A level Law Paper 1 Criminal Law

R v Larsonneur (Actus Reus)

Defendant convicted for act that was against their own will

Uk=>Ireland=>Jail

R v Pittwood (Actus Reus)

Contractual duty to act meaning if act is omitted then liable

R v Gibbins (Actus Reus)

Duty exists because of a relationship between victim and the accused

R v Stone (Actus Reus)

Duty towards the victim has been taken on voluntarily by the accused

R v Dytham (Actus Reus)

A duty towards the victim arises from an official position

R v Miller (Actus Reus)

A duty towards the victim arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events

R v Pagett (Actus Reus)

‘But for’ test

R v Blaue (Actus Reus)

‘Thin skull rule’

R v Kimsey (Actus Reus)

D’s act did not have to be ‘the principle or a substantial cause of the death’

R v Jordan (Actus reus)

An act of a third party

R v Roberts (Actus Reus)

Victims own act

R v Mohan (MR)

Direct intent

R v Woollin (MR)

Oblique intent

R v Cunningham (MR)

Subjective Recklessness

R v Adomako (MR + GN)

Negligence

Sweet v Parsley (Strict Liability)

The crime is regulatory opposed to a true crime

R v Williams (S.L)

The crime is one of social concern

SGB v Storkwain (S.L)

Wording of the Act indicates strict liability

R v Prince (S.L)

The offence carries a small penalty

R v Latimer (Transferred Malice)

Transferred Malice

Re: A (Conjoined Twins) (Murder)

surgery was decided to be lawful

Inglis (Murder)

‘Mercy killing’ is murder

Attorney General’s Reference

Foetus can count as a human being

Doctors can switch off life support

Adebolajo

Killing of an enemy in course of war is not murder, not the case here

R Vickers (Murder)

Implied Malice Aforethought

R v Jewell (Loss of Control)

D must have normal capacity then ‘snap’

R v Ward (LoC)

Fear of violence

R v Zebedee (LoC)

Things said or done

R v Rejmanski (LoC)

Normal standard of self-control

R v Christian (LoC)

Must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution

R v Bryne (Diminished Responsibility)

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

Gittens (DR)

Depressing is an abnormality of mental functioning

R v Conroy (DR)

Autism spectrum disorder = recognised medical condition

R v Lloyd (DR)

Jury decides whether D’s mental responsibility is substantially impaired

Wood (DR)

ADS can be sufficient for DR if drinking is involuntary

R v Goodfellow (Unlawful Act)

Arson was the unlawful act

R v JM and SM (UA)

Did not have to foresee specific harm but that some harm could occur

R v Kennedy (UA)

Victim consented and self-administered heroin which was an intervening act

DPP v Newbury and Jones (UA)

Necessary MR for the act committed, do not have to foresee specific harm

R v Lichfield (Gross Negligence)

D owed a duty of care to crew

R v Rose (GN)

The assessment might reveal something life-threatening which is not the same as an obvious risk of death

Constanza (s39 A)

800 letters = assault

Tuberville v Savage (s39 A)

Assize-time, words indicated not violence

Smith v Chief Superintendent (s39 A)

Fear of what D would do next = sufficient AR

R v Ireland (s39 A)(s47 ABH)

Psychiatric injury from silent phone called = Assault

Collins v Wilcock (s39 B)

Policewoman scratched in self-defence of her grabbing V’s arm

MPC v Fagan (s39 B)

Driving on foot unknowingly

Faulkner v Talbot (s39 B)

Did not have sex as she didn’t move = irrelevant = assault

DPP v K (s39 B)

Common assault can be committed by an indirect act

DPP v Santa-Bermudez (s39 B)

D had a duty to inform policewoman of needle in their pocket

R (T) DPP (s47 ABH)

Kicked V = battery => caused loss of consciousness = ABh

Miller (s47 ABH)

Non-consensual sex with wife

R v Roberts (s47 ABH)

Sufficient that D had intention or was reckless as to assault or battery

C v Eisenhower (s20 GBH)(s18 GBH)

Airsoft gun ruptured internal blood vessel => no break in continuity of skin

R v Burstow (s20 GBH)(s18 GBH)

8 month harassment campaign = psychiatric injury

R v Dica (s20 GBH)

Purposely spreading HIV

R v Cunningham (s20 GBH)

Intention to do harm/reckless as to whether such harm should occur

R v Morrison (s18 GBH)

Resisting arrest and caused really serious harm

Nedrick and Woolin (s18 GBH)

Intention = harm caused was a as a result of D’s actions and D realised that this was so

Morris (s3 T)

Assumed owners rights by switching the labels

Kelly and Lindsay (s4 T)

Dead body is not property but body parts were property of hospital and became property

R v Turner (s5 T)

Garage had possession of his car so therefore D was convicted of stealing his own car

Ivey (s2 T)

D’s state of knowledge or belief as to the facts?

Conduct dishonest compared to ordinary person?

DPP v Lavendar (s6 T)

D took doors from council property = permanently depriving

Dawson and James (s8 R)(AR and MR)

Force = small

MR is the same as s1 T

Bentham (s8 R)

Fear of force = appearing to have a gun

Hale (s8 R)

Appropriation = continuous act

Theft still ongoing at point of tying and gagging V as they did so in order to leave the property

R v Ryan (s9 B)

Sufficient evidence of entry

R v Walkington (s9 B)

Entered a part of a building as a trespasser AND knew he was a trespasser as the area was marked

R v Jones and Smith (s9 B)

D knew he was entering knowing he is entering in excess of permission that has been given

R v Clarke (Insanity)

Mere absentmindedness or confusion is not insanity

R v Hennessy (In)

Diabetic stole after not taking insulin = affected the mind

R v Oye (In)

D had a psychotic episode = did not know what he was doing was wrong

Attorney General’s reference No.2 (Automatism)

Trance-like state due to driving for many hours did not amount = partial control

R v T (Au)

Sufficient automatism as D had no control over getting PTSD from being raped

R v Hardie (Au)

Took valium tablets while being depressed and set wardrobe on fire = not reckless

R v Sheehan and Moore (Intoxication)

Too drunk to form the mens rea for specific intent crime

R v Kingston (Intox)

Mens rea established before being drugged therefore convicted

Beard (Intox)

Too intoxicated to form mens rea

Hardie (Intox)

Prescribed valium made behaviour unpredictable

R v Williams (Self-Defence)

D should be judged according to his genuine mistaken view of the facts

R v Clegg (SD)

Car had passed meaning danger had passed so force = disproportionate

R v Press and Thompson (SD)

PTSD might cause a clouded judgement by D but reasonableness in degree of force = objective

R v Rashford (SD)

V responded disproportionately to D initial attack therefore D could use SD

R v Ray (SD)

Force used cannot be disproportionate and was confirmed in this case

R v Williams (SD)

Decided that force cannot be used to recover stolen property

R v Valderrama-Vega (Duress by Threats)

Cumulative effects of all threats should only be considered if threat of death

R v Graham (DbT)

D’s will to resist threat has been eroded by voluntary consumption of intoxicants

R v Cole (DbT)

Insufficient connection between threats and crime committed as it had not been specified if any crime should be committed

R v Gill (DbT)

There was a period of time in which D was left alone which could have been an ‘avenue of escape’ = no defence

R v Shepherd (DbT)

Defence only available to future offences as he did not know he would be threatened if he tried to leave the gang

R v Martin (Duress of circumstances)

D forced to drive while being disqualified as his wife threatened suicide unless he drove their son to school

R v Abdul-Hussain (DoC)

Hijacking of plans was appropriate to the circumstances of the possibility of executing if they were returned to Iraq

R v Willier (DoC)

Danger of gang’s intents was operating on D’s mind when he had to get out of the situation by driving on the pavement

R v Gill (DoC)

There was a period of time where D was left alone = ‘avenue of escape’

Re:A (Conjoined Twins) (Necessity)

By allowing the surgery, it was preventing a greater evil of letting one twin grow and potentially harming the healthy twin

R v Dudley and Stephens (N)

No excuse for the killing of the cabin boy as this was merely temptation to act

R v Shayler (N)

Not a necessity to disclose documents from when he was working for MI5 to a journalist as he could not identify the action that would cause imminent threats

R v Donovan (Consent)

Real consent required

R v Dica (Consent)

V consented to sex not HIV