MCQ'S ALL

Outline R v Woolin

the jury is not entitled to find the necessary intention unless:

Death or grievous bodily harm (GBH) was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's voluntary act; AND

The defendant appreciated that this was the case

FOUND OBLIQUE INTENTION

Outline R v Rose

When assessing whether a serious and obvious risk of death existed, the court must not take into account information that would, could, or should have been available to the defendant had they not breached their duty.

Outline R v Moloney

foresight of a probable consequence is not equivalent to intention, but is merely evidence from which a jury may, but is not bound to, infer the necessary intention for murder

Outline R v Matthew's and Alleyne

The defendants argued they didn't want to kill him (Direct Intent); they just wanted to get away with the robbery. The court had to decide if foresight of death could be treated as the same thing as intending death

Outline R v Adomako

The elements of gross negligence manslaughter are: an existing duty of care to the victim, a breach of that duty causing death, and a requirement that the breach be so gross as to justify a criminal conviction. The crucial test for grossness is whether the defendant's conduct, in all the circumstances and considering the risk of death, was so exceptionally bad that it amounted to a crime against the State and deserved punishment.

Outline R v Lowe

An omission (failure to act) that constitutes an unlawful act is not sufficient to found a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter; the crime requires a positive, unlawful, and dangerous act. criminal conviction based on a failure to act must be prosecuted under gross negligence manslaughter

Outline R v Cheshire

whether the accused’s acts of shooting the victim had caused the death or whether the chain of causation was broken by the negligent medical treatment

R v Brown

Consent is generally not a defence to assault occasioning ABH or greater harm unless the activity falls into a recognised lawful exception (e.g., surgery, sport, tattooing).

R v Savage and Parmenter

- For S20 the D must intend or foresee some physical harm

R v Dhaliwal

Psychological injury, if medically recognised, can amount to ABH or GBH, but mere emotions (like grief, fear, or distress) are not bodily harm; also, a verdict of manslaughter failed because the victim's suicide broke the chain of causation.

R v Dica

Inflicting a disease (like HIV) can constitute GBH (s. 20 OAPA 1861), and consent is vitiated if the victim is not informed of the risk.

R v Konzani

For consent to sex to negate s. 20 GBH (inflicting a sexually transmitted disease), the victim must have actual, informed consent to the risk of disease, not just to the act of intercourse.

R v M

A case clarifying the definition of "sexual" under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It determined that "sexual" can be established by either the nature of the act itself or the purpose of the offender.

R v Miller

ABH is any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the V

T v DPP

Hurt need not be serious or permenantly but must be more than transient and trifling

R v Ireland and Burstow

ABH has been expanded to cover psych injury

R v Taylor

For S18, intention to wound is not sufficient

R v Woollin

- Test for oblique intention

1) the death was a virtually certain consequence of the D conduct

2) The D foresaw that it was a virtually certain consequence of their conduct

- D would have appreciated it

R v Rose

- GNM

- Person in D position would have forseen a serious and obvious risk of death

R v Inglis

- mercy killing is still murder

What constitutes valid consent

- can be expressed or implied

- can be implied for minor contact in everyday life e.g jostling on public transport

- must be given by a person with the capacity to consent

What is the principle in Marland V DPP

Implied consent cannot override actual non-consent when the D is aware of the implied consent

Outline Burrell v Harmer

Young boys tattooed, held consent was not valid due to their age

Outline Re MB

- patient has needle phobia refused to be injected

- momentary loss of capacity can justify overriding refusal in medical situations

Outline R v Konzani

- consent to sexual inter course is not consent to the HIV, The D must inform the other person, charged with S20

Outline R v Meli

- deceiving the V as to the identity of the D, not medically qualified to give Botox, consent invalid

Outline R v Tabassum

- deceived the V as to the quality of the act

- told the V it was a breast cancer survey, touches breasts was not a doctor

Outline R v Nichol

- Teacher pupil relationship

- consent not valid due to the teachers authority over the girl

Outline R v Brown

- HOL refused to allow defence of consent to injuries caused by consensual homosexual sado-masochisitc activities

Outline R v Wilson

- held that consensual activity between a husband and wife in the privacy of their own home was not a matter for criminal investigation or conviction

Outline consent in organised sport

- R v Barnes, participation is implicit consent to injury

- criminal prosecution only used for the gravest conduct beyond risks understood

Outline consent in medical treatment

R v Paterson= people can give valid consent to medical treatment but not when D performs the treatment with no legitimate medical basis

Outline consent and body modification

- tattooing and ear piercing are lawful activities that people can consent to

- branding initials on your spouse can be regarded as lawful, R v Wilson

- R v BM, removal of ear, nipple and tongue splitting was held to be unlicensed surgery

Outline consent and disease transmission

R v Dica= must fully inform V the risk of infection

What case is used for consent and horseplay

R v Aitken = consent can provide a defence

Thabo Meli v R

- a sequence of conduct can form a single transaction and criminla act, coincidence can occur as long as MR is present at some point

Latimer and Pembliton

Latimer= if the D possess the MR of an offence towards the V but instead inflicts the AR on another person, D is liable

Pemblinton= AR and MR must be for same offence, crimes must be similar

R v Miller

- D has a legally recognised duty to act

Fagan v MPC

- AR and MR do not need to coincide, MR can be formed later as a result of a continuing AR

R v White

Sets out the test for factual causation, the 'but for' test

Kimsey

- elemnt of legal causation, must be more than de minimus

R v Hughes

- element of legal causation, conduct must be blameworthy

R v Blake

- for strict liability offences, no MR required

R v Chesire

- third party only break the chain where they are so potent they render the D actions insignificant

R v Robert's

- where the V brings about their own harm by attempting to escape the threat posed by D, must be unreasonable

R v Kennedy

- intervening act of drugs, if the D has supplied the drugs and the V has injected, breaks the chain of causation

R v Jordan

- negligent medical treatment can break the chain of causation

Pagett

- third party actions break chain id the act is free, delibertae and informed, independant of original defendants actions

R v Field

- D conduct can be found to be a substantial cause of V death when they have taken their own life if their actions causes V inability to make informed decision

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent

For conduct only crimes, do not need causation

Moloney

- murder mens rea requires a subjective intent to kill or cause GBH, not just foresight of death

R v G

- test for recklessness

1) D subjectivley forsees a risk of harmful circumstances or results

2) D proceeds to take that risk in circumstances that render it unreasonable to do so

Forsyth

'Act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty'

What defines theft

S1(1) Theft Act 1968= a person is guilty of theft if he dishineslty appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permenantly depriving the other of it

Outline the appropriation element

- S3, assumption by a person of the rights of an owner

- includes coming by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it but keeping or dealing with it as an owner

- R v Morris= can occur with the owners consent

- Gomez= even an honest appropriation is appropriation

Outline the property element

S4(1)= includes money and all other property, real or personal, includes things in action and other intangible property

R v Smith= controlled drugs possessed unlawfully are still property

Davis= cash and electric funds but not cheques

Preddy= things in action

What is not considered to be property

S4(2)- land except in limited circumstances

S4(3)- non commercial foraging of mushrooms, flowers, fruit of foliage

S4(4)- wild animals

Oxford v Moss= knowledge/information cannot be stolen

Sharpe- human corpses and body parts

Outline the belonging to another element

- S5(1)= can be possession, control or holding a right/interest in property

- Turner= it is possible to steal property that you yourself own

- Kelly, only concerns lawful possession

- Interests include = beneficiaries of trusts S5(2), loaned or borrowed property S5(3), property received in error S5(4)

Outline abandoned property

- no owner, merely lost property is not abandoned

- Williams v Philips, taking rubbish

- R v Rostron and Collinson, taking lost golfballs

- once abandoned usually becomes owned by the finder unless...

- Waverley= the property is in or underneath land

- Graftstein v Holme= property found on employers property by an employee

- Hibbert v McKiernan= property is found on restricted land by a trespasser

Outline dishonesty

- negatively defined in S2(1)

-D is not dishonest if

- S2(1)(a) = genuinely believed they had a right in law to appropriate the property

- S2(1)(b)= they genuinely believed they would have the owners consent if they had known

- S2(1)(c)= genuinely believe owner cannot be discovered through reasonable steps

What are the three stages of determining dishonesty if the negative definition doesn't apply

R v Feely= was D dishonest according to the standards of ordinary and decent people

R v Gosh= was D dishonest according to the standard of reasonable and honest people, and did D realise they were dishonest by those standards

Ivey v Genting Casinos= what was D knowledge and understanding of the relevant facts, from this perspective, was D dishonest by the standard of ordinary decency people

Outline intention to permenantly deprive

- same standard for intention as used in homicide e.g Moloney and Woollin

- S6(1), intention to treat the property as D to dispose of regardless of owners right

- Easom = conditional intent is not enough

- Borrowing can amount to theft when it if for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to outright taking or disposal

Outline Actus reus of assault

Fagan v MPC= D causes the V to apprehend immediate unlawful violence

R v Ireland and Burstow= words alone are sufficient

Does not need to be instant

Fear not necessary

Outline men's Rea of assault

D intended to cause the V to apprehend immediate unlawful violence

R v Venna= can be reckless as to causing

Outline the Actus reus of battery

Application of unlawful force by the D upon V

Slightest unlawful touch sufficient

DPP v K= can be directly or indirectly applied

DPP v Santana Bermudez= can be committed by an omission

Outline the men's Rea of battery

D intended to apply unlawful violence to V or is reckless as to whether such force may be applied to the V body, R v Venna

What act defines this and what is it

S2 Homicide Act 1957 (as amended by S52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009)= D kills or is a party to the killing of another beacuse D's medical condition causes D an abnormaloty of mental functioning that substantially impairs D's ability

What is the first element of the defence

- D has an abnormality of mental functioning

- R v Byrne= state of mind so different from ordinary people that the reasonable person would term it abnormal

- R v Bunch= medical evidence is needed to prove the abnormality

What is the second element of the defence

- D has a recognised medical condition which the abnormality of functioning has arose from

- R v Wood= voluntary consumption of alcohol does not constitute abnormality of the mind

What is the third element of the defence

- Substantial impairment of D's ability

1) understand the nature of the D conduct

2) form rational judgement

3) exercise self control

- 'Substantially impaired'= R v Golds, 'significant or appreciable', more then merely trivial

What is the fourth element of the defence

- abnormality provides an explanation for the killing

- caused or is a significant contributory factor in causing the D to kill

What happens when D has a recognised medical condition and is intoxicated at the same time

- R v Joyce and Kay

- may still rely on the defence if their medical condition impaired theirs their ability despite the voluntary intoxication

- if intoxication is caused by drug/alcohol dependency which is a recognised medical condition, jury need to consider the effect of thr dependency

Which act sets out the defence

S54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

- evidential burden of proof on the D

- D loses self control due to a qualifying trigger and a normal person in the same circumstances would have reacted in the same/similar way as D

Outline the first element

- D must have lost self control

- R v Jewell= loss of control not need to be sudden,

- The longer the delay the less likely there will be a loss of control

- S54(4) where the D acted in a considered desire for revenge, D did not lose self-control

Outline the second element

- There must be a qualifying trigger

A) Fear of serious violence= S55(3), against themself or another identified person, as long as fear is genuine does not need to be reasonable

- if fear is incited by the D themself defence cannot be used, S55(6), R v Dawes

B) Sense of being seriously wronged by things said or done= must be of seriously grave character and made the D have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged, S55(4)

- grave character assessed objectively, R v Mohammed

What are the two exclusions to things said or done element

S55(6)= if the thing said or done was induced by D own conduct for the purpose of providing D with an excuse to use violence

Sexual infidelity= cannot be used solely as a qualifying trigger

R v Clinton= sexual infidelity can be used when forming part of a cohesive whole which makes D lose control

Outline the third element of this defence

- Hypothetical normal person would have acted in the same/similar way

- Person of the same sex and age of the D with normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint in the same circumstances as the D, S54

- R v Rejmasnki & Gassman= mental disorder should not be attributed to the hypothetical person

- R v Asmelash= voluntary intoxication should not be attributed to the hypothetical person

What is the modern definition of murder

R v Cunnginham= unlawful killing of a human being under the king's peace with an intention to kill or cause GBH

Outline three overall requirements

- more than de minimus cause= Kimsey

- blameworthy cause= Hughes

- operating cause= no novus Actus interveniens

What is the Actus reus of murder

The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the kings peace, death must be caused by the D conduct

Outline the kings peace element

- Any killing which takes place not at a time of war is under the king's peace

Outline reasonable person in being

- V must be a human being

- killing of a foetus is not sufficient as not considered a human being, AG Ref, No.3 of 1994

What is the men's Rea of murder

- requires an intention to kill or cause GBH

R v Cunningham

- can be direct or oblique intention

Outline direct intention

- it was the D purpose/aim to bring about the prohibited result, R v Moloney

- can include injecting a lethal dose, R v Inglis

Outline oblique intention

- current test is set out in R v Woolin

A) the result was a virtually certain consequence of the D conduct, objective test

B) The D foresaw that it was a virtually certain consequence of their conduct, subjective test

What, in modern terms, is the definition of murder in English law?

(a) Unlawfully causing the death of a human being with the intention to kill or being

reckless as to killing.

(b) Unlawfully causing the death of, or grievous bodily harm to, a human being with the

intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

(c) Unlawfully causing the death of a human being with the intention to kill or cause

grievous bodily harm.

(d) Unlawfully causing the death of a human being with the intention to kill.

(e) Unlawfully causing the death of a human being with malice before-thought.

c

Alison is walking along Stannage Edge in the Peak District when she sees Bernard with

whom she went to school. Bernard remorselessly bullied Alison at school. Alison sees that

Bernard has stopped on the edge of the cliffs to admire the view. She quickly runs up behind

him and pushes him off the cliff edge. Bernard falls 15 metres and suffers non-life

threatening fractures to his legs. The Yorkshire air ambulance is called, Bernard is put on a

stretcher, and placed in the air ambulance. Unfortunately, the rear door of the air

ambulance is not closed properly and Bernard slides out of the rear door to his death while

being transported to hospital.

Which of the following best explains the position in relation to whether Alison has in law

caused Bernard’s death?

(a) She has caused Bernard’s death because ‘but for’ Alison pushing Bernard off the cliff,

he would not have died.

(b) She has caused Bernard’s death because her pushing Bernard off the cliff was a

substantial and operative cause of Bernard’s death.

(c) She has caused Bernard’s death because, even though the push was not the sole nor

the main cause, it contributed to Bernard’s death.

(d) She has not caused Bernard’s death because, apportioning blame between Alison

and the air ambulance team, they are more blameworthy.

(e) She has not caused Bernard’s death because the failure to close the door of the air

ambulance properly was so independent and so potent an event that it rendered her

contribution insignificant. - bc chain of causation was broken

E

Question 3

When will a negligent act or omission become ‘gross’, according to the test in R v Adomako

[1995] 1 AC 171?

(a) When the jury decides that the defendant ought to be guilty.

(b) When the judge decides the defendant ought to be guilty.

(c) When the defendant’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission

(d) When the defendant’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a civil act or omissions.

(e) When the defendant’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a gross breach of health and safety regulations.

C

In relation to the partial defence of diminished responsibility, which of the following offers

the best definition of a ‘substantial’ in relation to a defendant’s substantially impaired ability

to: understand their own conduct; form a rational judgment; or exercise self-control.

(a) Minimally or trivially impaired.

(b) Anything more than trivially impaired.

(c) Significantly impaired

(d) Almost completely impaired.

(e) Completely impaired.

C

Which of these correctly states the mens rea of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, section 20?

(a) Intention to inflict actual bodily harm.

(b) Intention to inflict some harm or recklessness as to inflicting some harm.

(c) Intention to assault/batter, or recklessness as to assault/battery.

(d) Intention to inflict grievous bodily harm or recklessness as to inflicting grievous

bodily harm.

(e) Intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

B

Question 2

An office building is on fire in the middle of Sheffield. The first fire engine and crew arrive.

One of the firefighters, Alison, tries to connect a stand pipe and firehose to a nearby

hydrant. The hydrant is blocked by sludge. To clear the sludge, Alison opens the valve which

sends a plume of water and sludge 30 metres into the air. As it comes down, the water and

sludge hits Bernard who was, having left the building, standing at the fire assembly point.

The sludge is cleared, Alison connects the standpipe and firehose, and the crew start to

spray water on the fire. Alison knew water and sludge would be blasted into the air and

might land on someone.

Which of the following best explains the position in relation to whether Alison is guilty of battery?

(a) She is guilty of battery because she has indirectly applied force to Bernard by the

water and sludge from the hydrant.

(b) She is guilty of battery because it was virtually certain that Bernard would be hit by

the water and sludge.

(c) She is not guilty of battery because a reasonable person would not have foreseen

that Bernard might be hit by the water and sludge.

(d) She is not guilty of battery because she did not intend to hit Bernard with the water

and sludge.

(e) She is not guilty of battery because although she was aware of the risk of someone

being hit by the water and sludge, it was reasonable in the circumstances to take the

Risk. - R v G

E

In which of these situations is A’s conduct NOT capable of amounting to a battery?

(a) A fails to warn B, an airport security officer, that there are loose razor blades in A’s

suitcase, which the officer is searching, and the officer hurts himself on one.

(b) A throws a bottle at B, which wakes B up when it hits him.

(c) A raises his fist to B and makes to hit her, leading to her apprehending immediate

violence from A.

(d) A puts acid into a soap dispenser, which burns B’s hands when she washes them.

(e) A accidentally parks his tractor on B’s foot and then refuses to remove the tractor.

C

In which of the following circumstances can V consent to harm caused by D?

(a) D is a qualified traditional/heuristic healer authorised to practice after three years of

training by the International College of Heuristic Healing. D opens V’s stomach to

remove a “devil stone”, which, according to the teachings D has qualified in, is the

root cause of depression.

(b) D is a qualified surgeon working in the NHS. As part of her private practice, she splits

D’s tongue so that it resembles that of a lizard, for aesthetic reasons.

(c) D inflicts brain damage on V during a mixed martial arts bout organised by Ultimate

Fighting Championship in Sheffield. D does not break the rules of mixed martial arts.

(d) D carves a sign which he uses as a name or tag into V’s buttocks with a hot knife.

(e) D puts lighter fuel on V and sets fire to it causing a burn 4cm by 4cm.

C

Which of the following can constitute ‘appropriation’ under the Theft Act 1968?

(a) A puts a barcode from a can of baked beans onto a packet containing a fillet steak at

Sainsbury’s.

(b) B receives a book from C, as a present.

(c) D tricks E into giving him £10 by pretending he has lost his train ticket home.

(d) F decides to keep a coat which a guest has left at a party at his house.

(e) All of the above.

E

Which of the following is ‘property’ for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968?

(a) Electricity which A uses by plugging her charger in and charging her laptop.

(b) A corpse on a mortuary slab.

(c) The combination for a safe, which A tells to B so he can take the contents.

(d) Cannabis plants growing in an attic converted into a hydroponic factory - smith case - controlled drugs can still be considered property and protected from violent and dishonest taking

(e) Blackberries growing wild which A picks and eats.

D

Which of the following is a correct statement of the law on ‘dishonesty’?

(a) The jury should be told they must first decide what, subjectively, was D’s state of knowledge and belief as to the relevant facts; and then, on the basis of his genuine beliefs, whether what he or she did was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. - ivey casino case

(b) The jury should be told that dishonesty is a plain English word, and that they were to decide themselves, according to their own judgement, whether what D did was dishonest or not.

(c) The jury should be told that it was irrelevant what D him or herself thought about whether what he or she did was dishonest, and that they should apply, as an objective standard, what ordinary decent people would consider dishonest.

(d) The jury should be told that they should decide whether what D did was dishonest by the standard of reasonable, decent people; and if they thought it was, then they should decide whether D knew that what he or she did was dishonest by those standards.

(e) The jury should be told that the judge decides what is dishonest and the jury must do what the judge says.

A

Which of the following is a ‘representation’ for the purposes of the offence contrary to the

Fraud Act 2006, s 2?

(a) A opens a Tinder account using the image of B, a model, as their profile picture.

(b) A types “Your Paypal account has been compromised: please login to your Paypal account here [LINK] to avoid losing your funds”, and saves it to the C: drive of his laptop.

(c) A is buying B’s flat. A asks B what the service charges (payments for maintenance of the block) are like. B provides A with her previous 10 years’ service charge payments, which range from about £75 to £150 per year. B knows that the roof is about to be replaced, and next years’ service charge is likely to be over £4,000.

(d) D successfully applies for a grant to convert her bathroom so it can accommodate her aged mother’s disabilities. D does not tell the authority providing the grant that her mother has died, before the bathroom is installed.

(e) All of the above.

(f) Just (a) and (d).

E

Which of the following situations is most likely to give rise to a successful prosecution of D

for robbery?

(a) V challenges D to a fight. D knocks V down, then takes V’s wallet which has fallen out of his jacket pocket.

(b) D tells V that if he does not give him his car, he will come back next week and shoot V.

(c) D and X break down the door of V’s house and go in. X runs upstairs. D looks for V in the downstairs room. D sees V in the front room, and, just as he starts to tie V up, he sees X coming down the stairs with a bag containing V’s electrical goods.

(d) V’s bottle of wine is standing on the table, with V’s hand round it. D grabs the bottle and runs off with it.

(e) D uses force to open a safe to steal the money inside.

C

During a heated argument outside a nightclub, Dan punches Victor once in the face. Victor stumbles backwards, falls, and hits his head on the pavement. He is taken to hospital where doctors diagnose a brain bleed. Due to a staff shortage, Victor is not monitored overnight. He dies the following morning.

Which offence is Dan most likely guilty of?

(a) Murder
(b) Gross negligence manslaughter
(c) Unlawful act manslaughter
(d) s.20 OAPA
(e) No offence

c

Emma deliberately poisons Frank intending to kill him. Frank survives long enough to be admitted to hospital. A doctor negligently administers a drug to which Frank has a rare allergy, causing his death. Medical evidence shows Frank would probably have survived but for the allergic reaction.

Which is the best legal analysis?

(a) Emma is not liable due to novus actus interveniens
(b) Emma is liable only for manslaughter
(c) Emma is liable for murder
(d) The doctor’s negligence breaks the chain of causation
(e) Emma is liable only for attempted murder

c