Criminal Law all offences/defences definitions

A-Level Criminal Law

Assault

Causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence (R v Nelson)

Assault cases

(R v Constanza) Violence must be immediate + letters = assault.

(R v Ireland) Silence and phone calls = assault.

(R v Lamb) Victim’s fear/apprehension is required for assault. 

(R v Logdon) Assault based on victim’s own belief - jokes do not negate an assault. 

(Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police) D’s intention to cause V fear and pose a threat of unlawful violence is enough to amount to assault.

(Turberville v savage) Words can negate an assault.

Battery

The application of unlawful force (Gladstone v Williams)

Battery cases

(R v Thomas) Touching of clothes is equivalent to touching a person = battery

(Collins v Wilcock) No consent = battery

(R v Haystead) No requirement of direct contact with the V’s body to amount to battery.

(Fagan v MPC) Continuing act. Can be guilty of battery by forming the mens rea by refusing to correct the actus reus. MR and AR does not need to coincide to be convicted. 

(DPP v Santana-Bermudez) Failure to prevent battery/omission = battery

ABH

The harm need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling. (R v Donovan)

ABH cases

(R v Miller) Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim.

(DPP v Smith) Cutting of hair = ABH + not limited to harm to skin.

(T v DPP) Loss of consciousness = ABH

(R v Chan Fook) Psychiatric injury = ABH absence of medical condition e.g distressing emotions of fear or panic does NOT amount to ABH

GBH s.20

Unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict GBH upon any other person.

GBH s.20 cases

• UNLAWFULLY - no joint involvement (Moloney) not done in self defence (Clegg)

• WOUNDING  - must break at least 2 layers of skin (Eisenhower) (Wood)

• GBH - Viscount Kilmuir - GBH should be given its ordinary meaning which is ‘really serious harm (DPP v Smith)

(Bollom) Vulnerable victim or public sector worker.

(Burstow) Psychiatric injury.

(Venna) Physical injury.

(Golding/Dica) - Biological injury/transmission of disease.

GBH s.18

Unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict GBH with INTENT (Belfon), or resisting arrest. (Morisson)

GBH s.18 cases

• UNLAWFULLY - no joint involvement (Moloney) not done in self defence (Clegg)

• WOUNDING  - must break at least 2 layers of skin (Eisenhower) (Wood)

• GBH - Viscount Kilmuir - GBH should be given its ordinary meaning which is ‘really serious harm (DPP v Smith)

(Bollom) Vulnerable victim or public sector worker.

(Burstow) Psychiatric injury.

(Venna) Physical injury.

(Golding/Dica) - Biological injury/transmission of disease.

+ (Belfon) Intentionally wound or inflict GBH

Murder

Lord Edward Coke defines murder as, “the unlawful killing of a person in being under the King's peace with Malice Aforethought Expressed or Implied”

Murder Cases

Unlawful (Pagett) - it is NOT unlawful if: permitted by the law, done in self-defence

Killing - Must cause death. Act can be an omission (Gibbins and Proctor)

Causing - Same rules of causation apply.

Death - A doctor declaring somebody as brain dead and killing them is not classified as murder. (Malcharek)

Human being - defined as a “person in being,” must exist independently from their mother (Attorney General’s Reference No.3 of 1994)

Level of intention measured through “Malice Aforethought Expressed or implied” (Mohan and Woolin)

EXCEPTIONS: Where an omission can make a person guilty for the offence of murder. An omission is only sufficient for actus reus when there is a duty to act:

A statutory duty (created by parliament), a duty created by a special position (Dytham), a contractual duty (Pittwood), a duty because of a relationship (Gibbins and Proctor), a duty which has been taken voluntarily (Stone and Dobinson), a duty which arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events (Miller).

Unlawful act - Involuntary manslaughter

The unlawful act is where the defendant had committed an offence (dangerous act) but lacks the mens rea (Mohan) of murder (Vickers).

“The unlawful act must be such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise that they have subjected the other person to the risk of some harm.” (Church)

Unlawful act - Involuntary manslaughter cases

1. (Lamb) There must be an unlawful act. 

(Goodfellow) Offence need not be an offence against the person, as described in the OAPA 1861.

(Lowe) (Khan and Khan) Cannot be an omission.

2. (Church) Unlawful act must be dangerous:

Based on objective test (Watson): “The sober and reasonable person would realise that doing such an act could cause some harm (need not be serious)”

NO MENS REA REQUIRED. 

Involuntary manslaughter = no mens rea to kill.

(Newbury and Jones) No need for the defendant to foresee harm to another.

Gross negligence - Involuntary manslaughter

(R v Adomako) “So bad in all circumstances as to amount in the jury’s judgement to a criminal act (Mitchell) or omission (Gibbins v Proctor)”

Bateman “such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a serious crime, deserving of punishment”

Gross negligence - Involuntary manslaughter cases

Actus reus elements established in case of (R v Broughton):

• Duty of care

(Donoghue v Stevenson) Duty of care is (Ruffel) assumed. (Gibbins v Proctor) Proximite relationship

• Breach of duty

(R v Wacker) A breach of duty of care to the victim.

(Singh) Gross negligence can apply to property

• Serious and obvious risk constituting death

(Apply to the scenario the serious and obvious risks)

• Foreseeable risk

(R v Misra and Srivistara) Doctor, or anyone of profession, should have recognised the serious and obvious risk.

(Nettleship v Weston) Learner drivers are still expected to to meet the same standard as a qualified competent driver.

• Causation

Theft

“the dishonest, appropriation of property, belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive.”

Theft cases

AR: Appropriation s.3: (R v Morris) “Any assumption of the rights of the owner.”

(R v Gomez) (R v Hinks)

Property s.4: Money, real or personal property, things in action, other intangible property.

(R v Kelly and Lindsay) (R v Welsh) (Oxford v Moss)

Belonging to another s.5: Possession, control or proprietary interest (treating property as one’s own)

(R v Turner) (R v Woodman) (Davidge v Bunnett) (AG’s reference No.1 of 1983) Property received by mistake - theft of thing in action as D was under obligation to return it. 

A ‘thing in action’ is property that can be claimed in a court action e.g debt, cheques.

MR: Dishonesty s.2: (Ivey v Genting Casino) Was D dishonest by the ordinary standards of honest and reasonable people?

Lord Chief Justice “Ivey is correct, is to be preferred” - replaced the GHOSH test.

HONESTY RULES:

• (Robinson) Belief that they have by law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or 3rd party 

• Belief that they would have the others consent

• Belief that the owner of the property could not have been discovered by taking reasonable steps.

Intention to permanently deprive s.6: D treats the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s rights. 

(R v Raphael) (DPP v Lavender) (R v Velumyl) (R v Lloyd) - NO THEFT

Robbery

“Stealing using force or putting any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.”

A theft must have also occurred for robbery, defined under s.1 of the Theft act of 1968 as “the dishonest appropriation of property, belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive.” (no theft, no robbery.)

Robbery cases

DEFINE ALL OF THE ACTUS REUS OF THEFT FIRST; INCLUDING Appropriation s.3, property s.4 and belonging to another s.5.

Actus reus of robbery:

Stealing immediately before or at the time of stealing, and in order to steal, using force or threatening force

(Dawson v James) Force is to be considered an ordinary word… Lord Justice Lawton: It is up to the jury to decide whether force has been used. FORCE CAN BE SMALL, but MORE THAN TRIVIAL (P V DPP)

(R v Clouden) Force used on an object (bag) is sufficient to amount to force on a person. NO NEED FOR DIRECT CONTACT.

(R v Hale) Continuing act of robbery + considers multiple D’s carrying out a theft. Lord Justice Eveleigh: “It is a continuous act and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the appropriation has finished."

Threat must be immediately before or at the time of stealing.

(B v R v DPP) The victim does not need to fear the robbery. Force need not be against the victim of the theft

(R v Bentham) Threat need not be direct or real e.g a fake gun - as long as a threat is present = robbery

(Corcoran v Anderton) Irrelevant that D’s left empty handed/ gained no full control over bag - touching of property = appropriation. THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A COMPLETED THEFT.

Mens rea of robbery - intention to threaten or use force:

(R v Mohan) D aims or desires to threaten or use force

(R v Cunningham) The threat of force is virtually certain and D realises this

Dishonesty s.2: (Ivey v Genting Casino) Was D dishonest by the ordinary standards of honest and reasonable people? Objective test. Lord Chief Justice “Ivey is correct, is to be preferred” - replaced the GHOSH test.

HONESTY RULES:

• (R v Robinson) Belief that they have by law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or 3rd party 

• Belief that they would have the others consent

• (R v Small) Belief that the owner of the property could not have been discovered by taking reasonable steps.

Intention to permanently deprive s.6: D treats the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s rights. 

(R v Raphael) (DPP v Lavender) Intention to permanently deprive

(R v Velumyl) Had intention to permanently deprive company of banknotes - even if he intended to replace the money of the same value later on.

(R v Lloyd) No theft

Insanity

D cannot distinguish between right and wrong due to a severe mental disorder at the time of the crime. Insanity is caused by an internal factor.

It is a complete defence and can be used for all crimes except strict liability crimes. Can issue an absolute discharge: Not guilty by reason of insanity.

Insanity cases

M'NAGHTEN RULES:

Disease of the mind

(R v Kemp) Hardening of the arteries 

(R v Thomas) Sleepwalking

(R v Sullivan) Epilepsy

(R v Hennesy) Diabetes, suffered a mild attack amounting to insanity. INSANITY because there were not external factors; the disease, diabetes, is an internal factor.

Defect of reason

(R v Clark) absent-mindedness or confusion did not equate to insanity. Shoplifting case. 

The defendant did not know the nature or quality of their act or that it was wrong

(R v Windle) The defendant in this case killed his wife, and afterwards declared “I suppose they will hang me for this”. Although he was suffering from a mental illness, he still knew that his actions were legally wrong, so his defence of insanity failed.

(R v Codere) The defendant slit the victim’s throat under the illusion that it was a loaf of bread.

Automatism

An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind’ such as a spasm, reflex action. Bratty v Attorney General

Automatism cases

(Hill v Baxter) External cause

(AG - Reference) No control of the mind.

(Majewski) Self induced automatic state

(Hardie) Defendant has a reaction to a substance that was not a foreseeable outcome, then self induced automatism may be applicable. - Set fire after taking pills which had the opposite intended effect.

(R v Quick) Hypoglycemia due to insulin, causing lack of control. involuntary actions caused by external factors that impair the defendant's control over their actions.

Self induced: (Majewski) Caused by intoxicating substances, the defendant CAN NOT use this defence. 

(Bailey) Cannot be used if the defendant was reckless. The defendant was a diabetic who had failed to eat enough after taking his insulin.

Loss of Control

s.54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 D will be guilty of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder if successful

The loss of the ability to act with considered judgment or normal powers of reasoning (R v Jewell)

Loss of control cases

1. The defendant must have lost self-control R v Jewell

2. There must have been a qualifying trigger R v Dawes

3. A person of the same sex and age would have reacted in the same way as the defendant in the same circumstances.
   

Qualifying triggers:

s55(3) - Fear of serious violence

s55(4) - things done or sad which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

The loss of control need not be sudden 

Exception:

Sexual infidelity alone is not a qualifying trigger (R v Clinton)

The defence is not allowed if the D acted in a ‘considered desire for revenge’

Diminished Responsibility

s2 Homicide act 1957 and amended by s.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 D will be guilty of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder if successful

D will not be guilty of murder if suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning

Diminished Responsibility cases

D will not be guilty of murder if suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning R v Byrne which:

1. Arose from a recognised mental condition

2. Substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more R v Golds  - to understand nature of D’s conduct, to form a rational judgment, to exercise self-control

3. Provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing

• Where the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the killing, the D cannot use defence  R v Dowds

• The defendant was intoxicated and has a pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning, can still use defence R v Dietschmann

Intoxication was due to an addition which can be an abnormality of mental functioning R v Wood