criminal law cards

what is a crime

conduct which is forbidden by the state- for which there is a punishment
overtime what is considered criminal will change

how is law set

by passing acts of parliment or case law
breach of criminal law can lead to a penalty
majority of criminal prosecution are conducted by cps

actus reus

guilty act
can be act, ommission or state of affairs
act must be voluntary on part of D

mens rea

guilty mind
concerns the mindset of d when act was commited

actus reus + mens rea=

offence
both have to be proved for a criminal offence

strict liabilty

no mens rea needs to be proves eg statutory rape

burden of proof

prosecution must prove d is guilty

standard of proof

beyond reasonable doubt

defence equation

actus reus+ mens rea= offence- defence= criminal liabilty

types of crimes

conduct crime- actus reus was prohibited
a state of affairs
a failure to act - ommission
consequence crime

state of affairs crime

actus reus can be a state of affairs for which D is responsible
actus reus consists of being rather than doing

ommission

failure to act
not guilty for failing to act unless there is a duty to act
statutory duty
contractual duty
duty due to a relationship
taken on voluntarily
official position
causes a chain of events

causation

guilty act must be cause of consequence prosecution must show that

1. D's conduct was factual cause

2. D's conduct was the cause

3. No interveining act to break chain of causation

but for test

only guilty if the consequence wouldn't of happened but for D's actions

causation in law

D can be guilty even if the conduct wasn't the cause of the consequence
more than minimal cause but less than substantial cause

basic intent

recklessness is enough to satisfy mens rea

specific intent

these crimes require intention

direct intention

a true desire to bring about the consquence- d set out to achieve result

oblique intent

issue arises when d claims he did not intend the result- however the result is virtually certain to happen jury are allowed to infer that d had required mens rea

subjective test

d's point of view on if the action was reasonable

objective test

ordinary persons point of view- would a normal person have reacted in the same way

recklessness

not as serious as intention
covers situations where someone has taken an unjust risk
d must recognise the risk
defined in cunningham

transffered malice

if a person commit an unlawful act against another person which actually injures another mens rea is transffered

contemporaniety rule

d must have actus reus and mens rea at the same time to have the offence

continuing act

when the actus reus comes first- courts apply continuing act- actus reus is stretched over time so d will be guilty when mens rea is also present

asssault def

charged under s39 in criminal justic act 1988- putting a person in fear of immediate personal violence

battery def

charged under s39 of the criminal justice act 1988- applying unlawful force to the victim

common assault

lowest level of OAP 2 ways to commit - assault and battery 6 months prision or 5k fine - or both

assault- actus reus

act or words
no need for physical contact
completed when d causes v to believe that unlawful violence will eb used against them
an ommission is not enough

assault- mens rea

1. intention to cause violence

2. recklessness

battery

S39

battery - actus reus

might be force

slightest touching

can be indirect

can be committed through an ommission

mens rea battery

intetnion to apply unlawful force

recklessness that force will be applied

S47 defined under

s47 OAPA 1861

S47 def

an assault/battery that occasions abh

S47 mens rea

the d must either intend (mohan) or be subjectivly reckless (cunningham) as to the assault or battery

S47 actus reus

the act of either an assault/ battery that occasions abh

this is defined as any hurt or injury that interferes with the health and comfort of the victim (milller) (smith) - can be psychiatiric (chan fook)

momentary unconciousness (t v dpp)- cutting hair (dpp v smith)

s18 def

unlawful and malicious wounding or causing GBH with intent

s18 defined in

OAPA 1861

s18 actus reus

the act of causing gbh / wounding defined as breaking two layers of skin (eisenhower)

age and health of victim needs to be considered (bollom)

includes knowingly transmitting a biological disease (DICA)

and severe psychiatric harm (burstow)

s18 mens rea

the d must intend (Mohan) to cause serious harm

can be oblique intention (woollin)

s20 def

infliction of GBH/ malicious wounding

s20 defined in

OAPA 1861

s20 actus reus

the act of inflicting GBH/ wounding

defined as breaking two layers of skin (eisenhower)

age and health of victim is considered (bollom)

included knowingly transmitting a biological disease (dica)

severe depression (burstow)

s20 mens rea

the d must either intend (mohan)

or be subjectivly reckless (cunningham) as to causing serious harm

d does not have to intend serious harm (parmenter)

s39 strengths

sufficient case law to allow flexibility

battery was developed through courts to include indirect force

assault “immediate” satisfied if v didnt know what d would do next

older langauge used leads to wider modern day def

s39 criticisms

no designed to work as hierarchy of defences

no measure of victim fear

no clear def of assault and battery

gap in the law - must be immediate

s39 reforms

1988 draft bill - set out 4 main offences - not passed

law commission proposal- divide assault into 2 offences

keep sentence at 6 months

s47 strengths

sliding scale of punishment

oapa established case law that works alongside to give aditional clarification

new case law can set precedent

chanfook- allows grey areas

s47 criticisms

same as assault / battery

out of date

doesnt work as a hierachy

same mr as assault

same max sentence as s20

s47 reforms

1988 draft bill - set out 4 main offences - not passed

law commission proposal supports- d guilty if intentionally or recklessly cause injury to another person

keep max sentence at 5 years

s20 strengths

case law meets shortfalls of statute

ar of gbh recognises age and health of v

appropriate punishment

s20 criticisms

no def for gbh

old fashioned language

sentencing issues

wounding not defined

s20 reforms

1988 draft bill - set out 4 main offences - not passed

max sentence 7 years

s18 strengths

case law meets shortfalls of statute

harsher punishments for more serious offences

s18 criticisms

no def for gbh

old fashioned lanaguge

sentencing issues

wounding not defined

s18 reforms

1988 draft bill - clause 1 created offence of intentional serious injury to replace s18- not passed

murder def

unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the kings peace with malice aforethought express of applied - lord coke

murder actus reus

unlawful killing (Re:A conjoined twin)

under kings peace- no war

can be an act or ommission (gibbens and proctor)

must cause the death

murder mens rea

malice aforethought - intention

d must intend gbh or to kill

express intent

intention direct or oblique to kill

implied intent

intention direct or oblique to cause gbh

diminished responsibility- set out in

s2 Homicide Act 1957

DR ammended by

s52 coronors justice act 2009

diminished responsibilty

a person charged with murder will have the charge reduced to vm if they satisfy the requirments of - DR - LOC

abnormality of mental functioning

which arose from a recognised medical condition

recognised medical conditions

psychotic disorders- byrne

clinical deppression

post natal deppression - reynolds

premenstrul tenstion- english

battered spouse syndrome - ahluwalia

s52 of CJA 2009 - must be impaired

form a rational judgement

exercise self control

understand the nature of their conduct

s52 (1C) new exmplantion for d’s acts and ommissions

abnormality should cause of be a significatn factor in causing d to kill

DR and intoxication

intoxication cannot support a defence of DR

jury should disregard intoxication and decide if the abnormality of mental functioning impaired d’s ability to function

alcohol dependancy syndrome

d’s long term alcohol use has lead to a medical condition

jury must consider - was syndrome to an extent that it is constituting an abnormality of mental functioning

was d’s mental responsibility substantially impaired

loss of control

LOc can reduce murder to vm

where is defence of loc found

s54 CJA 2009

qualifying triggers

d was in fear of violence

things said or done constituted an extremly grave charachter and caused d to have a justified sense of being wronged

combitation of both

s54 (1) where a person kils d is not to be convicted if

acts or ommissions resulted from a loss of self control

loc had a qualifying trigger

a persons of d’s sex and age would act in the same way

restrictions on qualifying triggers

d’s fear is disregarded if they provoked d

sexual infidelity

revenge

s39 (a)

assault

S20

gbh no intent

S18

gbh with intent

s47

assault and battery

ABH

(s47)

voluntary intoxication LOC

should not be considered part on circumstances - if sober person would of acted the same way it may be a defence

LOC test

objective test

similar age and sex of D

alcoholism and deppression are not relevant

unlawful act manslaughter

must be an unlawful act

act must be dangerous

must cause death - causation applies

must have mens rea for unlawful act

UAM

unlawful act manslaughter

u

drink

cows

milk

unlawful

dangerous

causation

mens rea

involuntary mansalughter def

d does not intend to kill or cause gbh - no mens rea

uam actus reus

unlawful act must be dangerous

uam mens rea

d must have mr for unlawful act which is dangerous and cuased death - does not need to forsee death

GNM

gross neglidence manslaughter

gnm def

a person dies as a result of the negligence of another - the degree of negligence by d is sufficiently serious

4 elements of GNM

duty of care

breach of duty

gross negligence

risk of death

dont

buy

green

rats

duty

breach

gross negligence

risk

duty of care

ordinary principles of negligence in tort apply to ascertain if there was a duty of care

civil principles

proximity of relationship

reasonable forseeability of harm

fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care

breach of duty

once a breach is established it must be proved that it caused death

jury decides

causation applies

breach must be gross

fact that d was negligent is not enough - must be gross- set out in bateman

risk of death

has to be clear theres risk of death

gn mens rea

gn

theft def

a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permenantly depriving the other of it