stevenson

- breach of duty that CAUSED death

- risk of death

MENS REA - gross negligence, Bateman's subjective test

ACTUS REUS:

- Unlawful act, Lamb - must be criminal, not tort

- Act must be dangerous, Church test of ordianry man

- Substantial CAUSE of death

- Omission not sufficient, Lowe

- Transferred malice applies, Mitchell

MENS REA: 

Mens rea for the unlawful and dangerous act, doesnt require MR for death or foreseeing death

ACTUS REUS

- Causing V to APPREHEND VIOLENCE - Logdon, Smith, Ireland

- IMMEDIATE - as part of the current activity. Ireland and Smith.

- Unlawful

MENS REA

- Direct/oblique intent to causing fear or recklesness

ACTUS REUS

Infliction of PERSONAL VIOLENCE

- can be an omission, Santana Bermudez

-any touching may be sufficient, Collins v Wilcock

- touching clothes, Roberts

- Need not be direct, Fagan v MPC or DPP v K

MENS REA

Venna - intention or subjective recklesness

ACTUS REUS:

Assault = assault OR battery

Occasioning = CAUSATION

Actual Bodily Harm = Miller(interferes), Chan Fook(Psychological), Smith(Hair), T v DPP (Consciousness)

MENS REA:

Intention or recklesness for assault or battery - Savage/Roberts

Must foresee risk - Parmenter

ACTUS REUS

WOUNDING:

- Unlawful wounding: break in both layers, JCC v Eisenhower

GBH :

- DPP v Smith = really serious harm

- Burstow = stalking, psychological harm

- Brown and Stratton = minors add up to major

- Martin = need not be direct

- Bollom = child and elderly

- Dica = transmitting disease

MENS REA: maliciously (intention or cunningham recklnessness) inflicting

ACTUS REUS

WOUNDING:

- Malicious unlawful wounding: break in both layers, JCC v Eisenhower

GBH :

- DPP v Smith = really serious harm

- Burstow = stalking, psychological harm

- Brown and Stratton = minors add up to major

- Martin = need not be direct

- Bollom = child and elderly

- Dica = transmitting disease

MENS REA: intent to cause wounding/GBH or resist/prevent arrest

1) Defect of reason - Clarke (more than absentmindedness) 

2) Cuased by a disease of the mind (legal term, not brought on by externals) - Kemp

3) So that D didn't know the nature of his conduct or that what he was doing was wrong - Windle

= NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY

Murder - hospital order restricting D's discharge infidelity

Otheriwse, guardianship order, supervision and treatment order or absolute discharge

1) Involuntary

- mind is not controlling his limbs, Bratty

- Attorney Gen No 2 - Complete lack of awareness 

2) External factor

- Quick(insulin), Hennessey (diabetes)

- must not be SELF INDUCED

Involuntary intoxication - Defendant has committeed the actus reus but not the mens rea 

- Defendant has been spiked, took prescription drugs, or strange reaction to soporific drugs

- Eg Hardie - valium and set wardrobe on fire

- R v Kingston - DRUNKEN INTENT IS STILL INTENT ( must have no mens rea AT ALL )

Voluntary intoxication - defence cannot be used

Eg dutch courage - Gallagher

Slingsby - You can consent to assault or battery. Eg Donovan

Pretty - not Murder

Consent in sports: Consent when it is properly conducted, regulated and supervised

Eg Barnes - only where conduct is sufficulently serious will there be any liability

Heat of the moment excessive force is allowed

When does consent occur? = Normal social interactions, medical procedures

Genuine consent = V must have sufficuent understanding and intelligence

Child, Burrel v Harmer, Fraud, Tabassum

3 situations: defend oneself, defend another, defend ones propert

Is force necessary?

- Pre emptive = R v Beckford, R v Cousins

- Preparing for attack = Att Gen Ref No 2

- Duty to retreat = must show unwillingness to fight, Bir

Is force reasonable?

- Honest belief of circumstances = R v Owino

- Pyschiatric conditions not taken into account = R v Martin

- Excessive force - R v Clegg

- Mistaken = R v Williams(honest), R v Ogrady (drunk)

1) Mandatory life sentence

- Judge has no discretion and doesnt reflect circumstances or degrees of seriousness

2) Self defence

- Subjective, depends on how D viewed the situation

3) Intention lacks clarity

- Molone, foresight of consequence is NOT intention.

- Woolin, intention CAN be found in foresight of consequences

- No distincition between intent to GBH and intent to murder. Cunningham/Vickers

REFORMS

-Division into first degree(life) and second degree(discrentionary sentence)

-Turn self defence into a partial defence to allow sentencing discretion, especially after Martin

Loss of control

- Narrower, sexual infidielty no longer a qualifying trigger. Clinton

-Things said/done must be EXTREMELY GRAVE and prove justifiable sense of being wrong

This is limited. Eg R v Hatter, break up not grave. Eg R v Bowyer, committing a burgulary

Dimished responsibility

- Must be proved impairment provides an explanation = narrower than old defence

- Unclear whether changing terms such as mental functioning from mind will make much difference

REFORMS:

- Law comission have proposed removing loss of control completely. Eg women in abusive relationships kill in emotion, not loss of control

- Legal definition, not medical. Byrne legally insane but knew what he was doing. Hennessey medically didnt know what he was doing but not legally

- Implications of verdict 'notguilty by insanity' - indefinite detention in hospital and social stigma

- Scope of rules means mental disorder negates responsibility. 

REFORMS:

- Butler Committee = new verdict, not guilty by reason of mental disorder

- Royal Commission on Capital Punishment = M'Naghten rules inadequate, mental deficiency factor