CRIMINAL LAW
Murder
Legal Provisions
homicide act 1957
unlawful killing of a human under the kings peace with malice aforethought ( expressed or implied )
Expressed - intent to kill
Implied- intent to cause GBH
Confirmed in (attorney generals reference no. 3 of 1994) that life begins at birth .
Elements Of Murder
unlawful killing - caused the death of a ‘reasonable creature’
Causation - factual and legal causation must be established in White .
factual - r v white - ‘ but for’
Legal - r v pagett - novus actus interveniens
Malice aforethought - intent to kill ( r v Cunningham )or intent to cause gbh ( r v vickers ).
Intent can be direct or oblique - in mohan direct intent was described as ‘ a decision to bring about the commission if he offence “
Important Cases
r v malcharek and steel - brain death counts as death
R v woollin- oblique intent - jury can infer intent if death or serious injury is virtually certain . ( oblique intent is where a person fir sees the consequence if their actions but doesn’t desire it for their own sake)
R v Cunningham - intention to cause gbh intent to cause gbh suffices for murder
Example Scenarios
unborn baby - law doesn’t recognise this as a ‘ reasonable creature’ - so killing a foetus is not murder
Thin skull rule - take your victim as you find them ( r v blaue )
Causation breaks - intervening acts ( medical negligence , victims own actions ) r v Jordan
Model answer outline
define murder with reference to unlawful killing and malice aforethought
Discuss events with supporting cases - causation, intent, death definition
Apply facts from scenarios
Address possible defences ( diminished responsibility, loss of control )
Conclude legal outcome
If guilty mandatory life sentence
Diminished Responsibilty
Legal Provisions
partial defence to murder under the homicide act 1957 as amended by the coroners and justice act 2009
If successful reduces murder to manslaughter
Key Elements
abnormality of mental functioning- raised from a medical condition that substantially impair mental responsibility ( r v Byrne - sexual psychopathy was abnormality of the mind )
Cause of the abnormality- recognised mental condition ( r v golds)
Abnormality must severely impose d’s ability to form rational judgement , exercise self control and understand the nature of their conduct
The abnormality must provide explanation for killing
Answer Outline
define diminished responsibility and statute
Lay out the key elements and apply them
Conclude legal outcome
Carries a discretionary life sentence and not mandatory
Loss Of Control
Legal Provisions
partial defence under s54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 1957.
Key elements
loss of self-control - ibrahams v Gregory( where the attack was carried out 4 days later) - loss of control must be genuine
Qualifying trigger- caused by fear of serious violence against self or another. - ward
Things said or done that constitutes circumstances of extremely grave character and justifiable sense of being wronged. ( bowyer)
Excludes a considered desire for revenge ( Dawes)
Objective test - would a person of the same sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance in the same circumstances have acted on the same way - rejmanski
Key Cases
r v Clinton- sexual infidelity is not a qualifying trigger
R v Dawes - revenge excluded
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Legal Provisons
gross negligence defined as death resulted by defendants serious breach of duty of care, and the breach is so gross it justifies criminal liability.
Key Elements
duty of care- defendant must owe duty of care - r v Singh - landlord to tenants for gas safety
This applies to doctor-patient( adamako), employer-employee( dean), driver-pedestrian( andrews) ,
Breach of duty- breach of duty falling below standard expected of a reasonable person. - r v adomako ( failed to notice disconnection of oxygen tube)
Risk of death- at the time of the breach there must have been a serious and obvious risk of death ( rudling)
Reasonably foreseeable - risk of day apparent to prudent person ( misra)
Causing death - breach must have made a significant contribution to d’s death. ( brought on )
Gross negligence - negligence must be so severe it justifies criminal punishment - r v Bateman ( disregard for life).
Attempts
Legal Provisions
criminal attempts act 1981
Definition
act more than merely preparatory to the commission of the attempt
Key cases
R v gullefer - preparatory acts not enough
R v jones - close to committing offence
R v shivpuri- impossible attempts - s1(2) , s1(3) still liable.
Theft
Legal Provisions
theft act 1968, s(1)
Dishonest appropriation of personal property belonging to another with the intention of depriving the other of it.
Key Elements
appropriation s.3 - r v morris - assuming rights of the owner
Property s.4 - r v turner ( Oxford v moss- confidential info isn’t personal property) - includes personal property and money
Belonging to another - s.5 - ownership must be proven
Dishonest - s.1 - Ivey - s2(1)(a) - legal right s2(1)(b) - consent
Itpd - s.6- taking property as your own - velumyl ( not the exact notes)
Robbery
Legal Provisions
theft accomplished by use or threat o force immediately before or at the time of the theft
theft at 1968 s.8
Key Elements
Theft
Use or threat of force - R v Dawson and James - force is physical force
immediately before or at the time of doing so
Intention to use force to steal
Unlawful act manslaughter
Definition - unlawful dangerous act that results in death
Elements
unlawful act - must be a criminal offence ( r v Franklin )
Act must be dangerous - would a sober , reasonable person foresee sone harm- r v church
Act must cause death - causation - r v Kennedy
Men’s Rea - d must have te men’s Rea fir the base offence - r v Newbury and jones
Common assault
s39 cja 1998 - intentionally or recklessly causing v to apprehend immediate infliction of violence ( Logdon- waving replica handgun ) or idk and where words can amount to an assault
Actions cancelled by words ( tuberville v savage )
Gbh - 18
s18 oapa 1861 - unlawfully and maliciously wounding or causing gbh with intent
Actus reus - wounding or breaking both layers of the skin ( r v eisenhower) or causing gbh ( Rea;lu serious harm v smith)
Men’s Rea- intent to cause gbh ( r v belfon )
Transferred malice - r v latimer
Gbh - 20
maliciously wounding or inflicting harm
Actus reus - same as 18
Men’s Rea- acting maliciously ( mowatt) intended to cause some harm or was reckless
Men’s Rea- Transferred malice - ( r v pemblinton)
ABH
Section and definition
s47 oapa 1861 - assault or battery occassioning actual bodily harm - occassioning means causjng either direct;y or indirectly - roberts
Men’s Rea- intention or recklessness as to the battery/ assault - r v savage - no need to foresee harm , only risk of un;awful force
No injury required
Key cases
r v chan-fook- psychological harm included
R v miller - bodily harm = pain/ discomfort
Indictable offence
Battery
s39 criminal justice act 1988
Unlawful application to another person with physical force - actus reus ( Collins v wilcock)
Men’s Rea - intention or recklessness as to applying force ( r v Venna) no need to intent the harm , just the content
No injury required
Intoxication
Sheehan and Moore ( drunken intent is still an intent )
voluntarily- d chooses to take substance - specific intent crimes ( murder) negates liability - basi’c intent crimes ( assault) no defence, majewski ( self induced intoxication not defence for basic intent )
Intoxication - d intoxicated without consent - full acquittal if men’s Rea negated, ( Allen)
Dutch courage - d gains courage to commit crime - no defence ( premeditated )( gallagher)
Mistake intoxication (d misjudges facts due to intoxication ) ( r o ‘ Grady)- on,y negates men’s Rea for specific intent
Automatism
automatism is where d is unable to control what they are doing due to an external factor
Must be a total loss of control - unlike broome v Perkins
External cause - quick where he took a shot of jnsulin and had a blackout
Self induced - not available defence I’d they are the cause ( Bailey )
Self defence
criminal justice and immigration act 2008
Whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be referenced to the circumstances D believed them to be
Disproportionate force - (clegg) s76(6)
Pre-emptive strike as lord griffin said in ( beckford) - d doesn’t have to wait to be hit first in order to strike first
Mistaken self defence - s76(4) - Gladstone
Duress
where a person is forced by another to break the law under immediate threat or serious bodily harm
Type of threat - a person may have one or more re was on for acting as in valderrama-vega.
Nominate crime - unlike cole
2 stage test in ( graham) - whether d honestly believed they were in immediate danger and would a sober person of reasonable firmness shark g d;s characteristics have acted in the same way
Immediacy I’d threat - unlike gill
Characteristics - intoxication ( Graham’s) or low iq ( Bowen)
Violent gangs - (sharp) voluntarily joined a violent gang
Fair labelling - offence the person is convicted of must match their conduct ( undaunted to call someone a murderer if they didn’t have intent to kill
Correspondence - men’s Rea abd actus reus match
Maximum certainty - law should be as clear as possible ( corrupting public morals) is vague
No retrospective liability ( person can’t be convicted of a crime that didn’t exist at the time) unlike cr v uk
examine the meaning abd importance of fault in criminal law abd discuss the extent to which ——- are evidence fir a requirement of fault in criminal liability.
fault means responsibility or blsmewortginess
Act is reus must be there for there to be liability
If it is involuntary the d will not be at fault
An exception fir this rule is state of affairs ( winzar) - charged with being being drunk on a public highway even though he was taken there by a police officer.
There is no liability fir an omission to act even if d is morally st fault ( fitzjames-Stephen after nit helping a drowning person however there are exceptions like duty to care ( pitwood)
Causation - factual abd there Is a novus actus interveniens then legal causation ( negligent ( smith) palpably (jordan))
Men’s Rea - direct intent ( mohan) or oblique ( wooliin) and recklessness if]s proven using a subjective test
Cunningham didn’t realise gas was leaking next door so was not at fault , negligence shows fault ( evans who didn’t call medics fir overdosing sister)
Liability ( defences ) - limits fault }