LAW03

HideShow resource information
MURDER
.
1 of 103
Who defined murder and what as?
Unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being, under the queen's peace with malice aforethought express or implied - Sir Coke
2 of 103
What is the actus reus of murder?
Unlawful killing, reasonable person, queen's peace and causation
3 of 103
What may not count as a reasonable person?
Brain damaged person - Steel, Foetus - AG Reference (No3 1994)
4 of 103
What is the mens rea for murder?
Malice aforethought express - Intent to kill, malice aforethought implied - Intent to cause GBH (Vickers)
5 of 103
DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY (voluntary manslaughter)
.
6 of 103
Where is diminished responsibility defined and what as?
S2 Homocide Act 1957 as amended by S52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
7 of 103
What is abnormality of mental functioning?
R v Byrne (CJ Parker) "a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary human being that a reasonable man would term it abnormal."
8 of 103
What recognised medical condition is demonstrated in R v Byrne?
Psychiatric disease
9 of 103
What recognised medical condition is demonstrated in R v Reynolds?
Post-natal depression
10 of 103
What recognised medical condition is demonstrated in R v English?
Pre-menstrual tension.
11 of 103
What recognised medical condition is demonstrated in R v Ahluwalia?
Battered wife syndrome.
12 of 103
What is substantial impairment?
Must show that the abnormality of mental functioning substantially impaired D's ability to; Understand nature of his conduct, Form a rational judgement, Exercise self control.
13 of 103
Which case defined substantial?
R v Egan - More than trivial but less than total.
14 of 103
What is substantial cause of death?
S2 (b) - Must show that the D's abnormality of mental functioning caused or was significant contributor in causing the D to carry out the conduct.
15 of 103
LOSS OF CONTROL (voluntary manslaughter)
.
16 of 103
Where is loss of control defined?
S54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
17 of 103
What is a loss of control?
S54 (1)(a) Must be a loss of control. Doesn't have to be sudden can be a time delay.
18 of 103
Which case demonstrates there can be a time delay?
R v Ibrams and Gregory - Longer the delay, the less likely to be a loss of control
19 of 103
What are the 2 qualifying triggers?
S55 (3) Fear of serious violence, S55(4) Things said or done that constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
20 of 103
What are the restrictions to the qualifying triggers?
S55(5)(a) D incited violence from V, S55(6)(c) Sexual infidenlity, S54(4) Revenge
21 of 103
What case demonstrated sexual infidelity?
Church - if other potential triggers, it may be considered in the circumstances.
22 of 103
Which section defines the reaction of a reasonable man?
S54 (1)(c) Jury must decide if a person of same age and sex with normal degree of tolerance would have acted the same way in same circumstances.
23 of 103
Which case demonstrated that only age and gender are relevant?
R v Camplin
24 of 103
Which case demonstrated that depression and violent temperament are to be ignored?
R v Mohammed
25 of 103
Which case demonstrates that alcoholism is to be ignored?
R v Holley
26 of 103
GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER (involuntary manslaughter)
.
27 of 103
What is they case for GNM?
Adomako.
28 of 103
What is the first element for GNM?
Duty of Care.
29 of 103
What are the examples of a duty of care?
Doctors - patients (Adomako), Contractual duty (Singh), Complicit in crime (Wacker), Driver - road user (Andrews, Created dangerous situation (Evans)
30 of 103
What is the 2nd element in GNM?
Breach of duty causing death
31 of 103
Which case demonstrates that D must fall below standards of a reasonable person?
R v Holloway.
32 of 103
What is the 3rd element in GNM?
Risk of death.
33 of 103
How is it decided that there is a risk of death?
Jury must decide whether there was a risk of death
34 of 103
Which case demonstrates risk of death?
Misra & Strivastava - only a risk of death will be sufficient.
35 of 103
What is the final element of GNM?
Negligence must be gross.
36 of 103
Which case defines gross?
Bateman - Going beyond a matter of mere compensation and showing such a disregard for life and safety of others it amounts to a crime.
37 of 103
UNLAWFUL ACT MANSLAUGHTER (involuntary manslaughter)
.
38 of 103
Where is UAM defined?
AG Reference (No3 of 1994)(1008)
39 of 103
What is the 1st element for UAM?
There must be an unlawful act or omission
40 of 103
Which case demonstrates that it must be a criminal act not civil wrong?
Franklin/Lamb
41 of 103
Which case demonstrates omissions are sufficient?
Lowe
42 of 103
What is the 2nd element for UAM?
The unlawful act must be dangerous.
43 of 103
How do we establish if the act was dangerous?
Church - A sober, reasonable person would see that there is a risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm.
44 of 103
Which case demonstrates that the act doesn't have to aimed at the V?
Mitchell
45 of 103
Which case demonstrates that the act can be aimed at property?
Goodfellow
46 of 103
Which case demonstrates when assessing risk of harm, jury must imagine they have knowledge D had or should have had?
Dawson, Watson
47 of 103
What is the 3rd element for UAM?
The unlawful, dangerous act must be the substantial cause of death (causation)
48 of 103
Which case demonstrates cause of death?
Corion Augustie.
49 of 103
Which case demonstrates the act doesn't have to be actual cause of death?
Carey.
50 of 103
Which case demonstrates if the V dies from drugs, self injecting can break the chain?
Kennedy
51 of 103
Which case demonstrates injecting each other doesn't break chain?
Cato
52 of 103
CONSENT (defence)
.
53 of 103
When will consent not apply?
Euthanasia (Pretty), Can't consent to anything higher than a battery (R v Brown).
54 of 103
Which case demonstrates consent will apply to joslings of everyday life?
Wilson & Pringle
55 of 103
What exceptions to the rule that you can't consent to more than a battery are set out in R v Brown?
Sport, Medical procedures, Tattooing/piercing, Horseplay, Sexual activities.
56 of 103
Which case demonstrates sport as an exception?
R v Bradshaw
57 of 103
When is there consent in sport?
When properly conducted and supervised within the rules and regulations.
58 of 103
Which case demonstrates that when conduct goes beyond the rules and regulations there is potential for criminal liability?
R v Barnes
59 of 103
In R v Bradshaw what factors must be taken into account when deciding if it is unlawful?
Type/rules of sport, level being played, nature of act, degree of force used, extent of risk of injury, D's state of mind.
60 of 103
Which case demonstrates that tattooing can be done at home?
Wilson
61 of 103
Which case demonstrates that law doesn't concern itself with horseplay, provided it doesn't go too far?
R v Jone
62 of 103
Which case demonstrates law only intervenes to prevent extreme sexual acts?
R v Brown
63 of 103
Which case demonstrates the law on sleeping with someone when having HIV?
Konzanzi
64 of 103
Which case demonstrates that V must have sufficient understand and intelligence to give consent?
Burrell v Harmer - Being a certain age doesn't mean you have to knowledge and understanding.
65 of 103
Which case demonstrates it must be fully informed consent?
Tabassum - can't be obtained by fraud.
66 of 103
SELF DEFENCE (defence)
.
67 of 103
What are the 2 elements in self defence?
Was force necessary? Was level of force reasonable?
68 of 103
Which case demonstrates whether force was necessary?
Gladstone Williams - force is reasonable if it is seen to be so in the circumstance that existed or D genuinely believed existed.
69 of 103
Which case demonstrates that if victim is retreating it's unlikely you can say force was necessary?
Hussain and Another
70 of 103
Which case demonstrates pre-emptive attacks?
Bird - it is legal to attack first so long as there was or thought to have been an imminent threat.
71 of 103
What if the D is drunk?
If voluntarily intoxicated and make a mistake about the circumstances due to intoxication, the rule in Gladstone Williams does not apply - S76 (5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
72 of 103
Which case demonstrates whether the level of force was necessary?
R v Palmer (Lord Morriss) - The force must not be wholly disproportionate to the circumstances
73 of 103
What are the guidelines set out in S76 (7) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008?
a) May not be able to weigh up what is considered proportional in circumstance, b) if D honestly and instinctively believes thought was reasonable, strong evidence that it was reasonable.
74 of 103
What is said about self defence in householder cases?
Crime and Courts Act 2013 - If someone trespasses on your land, the force will not be unreasonable unless grossly disproportionate
75 of 103
INTOXICATION (defence)
.
76 of 103
Involuntary -Which case demonstrates that if can be shown that D still had necessary mens rea, they are guilty?
Kingston
77 of 103
Involuntary - Which case demonstrates not realising strength of alcohol is classed as voluntary?
Allen
78 of 103
Involuntary - Which case demonstrates taking non dangerous drugs in reckless way is voluntary, vice versa is involuntary?
Allen
79 of 103
Voluntary - What must be distinguished?
Must distinguish between specific and basic intent crimes/
80 of 103
What is the key issue with specific intent?
Lipman - Whether D was so voluntarily intoxicated he could not form necessary mens rea.
81 of 103
Which case demonstrates that becoming voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless act (basic intent)?
Majewski - will automatically have mens rea.
82 of 103
Which case demonstrates that can't use intoxication as defence in cases of dutch courage?
AF for Northern Ireland v Gallagher.
83 of 103
Insanity.
.
84 of 103
What is used to establish insanity?
M'Naghten rules - has 3 elements.
85 of 103
What is the 1st element in insanity?
D's ability of reasoning must be impaired.
86 of 103
What is ability to use reasoning must be impaired?
If D is able to use reasoning just fails to use it, it it not defect of reasoning. It must be an inability to use reasoning.
87 of 103
Which case demonstrates moment of absent mindedness is not sufficient?
Clarke
88 of 103
What is the 2nd element in insanity?
Defect of reasoning must be caused by a disease of the mind.
89 of 103
What must the disease of the mind be?
Must be internal condition that affects the mind (physical or mental).
90 of 103
Which case demonstrates the disease can be temporary or permanent?
Kemp
91 of 103
What is the 3rd element in insanity?
Must cause the D to not know the nature and quality of the act or not know what he was doing was wrong?
92 of 103
What must the D prove?
1 of the following; Did not know what he was doing was wrong, Did not appreciate the consequences of his act, Did not appreciate the circumstances in which he was acting.
93 of 103
Which case defines 'wrong'?
Johnson - Legal wrong not moral wrong.
94 of 103
What happens if D successfully pleads insanity?
Receive special verdict - 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.
95 of 103
What sanctions can be given if insanity is successful?
Criminal Procedure Act 1991 - Hospital order (murder) , supervision & treatment order, Order for absolute discharge.
96 of 103
What is the burden and standard of proof for insanity?
If defence raise must prove on a balance of probability, if prosecution raise must prove beyond reasonable doubt.
97 of 103
Automatism.
.
98 of 103
What is the definition of automatism?
"An act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or convulsion" "or act by person not conscious of what doing, act done whilst concussed or sleep-walking" - Bratty v AG NI.
99 of 103
What must the act be?
Involuntary and due to an external factor.
100 of 103
What is an example of an external factor?
A blow to the head, attacked by swarm of bees (Hill v Baxter), sneezing, PTSD (R v T)
101 of 103
What is self-induced automatism?
Quick - diabetic who had taken insulin but not eaten.
102 of 103
When can you plead automatism?
Basic intent - prosecution must demonstrate D was reckless (R v Bailey), If intoxicated can't be used (DPP v Majewski).
103 of 103

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Who defined murder and what as?

Back

Unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being, under the queen's peace with malice aforethought express or implied - Sir Coke

Card 3

Front

What is the actus reus of murder?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What may not count as a reasonable person?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

What is the mens rea for murder?

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 »