Key Concepts from Criminal Law Lecture Notes

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/23

flashcard set

Earn XP

Description and Tags

These flashcards cover fundamental concepts from criminal law as taught in recent lectures.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

24 Terms

1
New cards

What are the two necessary elements of a crime?

Actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind)

2
New cards

What was the outcome of the case involving Chris Kaba?

Martin Blake was acquitted of murder, claiming self-defense.

3
New cards

What is mens rea?

It refers to the mental state or intention of a person in committing a crime.

4
New cards

What is actus reus?

It refers to the physical act or conduct involved in committing a crime.

5
New cards

What must be proven for a successful conviction?

The prosecution must prove actus reus and mens rea beyond reasonable doubt.

6
New cards

What principle is illustrated by Brown v. Board of Education (1954)?

Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

7
New cards

What is the difference between direct and oblique intention?

Direct intention is when the result is the person's aim or purpose; oblique intention is when the result is a virtually certain outcome of their actions.

8
New cards

What is the concept of 'omission liability'?

Liability can arise from failing to act in situations where there is a legal duty to act.

9
New cards

What is the principle of causation in criminal law?

It establishes a link between the defendant's conduct and the resulting harm or consequence.

10
New cards

Which case established the principles of causation in the context of murder?

R v White (1910), which provided the 'but for' test for causation.

11
New cards

What are the two forms of legal causation?

Factual causation (did the defendant's actions cause the result?) and legal causation (was the defendant's conduct a substantial and operating cause of the result?).

12
New cards

What is significant about the concept of 'complete defences' in criminal law?

They lead to acquittal and include self-defense, insanity, and necessity.

13
New cards

What is the purpose of the 'but for' test in causation?

To determine whether the harm would have occurred 'but for' the defendant's conduct.

14
New cards

How does the law treat intoxication in relation to mens rea?

Intoxication can negate mens rea if it prevents the individual from forming the required intent for the crime.

15
New cards

What is the effect of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in criminal trials?

They are responsible for presenting the case against the defendant in a criminal trial.

16
New cards

What must be established for the defence of 'loss of control' to apply?

The defendant must have lost their self-control due to a qualifying trigger.

17
New cards

What does the term 'constructive manslaughter' mean?

It is when a person causes death while committing an unlawful act that is dangerous.

18
New cards

In which scenarios can duress be claimed as a legal defence?

Duress can be claimed when a person commits a crime due to threats of death or serious injury.

19
New cards

What does the 'eggshell skull rule' state?

It holds that a defendant is liable for a victim's injuries even if the extent of the injuries is greater than what could have been reasonably foreseen.

20
New cards

What are 'partial defences' and how do they affect murder charges?

Partial defences such as diminished responsibility can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter.

21
New cards

What must a defence lawyer do in a criminal trial?

They aim to create reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case and present any relevant defences.

22
New cards

How is the concept of 'actus reus' crucial for result crimes?

For result crimes, the actus reus must lead to a specific harmful consequence.

23
New cards

What are the implications of a jury's discretion in cases of provocation?

Juries must consider if a reasonable person would have reacted similarly under the given circumstances.

24
New cards

What case law shows the limitations of consent in the context of bodily harm?

R v Brown (1993), where consent did not absolve individuals from liability for bodily harm.