A2 Law Case Test

?
  • Created by: Seacon1
  • Created on: 26-09-15 18:22
Definition of murder
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queens peace with malice aforethought.
1 of 43
R v Adams
1) A doctor is entitled to do all that is necessary to relieve pain and suffering, even if that shortens life - Double effect - reason has to be to relieve P + S... 2) It is just as much murder to shorten life by days or weeks as it is years
2 of 43
AG's Reference
The foetus or child must be born alive and die from its injuries to be considered a reasonable person in being
3 of 43
Malcherek v Steel
Turning off life support does not break the chain of causation
4 of 43
Matthews v Alleyne
Forsight of consequences is evidence from which the jury may infer intention
5 of 43
Vickers
Specific intent to cause GBH or death
6 of 43
s.54(1)
Where a person (D) kills or is a party to the killing of another (V), the defendant is not to be convicted of murder if...... (Next 3 Cards)
7 of 43
s.54(1)(a)
D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of self-control,
8 of 43
s.54(1)(b)
The loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger
9 of 43
s.54(1)(c)
A person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
10 of 43
Duffy
So subject to passion they are no longer a master of their own mind
11 of 43
Baillie
A time lapse (cooling off period) is evidence for the jury to consider when assessing if the D was suffering from a loss of self control
12 of 43
Dawes
The loss of self control does not have to be sudden
13 of 43
s.54(2)
It does not matter whether or not the loss of control was sudden
14 of 43
s.54(3)
In subsection (1)(c) the reference to “the circumstances of D” is a reference to all of D's circumstances other than those whose only relevance to D's conduct is that they bear on D's general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint.
15 of 43
Asmelash
The effect of intoxication cannot be included in the circumstances of the D
16 of 43
Clarke
Provocation failed as the D electrocuted the V and a RM would not have killed in the same way.
17 of 43
s.54(4)
Subsection (1) does not apply if, in doing or being a party to the killing, D acted in a considered desire for revenge.
18 of 43
Ibrams and Gregory
Revenge case
19 of 43
s.54(5)
On a charge of murder, if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to the defence under subsection (1), the jury must assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.
20 of 43
s.54(6)
For the purposes of subsection (5), sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to the defence if evidence is adduced on which, in the opinion of the trial judge, a jury, properly directed, could reasonably conclude that the defence
21 of 43
s.55(2)
A loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger if subsection (3), (4) or (5) applies.
22 of 43
s.55(3)
D's loss of self-control was attributable to D's fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person.
23 of 43
Ward
There was a fear of serious violence so he protected his brother
24 of 43
s.55(4)
D's loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which.... (Next 2 cards)
25 of 43
s.55(4)(a)
Constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character
26 of 43
s.55(4)(b)
Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
27 of 43
Clinton
The words relating to infidelity should be disreagrded as a qualifying trigger... Remaining factors aloe were not of an extremely grave character nor would they cause the appellant to have a justifiable sense of being wronged
28 of 43
Zebedee
He had not been justifiably seriously wronged
29 of 43
s.2(1)
A person (“D”) who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which (Next 2 Cards)
30 of 43
s.2(1)(a)
Arose from a recognised medical condition
31 of 43
s.2(1)(b)
Substantially impaired D's ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A)
32 of 43
s.2(1A)
Those things are (Next 3 Cards)
33 of 43
(a)
To understand the nature of D's conduct
34 of 43
(b)
To form a rational judgment
35 of 43
(c)
To exercise self-control
36 of 43
s.2(1)(c)
Provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing
37 of 43
s.2(1B)
For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D's conduct if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing, D to carry out that conduct.
38 of 43
Golds (2014)
The law requires the jury to be satisfied that the D's impairment was 'significant or appreciable'
39 of 43
Tandy
Alcohol Dependancy Syndrome can be used if the brain is inured through alcohol or the drinking is wholly involuntary
40 of 43
Deitchmann
Have to assess if without intoxication they still would have been substantially impaired
41 of 43
Wood
Must separate voluntary drinking from involuntary drinking
42 of 43
Stewart
The jury has to assess if the D's drinking was voluntary
43 of 43

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

1) A doctor is entitled to do all that is necessary to relieve pain and suffering, even if that shortens life - Double effect - reason has to be to relieve P + S... 2) It is just as much murder to shorten life by days or weeks as it is years

Back

R v Adams

Card 3

Front

The foetus or child must be born alive and die from its injuries to be considered a reasonable person in being

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Turning off life support does not break the chain of causation

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Forsight of consequences is evidence from which the jury may infer intention

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all General resources »