Criminal law answer plans

Duress

Intro

• Common law defence

• Not a defence to murder - R v Howe

Requirements - R v Hasan

1. Threat of serious injury or death

• Immediacy is not strictly applied - R v Hudson & Taylor

• Blackmail not enough but can be accounted for - R v Valderrama-Vega

2. Made to a person D is responsible for

• Anyone D is responsible for - R v Shayler

3. Objective test - R v Graham

• Did the D have a reasonable belief in the circumstances

• Did this cause him to fear serious harm or death

• Would a sober man of reasonable firmness have acted the same way

4. Threats must relate directly to the crime - R v Cole

5. Must be no safe way out for the V - R v Abdul Hussain

6. D cannot have put themselves into that position - R v Ali

Self - Defence

Intro

• S.76 Criminal justice and Immigration Act

Requirements

1. Force must be necessary

• In circumstances as D believed them to be - R v Gladstone Williams

• Cannot rely on mistaken belief in intoxicated - R v O’Grady

• No duty to retread - R v Bird

2. Force must be reasonable

• Level of force is judged objectively - R v Martin

• Excessive use of force is unlawful - R v Palmer

Insanity

Intro

• Comes from R v M’Naghten, setting out rules to qualify

Rules

1. Defect of reason - Must prevent the D from using his powers of reason rather than him failing to use them - R v Clarke

2. Caused by a disease of the mind - Must be an internal factor - R v Burgess, Does not matter if permanent - R v Kemp

3. D does not know the nature and quality of his act - R v Windle, must be any one of: Did not know what they were doing

   Did not appreciate the consequences, Did not appreciate the circumstances in which they acted

Intoxication

Intro

• Common law defence

• Two types: Voluntary, involuntary

Involuntary intoxication

• May involve spiking or when a drug has an unexpected result - R v Hardie

• Does not apply if D underestimates the strength of the drug - R v Allen

• Only works if the D does not have the MR before the intoxication - R v Kingston

Voluntary intoxication

• Only a defence to specific intent crimes - DPP v Majewski

• Intoxication must make it so D lacked the MR - R v Lipman

Dutch courage

• D cannot drink in order to gain the courage to commit the offence - Gallagher

Loss of control

Intro

• S.54 Coroners and Justice Act

• Murder must already have been established

Requirements

1) Must be a loss of control - S.1(a)

• Does not need to be immediate - R v Bailie

• Cannot be planned - R v Ibrams and Gregory

2) Must have a qualifying trigger - S.1(b)

• V must fear serious violence

• Circumstances of grave character and gave D a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Restrictions

• Sexual infidelity - S.55 (6a) - Cannot be solely be relied on - R v Clinton

• Incitement - S.55 (6b) - R v Johnson

• Revenge is not a valid defence

Objective test

• Would person of same characteristics and normal tolerance have acted the same way? - R v Mohammed

UAM

Common law offence

Definition - When the D causes the V’s death whilst carrying out a criminal act that is deemed to be dangerous

AR elements:

1. Unlawful Act - must be positive act , established in R v Lamb ,state what the unlawful act was, apply the AR of the committed act, apply to scenario

2. Dangerous Act - Reasonable person would foresee some harm, comes from R v Church, apply to scenario

3. Caused death - must be significant cause, R v Corion-Auguiste

MR - D must have MR for the committed act, Newbury + Jones
Apply the type of intent

Factual causation = “But for” test

Legal causation = operating and substantial cause

Assault

Intro

• Any act that causes the V to apprehend an immediate infliction of unlawful personal violence - Fagan v MPC

• Common law offence

• S.39 OATP

AR

• V does not need to fear - R v Lamb

• No need for there to be a threat - Logdon v DPP

• Silence is sufficient - R v Ireland

• Must be part of current activity - Smith v CC of Woking

• Violence must be unlawful

MR

• Intention or recklessness to cause V to apprehend immediate violence - R v Savage

Battery

Intro

• Common law offence

• S.39 OATP

• Unlawful application of force to another - R v Ireland

AR

• Application need not be direct - R v Haystead

• Consent can make it lawful - R v Jones

• Force used can be slight (clothes) - R v Thomas

• Must be physical force - Faulkner v Talbot

MR

• Intention or recklessness to apply unlawful force - R v Venna

GBH

Intro

• S.18/20 OATP

AR

• Must have either n assault or battery - R v Clarence

• Unlawful force - Cannot consent

• Wound - Must break first two layers of skin - JCC v Eisenhower OR GBH - serious harm - R v Brown & Stratton

• Infliction can be indirect - R v Wilson

MR

• S.20 - Intent or recklessness to cause some harm - R v Savage

• S.18 - Intent to cause serious harm - R v Belfon

ABH

Intro

• S.47 OATP

AR

• Must have either an assault or a battery

• Must interfere with the health/comfort of the V - R v Miller

• Harm can be psychiatric - Chan Fook

MR

• Intention or recklessness to cause an assault or battery

Automatism

Intro

• Common law defence

Requirements

1. Act must be involuntary - D cannot regain control of his actions - Broome v Perkins

2. Must be caused by an external factor e.g. blow to the head, hyperglaecemia does not count - R v Hennessey

3. Cannot be self induced - D cannot knowingly put themselves in that position - R v Bailey

Attempts

Intro

• S.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act

AR

• Must do something more than merely preparatory - R v Geddes

• Must move from preparation to execution

• Has the D done an act showing that they were trying to commit the offence

• S.1 (2) - Can still be found guilty of attempt even if crime was impossible to commit - R v Shivpuri

MR

• D must have the MR to commit the full offence, recklessness not enough - R v Khan

Robbery

Intro

• S.8 Theft Act 1968

• Must establish theft first

• Definition - Using force in order to steal

AR -

• Force must be used immediately before or at the time - R v Hale

• Degree of force is determined by the jury - R v Dawson & James

• Threat is placed on someone, does not have to be the person being robbed

• Force must be used in order to steal

MR

• Exact same MR as needed for theft

Theft

Intro

• S.1(1) Theft Act

AR

• S.3 - Appropriation - assumption of the rights of the owner - R v Morris

• S.4 - Property - Money, personal property etc - R v Velumyl, information does not count - Oxford v Moss

• S.5 Belonging to another - Someone is in possession / control of the property - R v Turner

MR

• S.2 - Dishonesty - Always apart from exceptions ( Believes has a right, believes he would be given consent, owner cannot reasonably be found), did the D and would the ordinary man believe D to be being honest - Ivey v Genting

• S.6 - Intent to permanently deprive - R v Lavender

GNM

Definition - A duty of care breached so far it is deserving of a criminal consequence

Common law offence - R v Bateman

5 Elements of the AR:

1. Duty of Care - D must owe a DoC to the victim, apply to show D’s role and use omission categories to show why the DoC is present, R v Stone and Dobinson

2. Breach of Duty - Must reach standard of a reasonably competent person, would a RC (D’s occupation) have acted similarly, established by R v Winters

3. Breach caused death - Neg must be operating and substantial cause, “but for” test, any intervening acts?

4. Risk of death - Would the RM have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death, R v Broughton, apply this to scenario

5. Gross negligence - Actions taken must be so bad that the jury deem it worthy of criminal sanctions, established by R v Misra , test from R v Adomako: D’s act caused a serious and obvious risk of death, BoD was so far below standards to be expected of a person in D’s position

MR general rule - No need for evidence of intent, R v DPP ex parte Jones

Diminished Responsibility

Intro

• S.52 Coroners and Justice Act

• Must establish murder first

AOMF

• Caused by recognised medical condition

• So different from normal the RM would deem it abnormal

• Jury does not have to follow medical opinion - Peter Sutcliffe

Explanation

• Must be the significant contributing factor

• Intoxication doesn’t count unless is an addiction - R v Wood

Substantially impairs - R v Lloyd

• Understand nature of conduct

• Form rational judgement

• Exercise self control

Murder

Intro

• Common law offence

• Unlawfully killeth of any reasonable creature in being

AR

• Must be an unlawful killing - Pretty v UK

• Example of lawful killing - Authorised by war - R v Clegg

• Reasonable creature - A human that can exist independently, needs brain stem activity - R v Inglis

MR

• Intention to kill / cause GBH - R v Vickers

Consent

Consent cannot be used for anything above a battery in the OATP - R v Brown

Consent is available in regulated sports or surgery - Apply to scenario

R v Barnes = conduct must be sufficiently serious

Go through factors for jury to consider

P must prove intent of D for consent to be invalid