Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Criminal Law
Distinction between the two as hypo is not a disease but a mere overdose while hyper needs to be
controlled, as it is a disease.
Bailey: Self induced automatism is not a defence for basic intent crimes unless the induction was
through medication.
Omissions: Only there when a duty to act exists and when the offence can be committed through an
omission. To discharge duty, one needs to have acted reasonably.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate
Mens Rea
Intention
R v Nedrick D pours parrafin and kills child Virtual Certainty required in
committing a crime. Jury
directed not 'to infer' intention
if the outcome is virtually
certain.
R v Woolin Throws child in anger and kills Jury directed not 'to find'
him intention if the outcome is
virtually certain.
Recklessness
R v Cunningham Gas Meter torn off wall Subjective Test. Foreseeability
required.
Section 47 of OAPA
R v Chanfook V held for questioning and was Feelings of fear and panic are
threatened. Jumps out of emotions rather than injuries,
window no assault no crime.
R v Savage Beer glass thrown Mens rea for ABH is battery. The
occasioning of ABH is an
additional actus reus element.
Section 20 of OAPA
JJC v Eisenhower Pellet gun fired at V. Both layer of skin need to break
to prove wounding.
Janjua and Chaudhary A 5 ½ inch blade used. Jury directed not to look for
'really' serious harm when
considering what is GBH.
R v Mowatt D attacked a police officer Mens rea requirement is the
forseeability of 'some harm', not
serious harm.
R v Burstow Silent phone calls A person can inflict GBH even
though no physical violence is
applied directly or indirectly.
Section 18 of OAPA
R v Belfon D slashes V with a razor Means rea requirement of s18 is
of Intention. Recklessness is
insufficient.
S 47 – Actus Reus and Mens Rea same as Assault/Battery. ABH is an extra actus reus element.
Murder
R v Moloney Intention to kill or cause GBH
suffices for murder.
Involuntary Manslaughter
Unlawful and dangerous act
R v Arobieke Actus reus of base crime needs
to be fulfilled.
R v Lamb Points gun at friend. Not guilty since the act was not
unlawful as no psychic assault
was caused.
R v Church Struck and then threw victim in A dangerous act is which is
lake. understood to have some harm
by a sober reasonable person.
R v Dawson V, a sixty year old, dies of a heart D must be aware of the
attack after being robbed. condition. Not a take your
victim as your find him situation
as no physical element present.
Gross Negligence
R v Willoughby Judge may direct jury but it is
still for them to decide if the
duty exists or not.
R v Watts Duty can be breached by
omission.
R v Evans One sister gets heroin and the Where a person has contributed
other dies of overdose. to a state of affairs that has
become life threatening, a
consequent duty exists.
R v Ruffel D leaves V out in the cold when Duty of care exists.
he is unwell.
R v Misra Doctors who were keeping a Following Adomako, if the D's
check on V failed to diagnose an conduct falls below the
infection. standard to be expected of a
reasonable man of the same
profession, he is to be
convicted. Death needs to be
caused.
R v Gowans and Hillman Infection in the hospital. Chain of causation not broken
and D liable for causing death.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate
Involuntary Manslaughter and the administration of drugs
R v Kennedy no 2 Prepares syringe for V who D will not be convicted of
injects it himself. manslaughter if the person whom
the drug was supplied to freely
and voluntarily self-administered
it. The killing must stem from the
unlawful act.
R v Cato D injects V Guilty of Manslaughter. Chain of
causation not broken. But for
test will not apply since there is
no intention to cause death.
Criticism of judgement that act
needs to be unlawful.
Diminished responsibility
RvR Impairment of mind need not
be total.
R v Dietschmann D who is suffering from mental need not show that he would've
illness kills V while drunk. killed even if he was not drunk
Murder – Actus Reus: Killing of a person (Brain stem is dead. No death in circumstances of persistent
vegetative state)
Mens Rea: Intention to kill or cause GBH.
Unlawful Act Manslaughter – The Actus Reus and Mens Rea of base crime needs to be fulfilled and
base defences need to be dealt with before approaching manslaughter. If the base crime is a basic
intent crime, intoxication will not work (R v Lipman).
Gross Negligent Manslaughter: There needs to be a duty of care, which was breached.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate
Theft
Appropriation
R v Morris Switched labels on goods Appropriation is a neutral
concept.
R v Lawrence Taxi driver takes more money Consent is not necessary.
R v Gomez Bad cheques Assuming any right of the
owner amounts to
appropriation.
R v Hinks D receives gift from retarded Assumed rights since the V
man. could not have given the gift on
his own mental capacity.
Consent irrelevant as D was
dishonest.
Belonging to Another
R v Turner D steals his own car from Garage had a equitable interest
workshop. or a 'lien' in the car. Scope
extended a lot since this should
have been a civil claim.
Dishonesty
R v Ghosh Two tier test. 1) Jury must see
that the act done was dishonest
in the eyes of a reasonable man.
2) then whether the D himself
realised that what he was doing
was dishonest by those
standards.
Intention to Permanently Deprive
R v Fernandes Intention may be there if a
person is possession of
another's property and
dishonestly uses it, risking its
loss.
R v Lavender D takes away doors of council The meaning of the words 'to
house. dispose of' need not to be taken
literally.
R v Lloyd D takes films for copying but Not guilty since he returned
then returned them. them in all goodness or virtue.
Robbery
Burglary 9(1)(b) – Actus Reus: Trespass in a building + theft or attempted theft or infliction or
attempted GBH.
Mens Rea: that of ulterior offence.
Criminal Damage
Samuels v Stubbs Policeman's cap twisted. Courts held that it is difficult to
lay down a general rule so one
must be guided to the
circumstances as to determine
what is damage to property.
Hardman v chief constable of Drawings on pavement that Damage where the V has to
Avon had to be removed by high incur some expense to fix it.
pressure water jets.
Appleyard D, a managing director, sets fire Will not be liable for damage if
to his company. the property does not belong to
another.
RvG Fire set to newspapers by 2 Subjective recklessness. D must
boys. appreciate the risk.
R v Cooper Risk of danger to life in
aggravated criminal damage
needs to be obvious and
significant to the D.
R v Wenton D throws a brick in to Vs Not guilty of criminal damage
window. Then throws a petrol as of s1(2) since the threat to life
canister a piece of paper. Paper had to emerge from the
did not ignite. damage to property. Projection
of brick and throwing of petrol
to separate acts.
Attempt
R v Gullefer Jumps on the race track and Not deemed to be more than
waves his arms. merely preparatory since there
were still a lot factors to
consider.
R v Jones Sawn off shotgun pointed at ex D had sawn off the shotgun,
mistress's new lover. loaded it and got into the V's
car so more than merely
preparatory.
R v Campbell D wanted to rob but decided Walking to the location was
not to but was caught when deemed to be merely
going back to his car. preparatory.
R v MD Various counts of cruelty. D did an act that killed V
without the purpose of killing
but where death had been a
virtual certainty and the D
appreciated that such was the
case, D is guilty.
Intention to kill required for
attempt to murder.
R v Husseyn Ds opened the door of a parked Conditional intent doesn't
van, intending to steal. mean jack. If you have the
intent of stealing, regardless if
you come across something of
value or not, you are guilty.
Parties to Crime
Attorney General's To procure means to produce
Reference(No.1 of 1975) by endeavour.
R v Clarkson D stood there watching V get There needs to be a subjective
raped. intention to encourage, assist or
procure.
R v Bryce D transported X with his gun to An intention to hinder will
the location of M, whom X later negate the intention but since
killed. bryce had intentionally put X in
a position, he had intentionally
assisted him.
R v Willett D charged of murder along with Appeal held since accomplice is
his brother(who was driving the not merely guilty on the basis
car) after his brother ran over V. that he remained in the car.
Needs to aid abet counsel or
procure.
Defences
Insanity
R v Sullivan Epileptic seizure to D who kicks Disease of the mind needs to be
V in the head. caused by internal factors. Not
important if permanent or not.
There must be an impairment of
mental faculties.
R v Clarke D stole items from a A momentary lapse of
supermarket whilst suffering concentration is different from
from depression. a defect in reason.
R v Windle Killed his wife by giving her D must not know that what he
aspirins. was doing was wrong.
Intoxication
R v Majewski D gets voluntarily drunk and Crimes of basic intent(that can
hits various people. be committed recklessly) are
not given the defence of
intoxication.
R v Kingston D's drink is laced and he D's claim that he had been
sexually assaults V. involuntarily been intoxicated
was rejected since he had mens
rea before the intoxication.
R v Hardie Takes valium and sets house on Valium's effect on D was weird
fire. so D is free.
Self Defence
William(gladstone) D hit another guy who was Honest belief that force is
arresting a criminal. necessary.
R v Owino and R v Palmer Force used must be reasonable.
Duress
R v Howe D must choose his own life in
order to save V's.
Valderrama-Vega D under three threats. The threat needs to be
operational.
R v Heath D owed drug dealer money and D must not put himself in a
was threatened with serious position where he is likely to be
violence. threatened.
R v Graham Was the D actually compelled to
do the crime and would a
reasonable man of the same
age and sex do the same thing?
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate
Intoxication – level of intoxication should be that D lacked Mens Rea.
Insanity - Disease of mind, defect of reason and D did not know the nature and quality of his act OR
D did not know what he was doing was wrong.
Burden of Proof