Criminal Law cases lists

HideShow resource information
Hill V Baxter (Actus Reus)
The act must be voluntary
1 of 86
Stone and Dobinson (Actus Reus)
Duty taken on voluntarily
2 of 86
Miller (Actus Reus)
Duty because he set in motion a dangerous gain of events
3 of 86
White (Causation)
But for test
4 of 86
Blaue (causation)
Thin Skull victim (take your victim as you find them)
5 of 86
Pagett (causation)
More than the minimal cause
6 of 86
Smith (causation)
Still the operating and substantial cause of death
7 of 86
Jordan (causation)
medical negligence so potent it was rendered significant
8 of 86
Roberts (causation)
Daftness test
9 of 86
Mohan (Mens rea)
Direct Intention: the defendant took the decision to bring about the prohibited consequence
10 of 86
Woollin (Mens rea)
Oblique Intention: the prohibited consequence was a virtual certainty from the defendants actions and the defendant foresaw the virtual certainty of the prohibited consequence.
11 of 86
Latimer (Mens rea)
transferred malice
12 of 86
Thabo Meli (Mens rea)
the acts was combined in a series on events
13 of 86
Logdon (Non-fatal offences)
common assault through gestures
14 of 86
Savage- CA Mens rea (non-fatal offences)
Intention or recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence
15 of 86
Thomas (non-fatal offences)
the force can be minimal
16 of 86
Haystead (non fatal offences)
A battery can be done indirectly
17 of 86
Venna (non fatal offences)
mens rea for common battery- intention or recklessness to apply force to another
18 of 86
Chan Fook (non fatal offences)
An injury to any part of the body which is not so trivial as to be holy insignificant
19 of 86
Eisenhower (non fatal offences)
A wound means that both layers of the skin are broken
20 of 86
Savage- MR for s.20 (non fatal offences)
Intention or recklessness to cause some harm
21 of 86
Belfon (non fatal offences)
Direct or oblique intention to cause really serious harm
22 of 86
Definition of Murder (murder)
the killing of a reasonable person in being within the queens peace with malice aforethought
23 of 86
R v Adams (murder)
killing is the acceleration of death
24 of 86
Vickers (murder)
Direct intention for GBH is enough for the mens rea of murder
25 of 86
s.54 (1) (Loss of Control)
where a person kills another, he is not to be convicted of murder if...
26 of 86
s.54 (1) (a) (Loss of Control)
D's acts and omissions resulted from the D's loss of self control
27 of 86
Duffy (Loss of Control)
when you are no longer 'master of your own mind'
28 of 86
Ballie (Loss of Control)
'cooling off period'
29 of 86
s.54 (1) (b) (Loss of Control)
the loss of self control had a qualifying trigger
30 of 86
s.54 (1) (c) (Loss of Control)
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 similar way to the D
31 of 86
s.54 (4)(Loss of Control)
Does not apply if the D acted in a considered desire for revenge
32 of 86
s.54 (5)(Loss of Control)
prosecution must prove beyond all reasons doubt that the defence does not apply
33 of 86
s.55 (3)(Loss of Control)
fear of serious violence
34 of 86
s.55 (4) (Loss of Control)
things said or done which...
35 of 86
s.55 (4) (a) (Loss of Control)
constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character
36 of 86
s.55 (4) (b) (Loss of Control)
caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
37 of 86
s.55 (6) (c) (Loss of Control)
the fact that a thing said or done constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded
38 of 86
Clinton (Loss of Control)
sexual infidelity can be included if there are other qualifying triggers and if helps explain the circumstances
39 of 86
s.2 (1) (Diminished Responsibility)
A person who kills another is not to be convicted of murder if he was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which...
40 of 86
s.2 (1) (a) (Diminished Responsibility)
arose from a recognised medical condition
41 of 86
s.2 (1) (b) (Diminished Responsibility)
substantially impaired the D's ability to do one or more of things mentioned in subsection 1A
42 of 86
s.2 (1A) (a) (Diminished Responsibility)
to understand the nature of the D's conduct
43 of 86
s.2 (1A) (b) (Diminished Responsibility)
to form a rational judgement
44 of 86
s.2 (1A) (c) (Diminished Responsibility)
to exercise self-control
45 of 86
s.2 (1) (c) (Diminished Responsibility)
provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions
46 of 86
s.2 (1B) (Diminished Responsibility)
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
47 of 86
Stewart (Diminished Responsibility)
you must separate the voluntary drinking from the involuntary drinking. You then disregard the effect of any voluntary drinking but take in into involuntary drinking.
48 of 86
Lamb (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
Criminal act
49 of 86
Church (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
was the at dangerous?
50 of 86
Dawson (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
Common assault is not dangerous enough to warrent a manslaughter manslaughter
51 of 86
Goodwill (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
Intentionally committed the unlawful act of setting fire to property which any sober and reasonable person would have foreseen involved the foreseeable serious harm of another
52 of 86
Shohid (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
Original attack was sufficiently serious to be the cause of the V's death, it does not have to be the only the cause
53 of 86
Attorney- General's Reference (No.4 of 1980)(Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
acts combined through a series of events
54 of 86
Newbury and Jones (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
D only needs the mens rea for the unlawful act, the D does not have to foresee the risk of harm
55 of 86
Adomako (Gross Negligence)
Three part test for GNM. A duty of care must exist, the breach of that duty must cause death and the gross negligence must be such as to be considered criminal by the jury
56 of 86
Donoghue V Stevenson (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
owe a duty of care to your neighbour, that is, someone closely and directly affected by their actions.
57 of 86
Evans (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
A duty of care is a matter of law not a matter for the jury
58 of 86
R v L (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
Criminal causation
59 of 86
Adomako confirms Bateman (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
(such to be considered criminal by the jury) Must have involved a risk of death
60 of 86
Finlay (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
Showing such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to Gross Negligence
61 of 86
Edwards (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
Ignored an obvious and serious risk, or decided to take the risk.
62 of 86
Edwards (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)
Ignored an obvious and serious risk, or decided to take the risk.
63 of 86
Bratty (Automatism)
An act done by the muscles without control by the mind OR an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing
64 of 86
Hardie (Automatism)
He had been reckless, therefore the jury should have considered automatism
65 of 86
Quick (Automatism)
He had diabetes, took an insulin injection but hadn't eaten. He then became aggressive and killed someone. This was caused by an external factor and so amounts to automatism
66 of 86
Hennessey (Automatism)
He had diabetes, hadn't took his insulin and stole a car. This was an internal factor and so abouts to insanity
67 of 86
M'Naughten (Insanity)
Three part test for Insanity. The Defendant must have been suffering from a defect of reason, caused by a disease of the mind so that the defendant does not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing/ didn't know what he was doing was wrong
68 of 86
Clarke (Insanity)
She was not deprived of her powers of reasoning, she was temporarily absent minded and not insane.
69 of 86
Kemp (Insanity)
A disease of the mind can be temporary and the medical condition of the brain is not relevant
70 of 86
Bratty (Insanity)
Any mental disorder which was demonstrated by violence and prone to occur was a disease of the mind
71 of 86
Windle (Insanity)
By saying ''I suppose i'll hang for this'' he knew killing his wife was legally wrong
72 of 86
Sheehan and Moore (Intoxication)
Voluntary intoxication can be a defence to a specific intent crime if the defendant was unable to form the mens rea
73 of 86
Majewski (Intoxication)
Voluntary drinking is not a defence for basic intent crimes
74 of 86
Kingston (Intoxication)
Intoxication reduced his self restraint. He still developed the mens rea to abuse the boy
75 of 86
Hardie (Intoxication)
To be reckless the defendant must foresee a risk of the adverse reaction, and go ahead to take it anyway
76 of 86
s.3 (1) Criminal Law Act 1967 (Self Defence)
The defendant has a complete defence if he used reasonable force in the prevention of crime
77 of 86
s.76 (4) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Self Defence)
If the defendant has made a mistake to the use of force then this can be relied upon, however the reasonableness of this belief will effect whether the jury believes him.
78 of 86
s.76 (5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Self Defence)
The defendant cannot rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced.
79 of 86
s.76 (6) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Self Defence)
The force will be reasonable if the defendant honestly and instinctively thought that level of force was required.
80 of 86
Slingby (Consent)
There was no unlawful act. You can consent to common assault and common battery
81 of 86
Tabassum (Consent)
To have true consent you must be aware of what your consenting to.
82 of 86
Dica (Consent)
The women did not know he had HIV, they did not know what they were consenting to.
83 of 86
Wilson (Consent)
They said this was a tattoo and you can consent to body adornment
84 of 86
Jones (Consent)
Horseplay; a mistaken belief in rough and undisciplined horseplay could be a defence even if the belief is unreasonable
85 of 86
Aitken (Consent)
There drunken, mistaken belief should have been put to the jury
86 of 86

Other cards in this set

Card 2


Duty taken on voluntarily


Stone and Dobinson (Actus Reus)

Card 3


Duty because he set in motion a dangerous gain of events


Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4


But for test


Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5


Thin Skull victim (take your victim as you find them)


Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »