Unit 3 definitions

Voluntary manslaughter

Two defences to murder, contained in s.52-54 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009, reduces liability to manslaughter

1 of 40

Diminished responsibility

s.52 An abnormality of mental function arising from a recignised medical condition that substantially impairs D's mental ability and provides a rational explanation for the killing

2 of 40

Abnormality of mental function and case

Abnormality means a state of mind that a reasonable person would term abnormal (Byrne)

3 of 40

Recognised medical condition

Can include psychopathy (Byrne), battered woman syndrome (Ahluwalia), depression etc, alcohol dependency may be a cause if it damages the brain (Wood), intoxication is not an acceptable cause (Dowds)

4 of 40

Substantially impairs D's mental ability

More than trivially but can be not total impairment (Golds, Brown, Simcox), D's ability to: 1 understand the nature of their conduct 2 form a rational judgement and 3 excercise self control - one of these must be impaired

5 of 40

Loss of control

s.54 There must be a loss of control, caused by a qualifying trigger where a normal person in D's circumstance would react in the same way

6 of 40

Loss of control test

Subjective test - D must have lost self-control, it need not be sudden, the act rules ut a considered desire for revenge (Ibrams), can be cumulative impact (Dawes)

7 of 40

Qualifying trigger

Fear trigger: fear of serious violence (Martin) or anger trigger: something said or done of extremely grave character to cause D to have a justified sense of being seriously wronged (Zebedee), can be a combination of both triggers

8 of 40

Exceptions to qualifying triggers

Sexual infidelity (Clinton), self induced provocation, revenge

9 of 40

Normal person test

Objective test - would a reasonable person of D's sex and age have lost control as D did? Ordinary level of tolerance and self restraint (Holley, Asmelash) In the same circumstances as D e.g. Hill - sexual abuse, D's characteristics may be relevant

10 of 40

Define murder

Unlawful killing of a human being under the queen's peace with malice aforethought

11 of 40

Unlawful killing

Can be act or omission, some killings can be lawful e.g. police and soldiers (except with excessive force Clegg), or doctors in some circumstances (Bodkins), defence of neccessity (Re A)

12 of 40

Of a human being

A foetus is not a human being (At-G's Ref), and once someone's brain stem has died they cease to be a human being (Malcherek)

13 of 40

The Queens Peace

Excludes war time alien enemies

14 of 40

MR - malice aforethought

This does not mean any planning, just means intention to kill or cause GBH e.g. Vickers/Cunningham

15 of 40

Unlawful act manslaughter

Where D kills having committed an unlawful dangerous act

16 of 40

Unlawful act

Criminal, e.g. assault (Larkin), battery (Mitchell) criminal damage (Newbury and Jones) robbery (Dawson) administering a noxious substance (Kennedy), D must have MR for that crime, must be an act so omission will not suffice (Lowe)

17 of 40

Dangerousness test

D must act dangerously, (objective test) test is whether a reasonable person would forsee risk of some harm with knowledge D had when committing unlawful act (Watson)

18 of 40

Gross negligence manslaughter

Where D owed a duty of care to V and breached that duty in a grossly negligent way, causing a death

19 of 40

Duty

Duty owed to anyone that D could reasonably forsee would be affected by their act or omission, neighbour principle Donoghue and Stevenson, duty owed by doctor (Adomako)

20 of 40

Breach of duty

If D falls below standard to be expected of reasonable person in D's position (Adomako)

21 of 40

Gross negligence

If the jury thinks D's conduct was so bad in all circumstances that, given risk of death, D deserves conviction for manslaughter

22 of 40

Assault CJA 1988

Causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force, MR is intention or recklessness (Logdon), assault may be words alone (Burstow)

23 of 40

Battery CJA 1988

Application of unlawful bodily force (Collins v Willcox), MR is intentionally or recklessly (Fagan)

24 of 40

ABH s.47 OAPA 1861

Harm more than trivial, can be psychological (Chan Fook), MR is that of assault or battery, no need to forsee ABH (Mowatt)

25 of 40

Wounding s.47 OAPA 1861

Cutting both layers of the skin (Eisenhower) wounding with intent to do GBH or intent to resist arrest, MR is foreisght of some harm not neccessarily a wound (Savage)

26 of 40

s.20 GBH

Serious harm, MR is intention or reckless as to some harm (Roberts, Parmenter, Savage)

27 of 40

s.18 GBH

Intent to cause serious harm

28 of 40

Defence of consent

Available to all crimes except murder, V must be capable of giving valid consent (Gillick), V can consent to assault or battery, in serious cases V can consent under the recognised reasons, V must know nature + quality of act (Tabassum)

29 of 40

Recognised good reasons

Sports, although cannot be deliberate harm or 'off the ball' (Barnes), surgery, sexual activty (Slingsby) tattooing and branding (Wilson) horseplay (Jones, Aitken), cannot consent to sado-masochism (Brown), consent to unprotected sex = no defence (?)

30 of 40

Self defence

D is entitled to use force to protect themselves or another, may be preemptive (Beckford), it must be necessary to use force, must be no more than reasonable force (objective test, D may be mistaken of force needed (Gladstone)

31 of 40

Not available when

Intoxicated mistake (O'Grady), use of excessive force (Clegg)

32 of 40

Automatism

Where D acts involuntarily (Bratty), no voluntary control over actions (Hill v Baxter), can be spasms convulsions etc, must be external factor as if it is internal the defence is insanity, self induced automatism is treated same as voluntary intox.

33 of 40

Insanity - M'Naghten Rules 1843 definition

D must suffer a defect of reason, caused by a disease of the mind, and the defect of reason must be such that the defendant did not know what he was doing or, if he did know, he did not know the act was wrong

34 of 40

Defect of reason

Being deprived of power to reason, forgetfullnes will not suffice (Clarke)

35 of 40

Disease of the mind

This is a legal question rather than medical, can be internal conditions such as sleep walking (Burgess), epilespy (Sullivan), some types of diabetes (Hennessy), external condition is automatism

36 of 40

Nature and quality of act

D must be prevented from knowing nature and quality of their act, and if they did know this, they must not realise it was legally wrong (Windle), irresistible impulse does not amount to insanity

37 of 40

Voluntary intoxication

Defence to only specific intent crimes (only committed intentionally), not basic (Majewski). Defence can be used to deny intent, so sentences can be reduced to other option e.g. murder to manslaughter, as becoming intoxicated is reckless conduct

38 of 40

Intent (voluntary intoxication)

If despite intoxication D forms intent, D is guilty as a drunken intent is still an intent, if D plans specific intent crime but then gets drunk D remains liable (Gallagher)

39 of 40

Involuntary intoxication

Where D has unknowingly consumed drugs or alcohol (Kingston), or drugs on medical advice (Bailey), or consuming a sedative which leads to unpredictable behaviour (Hardie), complete defence

40 of 40

Get Revising

Unit 3 definitions

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: