Criminal Law - Paper 1 (Fatal Offences)
0.0 / 5
- Created by: chloefyf3
- Created on: 30-06-22 20:36
What sentence does murder carry?
mandatory life
- at least 25 years
- 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
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
- 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)
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)
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)
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'
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)
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)
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
- 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
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
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
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
- 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
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?
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)
- 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
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
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?
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
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
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
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'
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?
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?
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
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?
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
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
+
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
- 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
- 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
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
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
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
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
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
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
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
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)
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?
'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
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
- 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
- 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
- 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)
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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
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'
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
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
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)
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
Blaue - the thin skull rule applies as normal
110 of 110
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
What kind of offence is murder?
Back
common law offence
Card 3
Front
Who defined murder and when?
Back
Card 4
Front
How did Lord Coke define murder in C17th?
Back
Card 5
Front
What is the standard of proof for all principles of the actus reus for murder?
Back
Similar Law resources:
5.0 / 5 based on 5 ratings
5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
Teacher recommended
0.0 / 5
5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
4.5 / 5 based on 3 ratings
5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
Comments
No comments have yet been made