Criminal Law - Paper 1 (Fatal Offences) - Flashcards in A Level and IB Law

What sentence does murder carry?

mandatory life
- at least 25 years

1 of 110

What kind of offence is murder?

common law offence

2 of 110

Who defined murder and when?

Lord Coke in C17th

3 of 110

How did Lord Coke define murder in C17th?

the unlawful killing of a human being in
existence under the Queen's peace
with malice aforethought, either express or implied by law

4 of 110

What is the standard of proof for all principles of the actus reus for murder?

all have to apply beyond reasonable doubt

5 of 110

What are all the principles of the actus reus for murder?

- unlawful killing

- human being

- under the queen's peace

- causation

6 of 110

What can an unlawful killing be?

positive act (actually doing something)
OR
omission (must have been duty to act e.g Gibbins & Proctor)

7 of 110

What are two examples (with their cases) of when a killing is not murder if deemed lawful?

turning off life support (Malcharek)

operating to save one patient but killing another (Re A)

8 of 110

How is 'human being' applied with a case?

a foetus is not a human being (AG's Ref No.3 1994)

9 of 110

How is 'under the queens peace' applied with a case?

the defendant must not have killed the victim in battle (Page)

10 of 110

How is factual causation applied with a case?

but for the defendants actions, the victim would not have died (White)

11 of 110

How is legal causation applied with a case?

the defendant's actions must be proved
to have contributed to the victims death in a more than minimal way (Smith)

12 of 110

What does the case of Blaue show for legal causation?

the defendant must take the victim as he finds him

13 of 110

What does the case of Roberts show for legal causation?

the victims own actions do not break the chain if they were reasonable

14 of 110

What does the case of Smith show for legal causation?

third parties do not break the chain if the victims wounds are an operating and substantial cause of death

15 of 110

What does the case of Cheshire show for legal causation?

medical negligence will not break the
chain unless they are 'extraordinary and unusual'

16 of 110

What forms the mens rea of murder?

malice aforethought (expressed or implied)

17 of 110

What is express malice and what are the two types of mens rea that fall in this?

defendant intends to kill

direct intent (desires victims death)
OR
oblique intent (victims death is visual certainty and defendant realizes this - Woollin)

18 of 110

What is implied malice and what are the two types of mens rea that fall in this?

defendant intends to cause GBH (really serious harm - DPP v Smith) and victim dies (Vickers)

direct intent (desires really serious harm)
oblique intent (really serious harm is visual certainty and D realizes this)

19 of 110

What two partial defences fall under voluntary manslaughter?

- diminished responsibility

- loss of control

20 of 110

What must the defendant prove to be guilty of voluntary manslaughter and therefore, have the judge avoid the mandatory life sentence?

that one of the partial defences exists
on the balance of probabilities and they jury decide

21 of 110

What two acts establish diminished responsibility?

s2 Homicide Act 1957
as amended by
s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

22 of 110

How is diminished responsibility defined?

the defendant was suffering from an
abnormality of mental functioning from a recognized medical condition which substantially impaired the defendant's ability to do one of three specified things and this explains the defendant's act or omission in kill

23 of 110

What are the four factors to diminished responsibility?

- abnormality of mental functioning

- recognized medical condition

- substantially impaired

- explains defendants act or omission in killing

24 of 110

In what case did Lord Parker define an abnormality of mental functioning and how was it defined?

Byrne

a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal

25 of 110

Which sub sections of s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 outlines that the
abnormality of mental functioning must be caused by a recognized medical condition?

s52(1)(a)

26 of 110

What are seven examples of recognized medical conditions, with cases?

- sexual psychopath (Byrne)
- chronic depression (Seers)
- pre menstrual tension (Smith)
- battered wives syndrome (Ahluwalia)
- mental deficiency (Speake)
- post natal depression (Reynolds)
- alcohol dependency syndrome (Wood)

27 of 110

Where may other conditions be listed?

world health organisation's classification of diseases

28 of 110

How must the defendant's medical condition be proven and who will decide?

medically

jury decide

29 of 110

Which sub sections of s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 outlines the three specified things that lead to the defendant being substantially impaired?

s52(1)(b)

30 of 110

The defendants mental ability is substantially impaired if he cannot...?

a - understand the nature of his conduct
OR
b - form a rational judgement
OR
c - exercise self control

31 of 110

What does the case of Golds say the impairment must be?

important or weighty

32 of 110

What do the cases of 'Egan' and 'Dowds' say that the defendants substantial impairment cannot come from alone?

intoxication

33 of 110

What does the case of Dietschmann
show about intoxication and substantial impairment?

where the defendant suffers a r
recognized medical condition but is also intoxicated when he kills, the jury ignore the intoxication and decide whether he was substantially impaired
by his abnormality of mental functioning

34 of 110

What does the case of Wood show about intoxication and substantial impairment?

where the defendant suffers alcohol dependency syndrome, the jury consider whether it caused the defendant to suffer an abnormality of
mental functioning and if so, did it then
substantially impair his ability to do one of the three specified things

35 of 110

Which sub sections of s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is to do with causation / explains defendants act or omission in killing?

s52(1)(c)

36 of 110

What does s52(1)(c) say?

the abnormality of mental functioning must cause or be a significant contributory factor in causing the defendant to carry out that conduct

37 of 110

How is factual causation applied for diminished responsibility, with a case?

but for the defendants abnormality, he will not have killed the victim (White)

38 of 110

How is legal causation applied for diminished responsibility, with a case?

the defendants abnormality was a more than minimal cause in the killing (Smith)

39 of 110

What act establishes loss of control?

ss54-55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

40 of 110

Is loss of control defined in statute?

no

41 of 110

What three things does s54(1) outline that if all apply, the defendant will not be convicted of murder?

A - D's acts / omissions in doing or being party to killing resulted from D's loss of self control
B- loss of self control had qualifying trigger
C- someone of D's sex, age and normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in same circumstance would

42 of 110

What does R v Clinton Parker & Evan say about the defence of loss of control?

there must be sufficient evidence to leave the issue to the jury

43 of 110

In what case did Rafferty J speak about a) the loss of control, and what was said?

R v Jewell

the defendant is not in control if he has lost the ability to 'act with considered judgement or normal powers of reasoning'

44 of 110

What does s54(2) say about a) the loss of control?

it does not matter whether or not the loss of control was sudden

45 of 110

If there is a delay between the trigger
and the killing, who decides whether the defendant was not in control?

the jury

46 of 110

What is a case example for a delay
between the trigger and killing and what happened in this?

Ahluwalia

defence might now be allowed as the
defendant did not calm down in the two hour delay period between her husbands threats and setting him on fire

47 of 110

When will the defendant not be able to use the partial defence (if he acts out of...)?

if the defendant acts out of a considered desire for revenge

48 of 110

What is a case example for a
considered desire for revenge and what happened in this?

Baillie

defendant son had been threatened by a drug dealer and the defendant was stuck in traffic on his way to the dealers house
defence might now be allowed as long as the defendant did not regain self control during the delay

49 of 110

What are the two qualifying triggers?

fear trigger
+
anger trigger

50 of 110

What section of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is used for the fear trigger and what does it say?

s55(3)

when the defendant fears serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another identified person

51 of 110

What happened in Ward?

the defendant feared serious violence would be applied to his brother

52 of 110

Is the trigger subjective or objective and why?

subjective (specific to circumstances)

as long as the defendants fear of serious violence is genuine, it does not need to be a reasonable belief

53 of 110

What happened in Martin and what was held?

- defendant shot victim in back as they were escaping from defendants property

- although not available at the time, fear of violence from burglars could now be considered a qualifying trigger under the new law

54 of 110

What section of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is used for the anger trigger and what does it say?

s55(4)

present when things said and / or done that:
a - constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character
AND
b - caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

55 of 110

Is the trigger subjective or objective and why?

objective (not specific to circumstances)

the jury decide if the reasonable man would have felt seriously wronged

56 of 110

Why will this trigger and therefore defence rarely succeed?

there is a very high threshold

57 of 110

What happened and what was therefore held in Doughty?

under the old law, a baby crying was a
sufficient trigger to provoke a defendant but this would now not be allowed

58 of 110

What happened and what was therefore held in Zebedee?

defendant killed his father, who was suffering from Alzheimer's and incontinence

the defence failed

59 of 110

What is s55(5) for qualifying triggers?

a combination of s55(3) - fear trigger - and s55(4) - anger trigger

60 of 110

How does Sands show a combination of both qualifying triggers?

defendant killed ********** out of fear (for safety of children on estate) and anger (at dismissive behaviour when confronted about his past)

61 of 110

When does s55(6)(a-b) say the qualifying triggers cannot be raised?

when the defendant incited the
situation themselves as an excuse to use violence against the victim

62 of 110

What does the case of Johnson say about this?

defendant started argument with victim, who retaliated

defendant raised loss of control as defence to his killing of victim

this would now not be allowed

63 of 110

Under s55(6)(c) what on its own is explicitly excluded as an anger trigger?

sexual infidelity

64 of 110

In Clinton however, what did the court say?

infidelity could now be considered if it was combined with other fear or anger trigger issues e.g taunting or laughing

65 of 110

Which section is used for the objective test (someone of D's sex, age and normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in same circumstance would react the same or similarly)?

s54(1)(c)

66 of 110

What does Camplin say are important considerations into the objective test?

age and sex

67 of 110

What are three circumstances that could be included with cases?

unemployment, depression (Gregson)

discovering infidelity (Clinton)

sexual abuse suffered as child (Hill)

68 of 110

What are three circumstances that cannot be considered with cases?

bad temper or anger issues (Mohammed)
- defendants bad temper not relevant when considering defence after he stabbed daughter 19 times for entertaining young man in her room

intoxication (Asmelash)

69 of 110

What two offences fall under involuntary manslaughter?

- unlawful act manslaughter

- gross negligence manslaughter

70 of 110

When will a defendant be charged with involuntary manslaughter instead of murder and what sentence will this carry?

if the defendant committed the actus
reus of murder but lacks the necessary mens rea

carries a maximum life sentence

71 of 110

When will the offence of unlawful act manslaughter apply?

the defendant commits an unlawful act which is dangerous and causes death

72 of 110

What three principles form the actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter?

a - the unlawful act

b - the unlawful act must be dangerous

c - causation

73 of 110

What is the first factor to fall under part A (the unlawful act) and include a case example?

the unlawful act must be a positive act ; an omission is not sufficient

Lowe

74 of 110

What did the case of Lowe say about the first factor to fall under part A (the unlawful act)?

failure to call a doctor was not an unlawful act

75 of 110

What is the second factor to fall under part A (the unlawful act) and include a case example?

the unlawful act must be a crime

Lamb

76 of 110

What happened and what was held in the case of Lamb?

- defendant and victim were playing with guns
- victim did not apprehend personal violence

- without mens rea and actus reus, there was no assault (no unlawful act) so when victim was shot and killed it was not manslaughter

77 of 110

What is the third factor to fall under part A (the unlawful act) and include three case examples?

any crime can form the basis of unlawful act manslaughter

- Larkin
- Goodfellow
- Newbury & Jones

78 of 110

What happened and what offence was clarified in the case of Larkin?

- defendant threatened a person with a razor blade
- victim fell onto razor blade

formed assault

79 of 110

What happened and what offence was clarified in the case of Goodfellow?

- defendant committed arson by setting fire to his council house killing the people inside

property crime can form basis

80 of 110

What happened and what offence was clarified in the case of Newbury & Jones?

- defendants threw large paving stone from bridge onto train

caused criminal damage and so guilty of unlawful act manslaughter when guard was killed

81 of 110

What is the fourth factor to fall under part A (the unlawful act) and include a case example?

the unlawful act need not be aimed at the victim

Mitchell

82 of 110

What happened and what was held in the case of Mitchell?

- defendant punched a man who fell into an old woman who fell over and died

it was sufficient that the defendants unlawful act was aimed at the man he punched, even though it was the old woman who died

83 of 110

Where does the objective test for part B (the unlawful act must be dangerous) come from and what is the test?

Church

the unlawful act is dangerous if the sober and reasonable man would recognise that the defendants act subjects another to the risk of some harm (doesn't have to be serious harm)

84 of 110

What did the case of Dawson say about part B (the unlawful act must be dangerous) and the dangerous test?

this could be shock, but not just fear or upset

85 of 110

What does each case of 'Larkin' and
'JM & SM' say about part B (the unlawful act must be dangerous) and the dangerous test?

Larkin - the defendant does not need to realise the risk of harm

JM & SM - defendant does not need to realise risk of a specific type of harm

86 of 110

What are three elaborated case examples for part B (the unlawful act must be dangerous)?

- Dawson

- Watson

- Bristow, Dunn & Delay

87 of 110

What happened and what was held in the case of Dawson?

- victim shocked when the garage he was working at was robbed
- victim died of heart attack

- reasonable man in defendants position would not be aware of the risk as they would not know he had a condition

88 of 110

What happened and what was held in the case of Watson?

- victim died of heart attack following burglary on his house
- victim was old and frail

- defendant guilty of unlawful act
manslaughter as reasonable man would be aware of harm and so burglary was deemed dangerous

89 of 110

What was held in the case of Bristow, Dunn & Delay?

burgling a house posed a risk of some harm as it was possible someone may try and prevent burglars escaping

90 of 110

How are factual and legal causation applied (with cases) for part C (causation)?

factual - but for the defendants
unlawful act, the victim would not have died (White)

legal - defendants unlawful act must be a substantial cause of the victims death (Corion-Auguiste)

91 of 110

What does the case of Shohid show about legal causation?

the unlawful act need not be the sole cause of death

92 of 110

What does the case of AG''s Ref 4 of 1980 how about legal causation?

it can be a series of unlawful acts, if so
there is no need to establish which was the actual cause of death

93 of 110

What are the two cases related to drugs with legal causation of unlawful act manslaughter?

Cato

Kennedy

94 of 110

What does the case of Cato show about legal causation?

if the defendant injects the victim with
drugs and causes death, then he is liable for unlawful act manslaughter

95 of 110

What does the case of Kennedy show about legal causation?

where the defendant supplies drugs to the victim but the victim voluntarily injects themselves, the victim has broken the chain of causation and therefore, the defendant is not guilty of unlawful act manslaughter

96 of 110

What is the mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter with a case (three parts)?

- D must have the necessary mens rea
for the unlawful act ; need not know the act is unlawful / dangerous (Newbury and Jones)
- D does not require any additional mens rea for the death
- D doesn't need to appreciate risk of physical harm as dangerous te

97 of 110

When will a defendant be charged with gross negligence manslaughter rather than murder?

when a defendant owes a duty of care
and breaches it in a very negligent way, causing the victims death (by positive act or omission)

98 of 110

What five parts to applying gross negligence manslaughter?

A - duty of care

B - breach of duty

C - gross negligence

D - risk of death

E - causation

99 of 110

How is part A (duty of care) established?

using rules from negligence in civil law

100 of 110

What did Lord Mackay say about establishing a duty of care in Adomako?

the neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson must be satisfied ; defendant owes duty of care to anyone closely and directly affected by their act or omission

101 of 110

When establishing part B (breach of duty) what can it be by, what do the court consider and who is the defendant judged against?

can be by act or omission

court considers what defendant was expected to do and whether he failed to do it or do it to poor standard

defendant judged against standard of reasonable man doing same activity as him (ignores lack of experience)

102 of 110

What are two case examples of breaches of duty by positive acts?

Singh - D breached duty to manage + maintain properties where faulty gas fire caused deaths

Litchfield - D breached duty to ship crew (ship exploded due to fuel contamination)

103 of 110

What are two case examples of breaches of duty by omissions?

Stone & Dobinson - failing to care for relative after taking responsibility

Wacker - not providing oxygen to illegal immigrants in back of lorry

104 of 110

What does gross mean with an example for part C (gross negligence)?

so bad in all circumstances as to amount in the jury's judgement to a criminal act or omission

Adomako

105 of 110

What happened in the case of Adomako and how was this failure described?

- an anaesthetist failed to notice an
oxygen tube had become disconnected until 10 minutes later

failure described as 'abysmal'

106 of 110

What did the judge say in the case of Singh about part C (gross negligence)?

the reasonably prudent person would
have foreseen a serious and obvious
risk not merely of injury or even serious injury but of death

107 of 110

What was confirmed in the case of Misra & Srivastava about part D (risk of death) and how was this the case in Misra & Srivastava?

there must be a clear and obvious risk of death

the doctors did not notice signs of blood poisoning

108 of 110

How are factual and legal causation applied with cases for part E (causation)?

factual - but for the defendants breach of duty, the victim would not have died (White)

legal - defendants breach of duty contributed to the victims death in a more than minimal way (Smith)

109 of 110

What do the cases of 'Cheshire; Roberts' and 'Blaue' each say about legal causation here?

Cheshire; Roberts - the chain of causation must not be broken by an intervening act

Blaue - the thin skull rule applies as normal

110 of 110

Get Revising

Criminal Law - Paper 1 (Fatal Offences)

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: