A Level Law Criminal Definitions

Actus Reus

The actus reus is the positive voluntary act in an offence

Omissions

Omissions are a failure to act

In what scenarios are omissions criminalised

Contractual duty

Voluntary duty

Chain of Events

Relationship

What is Contractual duty

When the D has a contractual obligation to owe a duty of care to the the V

Voluntary

When D voluntarily assumes a duty of care to the V

Chain of Events

When the D creates a Chain of Events that requires them to mitigate the effects of their act

Factual Causation

This is a test for causation that asks "but for" the defendants actions would the outcome have occurred?

Legal Causation

This is a test for Causation which asks is the defendants the "operating and substantial" cause of the outcome

Novus actus interveniens

An intervening act which breaks the chain of causation.

How can medical intervention break the chain of causation?

It has to be “separate” and "extraordinary and unusual ” “ or "palpably wrong"

Victims Own Act

When the victim does something so unreasonable,contributing to their injury,that they break the chain of causation

What happens if the victim refuses medical treatment

The V has not broken the chain of causation as they are under no obligation to receive medical treatment and D is liable for the full extent of their injuries.

Thin skull rule

The principle that the D is liable for the full extent of the outcome even in the event that the V has a pre existing condition that would make them more susceptible to more harm.

Men's Rea

The guilty mind/intent behind an offence

Direct Intent

It was the defendant's "aim,purpose and desire" to bring about the prohibited consequence

Oblique intent

When the defendant intents the act but not the outcome however the outcome was a virtually certain consequence of the act.

Recklessness

When the D appreciates the risk of the act and continues regardless

Negligence

When the D fails to meet the standards of a reasonable person

Transferred malice

This the rule that the malice (MR) can be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim

Coincidence Rule

The general rule that the actus reus and mens rea must coincide.

Continuing act

An exception to the coincidence rule,sometimes the actual reus occurs before the men's rea and continues until they coincide

Assault

Intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force or personal violence.

AR for assault

Positive act which causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force or personal violence

MR of assault

Intentionally or recklessly causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force

Sentencing for Assault

6 months imprisonment or £5000 fine

Battery

Intentionally or Recklessly applying unlawful force to another person.

AR for Battery

Application of unlawful force

MR for Battery

Intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force

Sentencing of Battery

6 months imprisonment or £5000 fine

S47

An assault or battery occasioning in actual bodily harm with the intent to cause some harm.

AR for S47

The AR for the assault or battery which occasions/causes ABH

MR for S47

The MR for the assault or battery

Sentencing of S47

5 years imprisonment

S20

The unlawful wounding or causing of grievous bodily harm with the intent or recklessness to cause actual bodily harm.

AR for s20

Unlawful wounding or causing of GBH

MR for s20

With the intention to cause some harm

Sentencing of s20

5 years imprisonment

S18

The unlawful wounding or causing of grievous bodily harm with the intent to cause serious harm.

AR for s18

Unlawful wounding or causing of grievous bodily harm

MR for s18

with the intent to cause really serious harm 

Intention to wound is not sufficient for this offence  

Look for: weapon, repeated attack, sensitive area

Sentencing of S18

Discretionary life sentence

Murder

The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the kings peace with malice aforethought expressed or implied.

AR for Murder

Unlawful killing-Must be positive voluntary act

Reasonable Creature in being-The human can live independently to its mother

Kings Peace-Not in wartime

Causing Death-Usual Rules for Causation

MR for Murder

Malice aforethought expressed-Direct or Oblique intent to kill

Malice aforethought implied-Direct or Oblique Intent to cause GBH

Both fufill the MR for murder

Sentencing for Murder

Mandatory Life

Voluntary Manslaughter

When the D intends death and is convicted of murder but they have a special defence and will be convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter

What are the two types of Voluntary Manslaughter

Diminished responsibility and loss of control

Diminished Responsibility

When the defendant kills but at the time of the killing they were suffering an abnormality of mental functioning due to a recognised medical condition which substantially impairs their ability to understand the nature of their conduct or form a rational judgement or exercise self control and the abnormality provides an explanation to the murder.

Abnormality of mental functioning

A state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal

Recognised Medical Condition

Arises from the World Health Organisations list of diseases

Substantially impaired

There must be evidence of the abnormality substantially imparting the ability of the defendant to either

1.Understand the nature of their conduct

2.Form a rational Judgement

3.Exercise self control

Only needs to meet one of these

Provides an explanation for D's conduct

the abnormality of the mental functioning must provide an explanation for the killing

MUST be a causal link between the mental functioning and the killing

It must be of a significant factor in causing damage actions.

Sentencing for Diminished Responsibility

3-40 Years imprisonment

Loss of Control

This is raised when D kills because of a sudden loss of control which had a qualifying trigger and a person of Ds age and sex,with a normal degree of tolerance might have reacted in a similar way.

Qualifying Trigger

This is the thing that caused the defendant to lose control.There are two accepted qualifying triggers

1.Fear of Serious Violence

2.Things Said or done

Fear of serious violence

This is subjective-The D does not need to prove the fear was reasonable but that the fear was real and genuine.The threat of violence must be specific to someone not just a general threat of harm.D must only prove that the V would use some serious violence

Things said or done

An action that is both:

1.Of Grave character to D

2.Give D a justifiable sense of being wronged

Justifiable sense of being wronged is an objective test left up tot the jury to decide

Defence not available to those seeking revenge

Someone of Ds sex and age

This is an objective test-the jury will consider whether a person with the same age and sex and of a reasonable degree of tolerance would have acted in the same way. age and sex are the only factors considered

Sentencing for Loss of Control

3-20 years imprisonment

Involuntary Manslaughter

When D did not intend to kill or cause GBH but the V dies anyways

two types of involuntary manslaughter

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Where the D commits an unlawful dangerous act which causes death.

4 steps for UAM

1.AR of the Unlawful act

2.Dangerousness

3.Causation

4.MR of the Unlawful act

AR of the Unlawful Act

The unlawful act must be a positive voluntary act,go through the AR of the unlawful act eg AR of assault,battery,robbery etc

Dangerousness

The unlawful act must be dangerous established by the Dangerousness test which ask would the reasonable person foresee the risk of some harm,does not have the serious harm just some

Causation (UAM)

The usual rules for causation

MR of the Unlawful Act

Establish the MR of the unlawful act eg the MR of assault,battery,robbery etc

Sentencing for UAM

Discretionary life sentence

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM) is when the V dies due to a grossly negligent act or omission of the D.

4 steps for GNM

1.Duty of Care

2.Breach of Duty

3.Causation

4.Grossly Negligent

Duty of Care (GNM)

Looks at whether the D owes a DOC to the V either

-Contractually

-Chain of Events

-Voluntarily

-Relationship

Breach of Duty (GNM)

Asks whether the D failed to meet the standard of the reasonable person completing the same activity

Causation(GNM)

The Breach must cause death established by all the usual causation rules

Grossly Negligent

The act/breach must be grossly negligent-there must either be a real and obvious risk of death OR showing such disregard for the life and safety of others that it amounts to criminal

Sentencing for GNM

Discretionary life sentence

Theft

the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

Dishonest

The statute does not provide a definition of dishonesty but gives 3 examples of what isn't dishonest:

-Believes they have a right in law to deprive

-Believe they would have the consent of the other to appropriate

-Believes the owner of the property cannot be found through taking reasonable steps

Appropriations

Appropriation means to assume the rights of the owner,this includes doing things only the owner has the right to do. Taking,modifying,selling,destroying etc.

Property

anything of value that is owned or controlled.including tangible or intangible items.

Confidential Information cannot be classed as property

Belonging to another

any person having possession or control of property or having a right or interest in it

Intention to permanently deprive

No exact definition but examples:

-Disposing

-Borrowing for a period of time equivalent to outright taking or disposing

-Taking for an extended period of time

ITPD can be established if the D cannot return the exact item in its virtuous state

Sentencing for Theft

Up to 7 years

Robbery

A person commits a theft and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to steal,they use force to do so or puts someone in fear of being subjected to force

Force

No statutory definition,its up to the Jury to decide whether 'force' was applied using the normal definition

Immediately before or at the time of the theft

The force must be used immediately before or at the time of the theft

The theft can be ongoing until it coincides with the force

Force used to steal

The force must be used to steal,not for any other purpose

Intention (Robbery)

Intention to use the force to steal

Sentencing for Robbery

Up to discretionary life sentence

Preliminary Offences/Attempts

This is when the defendant commits an act that is more than merely preparatory in the pursuit of committing an offence with the intention of committing the full offence

AR for attempts

The defendant must do an act that is more than merely preparatory

More than merely preparatory and test

This means D must do an act that is more than merely planning to commit an offence.

Geddes-

1.Has the D moved from planning to excecution?

2.Has the D done an act which shows he was actually trying commit the full offence

MR for attempts

Must prove an intent for commit the full offence

Impossible offences

Sometimes defendants try commit crimes not knowing they are factually or legally impossible,they would still be liable as they believed they were committing an offence

Sentencing for attempts

Maximum penalty is generally the same as the full offence,but the sentence will typically be less than if the offence was completed reflecting an attempt

Capacity Defences

Capacity Defences are raised then the defendant has committed a crime but was not fully liable due to capacity (mental) issues

Name the 3 Capacity defences

Insanity

Intoxication

Automatism

Insanity

A capacity defences which claims that when D committed a crime they were "labouring under such a defence of reasoning,from a disease of the mind,as to not knowing the nature and quality of their act,or if they did know,they did not know it was wrong"

Defect of Reasoning

Ds powers of reasoning must be impaired,this means they must be deprived of their power of reasoning,not just failing to use it

Disease of the mind

This is a legal term not medical,can be physical or mental as long as the disease affects the mind of the individual as an internal cause not external and was occurring at the same time as the offence

D not knowing they nature/quality of their act OR not knowing it was wrong

Where the D is doesn't know the nature and gravity of the act or the immorality of it