Law - Unit 1 - Section B - Part 1

?
  • Created by: e_m_e
  • Created on: 06-11-21 11:28
Transferred Malice
Latimer
1 of 156
Coincidence Rule - Continuing Act
-Fagan
-D forms the mens rea after the initial actus reus
2 of 156
Coincidence Rule - Series of Events
-Le Brun
-D forms the mens rea during the series of events
3 of 156
Factual Cause
-'But for' test
-White
4 of 156
Legal Cause
-Operating and substantial cause
-Smith
5 of 156
Thin Skull Rule
Blaue
6 of 156
Palpably wrong medical treatment
Jordan
7 of 156
Victims own act
-Unforeseeable and disproportionate to the threat - Williams and Davis
-Foreseeable and proportionate to the threat - Roberts
8 of 156
Consumption of drugs
-Another administered the drug - Cato
-V administered the drug - Kennedy No 2
9 of 156
Assault - Law
S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
10 of 156
Can be caused by the D's words, gestures or silence
Ireland
11 of 156
V must fear immediate unlawful force
Lamb
12 of 156
Can be cancelled out by words
Tuberville v Savage
13 of 156
Can be in the future
Constanza
14 of 156
Doesn't matter if the D cannot get to the V
Woking
15 of 156
Direct intent
Mohan
16 of 156
Recklessness
Cunningham
17 of 156
Battery - Law
S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
18 of 156
Slightest touch
Collins v Wilcock
19 of 156
Clothes are an extension of a person
Thomas
20 of 156
Implied consent of the ordinary jostling of everyday life
Wilson v Pringle
21 of 156
Continuing act
Fagan
22 of 156
Indirect act
DPP v K
23 of 156
Omission of duty of care
Santana-Bermudez
24 of 156
Actual Bodily Harm - Law
S47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
25 of 156
Must interfere with the health and comfort, must not be transient or trifling
Miller
26 of 156
Doesn't extend to fear, panic or distress, does extend to identifiable clinical conditions
Chan-Fook
27 of 156
Hair cutting without consent
Smith
28 of 156
Loss of conciousness
T v DPP
29 of 156
Indirect act
DPP v K
30 of 156
Wounding - Law
S18 and S20 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
31 of 156
Cause wound
S18
32 of 156
Inflict wound
S20
33 of 156
Same meaning
Burstow
34 of 156
Breaks both layers of the skin
Eisenhower
35 of 156
S18 - direct intent to cause GBH
Taylor
36 of 156
S18 - direct intent to resist arrest
Morrison
37 of 156
S20 - direct intent to wound
Taylor
38 of 156
S20 - direct intent to cause some harm
Mowatt
39 of 156
S20 - recklessness
Cunningham
40 of 156
Grievous Bodily Harm - Law
S18 and S20 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
41 of 156
Serious harm
Saunders
42 of 156
Really serious harm
Smith
43 of 156
V's age and health are relevant
Bollom
44 of 156
Knowingly transmitting a disease
Dica
45 of 156
Indirect act
Martin
46 of 156
Harm can be psychiatric
Burstow
47 of 156
S18 - direct intent
Mohan
48 of 156
S18 - direct intent to resist arrest
Morrison
49 of 156
S18 - foresight of consequences
Woolin
50 of 156
S20 - direct intent to cause some harm
Mowatt
51 of 156
S20 - recklessness
Cunningham
52 of 156
Murder - the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being during Queen's peace with malice aforethought expresses or implied
Lord Justice Coke
53 of 156
Left the womb and taken one breath
Poulter
54 of 156
Umbilical cord
Reeves
55 of 156
Cannot murder a fetus
Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1994)
56 of 156
Child destruction - Law
Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929
57 of 156
No brain activity
Malcherek
58 of 156
Unlimited amount of time between the attack and the death
Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
-over 3 years Attorney General's consent is needed
59 of 156
Queen's Peace
Blackman
60 of 156
Direct intent to kill
Mohan
61 of 156
Foresight of consequences
Woolin
62 of 156
Direct intent to cause GBH
Vickers
63 of 156
Diminished Responsibility (DR) - Law
Homicide Act 1957 and Coroners and Justice Act 2009
64 of 156
Legal Test - Law
S2(1) Homicide Act 1957 as amended by S52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
65 of 156
Legal Test
a) suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
b) recognised medical condition
c) substantially impairs the D's ability to:
-understand the nature of their conduct
-form a rational judgement
-exercise self-control
d) provides an explanation for th
66 of 156
Abnormality of Mental Functioning
Byrne
67 of 156
State of mind so different from that of the ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would deem it abnormal
Lord Parker CJ
68 of 156
Doesn't have to be permenant
Gomez
69 of 156
Recognised Medical Condition
WHO's list of recognised medical condition
70 of 156
Depression
Gittens
71 of 156
Irresistible Impulses
Byrne
72 of 156
Battered Wife Syndrome
Ahluawalia
73 of 156
Alcohol Dependency Syndrome
Stewart
74 of 156
Paranoia
Simcox
75 of 156
Adjustment Disorder
Dietschmann
76 of 156
Understand nature of conduct
Stewart
77 of 156
Form rational judgement
Simcox
78 of 156
Exercise self-control
Byrne
79 of 156
More than minimal or trivial
Golds
80 of 156
Casual link between the abnormality of mental functioning and the act/ omission
S2(1) Homicide Act 1957
81 of 156
Significant contributing factor
S1B Homicide Act 1957
82 of 156
Legal test - Intoxication
Same as DR, but jury must consider ... in substantially impairs:
-extent and seriousness of dependency
-extent of control of drinking
-capability of abstinence from alcohol
-if D is drinking for a particular reason
-pattern of drinking prior to the killin
83 of 156
Intoxication on its own cannot be DR
Dowds
84 of 156
No connection between AMF and intoxication, the intoxication is ignored
Dietschmann
85 of 156
Alcohol dependency syndrome
Stewart
86 of 156
Drinking doesn't have to be 100% involuntary
Wood
87 of 156
Drinking is 100% voluntary, defense is unavailable
Kay
88 of 156
Loss of Control - Legal Test - Law
S54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (CJA)
89 of 156
Legal Test
a) conduct resulted from a loss of control
b) due to a qualifying trigger
c) person of the D's sex and age, with an ordinary level of tolerance and self-restraint, in the same circumstances might act in a similar way (S54(1)(c))
90 of 156
Loss of control, not just self-restraint
Cocker
91 of 156
Doesn't have to be immediate
S54(2) CJA
92 of 156
Fear of serious violence
-S55(3)
-Martin
93 of 156
Must be against D or identifiable person
Ward
94 of 156
Things said or done
S55(4)
95 of 156
a) extremely grave character
b) justifiable sense of being wronged
Zebedee
96 of 156
Breakdown of relationship is not considered
Hatter
97 of 156
Defense available if its a combo of S55(3) and S55(4)
S55(5)
98 of 156
Revenge
-S54(4)
-Ibrams and Gregory
99 of 156
D incited something to be said or done as an excuse to use violence
-S55(6)(a)
-Dawes
100 of 156
D incited something to be said or done to cause them a sense of being seriously wronged
-S55(6)(b)
101 of 156
Sexual infidelity
S55(6)(c)
102 of 156
Infidelity is allowed if there is another qualifying trigger
Clinton
103 of 156
Standard of Control
Defined in S54(1)(c)
104 of 156
Age and gender
Camplin
105 of 156
Normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint
Mohammed
106 of 156
Circumstances
Gregson
107 of 156
Intoxication is not an accepted circumstance, but if a normal person would act the same way sober, the defense is available
Asmelash
108 of 156
Reacted in a similar wat
Van Dongen
109 of 156
Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM) - Legal Test - Law
Adomako
110 of 156
Legal Test
-D had a duty of care towards the V
-D breached the duty of care
-D's conduct had a foreseeable risk of harm to those around them
-Gross negligence was the cause of the V's death
-Jury considers gross negligence criminal
111 of 156
D must take reasonable steps to remedy a dangerous situation they created
Miller
112 of 156
Voluntary
Stone and Dobinson
113 of 156
Special Relationship
Gibbins and Proctor
114 of 156
Contractual
Pitwood
115 of 156
Public Duty
Dytham
116 of 156
Doctor and Patient
Adomako
117 of 156
Doctor stops treatment as it's in the patient's best interest
Bland
118 of 156
Landlord and Tenant
Singh
119 of 156
Employers and Employees
Dean
120 of 156
Breach of duty of care is so serious it is criminal
Adomako
121 of 156
Reasonably foreseeable serious and obvious risk of harm
Rose
122 of 156
Breach is gross and beyond a mere matter of compensation between parties, justifying a criminal conviction
Bateman
123 of 156
Breach is so flagrant and atrocious it amounts to a crime
Cornish
124 of 156
Jury decides whether the breach is grossly negligent
Sellu
125 of 156
Does not breach D's human rights to Article 6 (fair trial) and Article 7 (private and family life)
Misra and Srivastava
126 of 156
Unlawful Act Manslaughter (UAM) - Legal Test
a) unlawful act
b) objectively dangerous
c) cause of death
d) mens rea of the unlawful act
127 of 156
Must be an unlawful act, not a tort
Franklin
128 of 156
Positive act, not an omission
Lowe
129 of 156
Must satisfy all elements of the unlawful act
Lamb
130 of 156
Reasonable and sober person recognises the risk of some harm from the D's conduct
Church
131 of 156
Doesn't have to be specific harm
JM and SM
132 of 156
If reasonable and sober person would see the risk of some harm, would see the risk of some harm
Watson
133 of 156
Reasonable and sober would be unaware of V' vulnerability
Dawson
134 of 156
D's act not aimed at the actual V
Larkins
135 of 156
D's act aimed at an object, defense available
Goodfellows
136 of 156
Usual rules of causation
Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1994)
137 of 156
D must have the mens rea of the unlawful act
Lamb
138 of 156
D does not have to foresee the harm caused or be aware the act is dangerous or unlawful
Newbury and Jones
139 of 156
Theft - Law
Theft Act 1968
140 of 156
Theft
A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it - S1
141 of 156
Appropriation
S3
142 of 156
D assumes a right of the owner
Morris
143 of 156
V doesn't have to be deprived of property
Pitham
144 of 156
Going beyond permissions granted by the owner
Lawrence
145 of 156
Consent obtain fraudulently
Gomez
146 of 156
Accepting property from a person they know is vunerable
Hinks
147 of 156
Property
S4
148 of 156
Information is not property
Oxford v Moss
149 of 156
Wild flowers aren't property, unless sold
S4(3)
150 of 156
Wild animals aren't property
S4(4)
151 of 156
Belonging to another
S5
152 of 156
D can be liable for stealing own property
Turner (No 2)
153 of 156
D can be guilty of stealing property already stolen
Kelly and Lindsay
154 of 156
D can steal property the owner didn't know they owned
Woodman
155 of 156
Property received under obligation
Davidge v Bunnett
156 of 156

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Coincidence Rule - Continuing Act

Back

-Fagan
-D forms the mens rea after the initial actus reus

Card 3

Front

Coincidence Rule - Series of Events

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Factual Cause

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Legal Cause

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »