DOCSLIB.ORG

Criminal Law Suggested Answers – January 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Criminal Law Suggested Answers – January 2012 LEVEL 3 – UNIT 3 – CRIMINAL LAW SUGGESTED ANSWERS – JANUARY 2012 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students should have included in their answers to the January 2012 examinations. The suggested answers do not for all questions set out all the points which students may have included in their responses to the questions. Students will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers. Students and tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ reports which provide feedback on student performance in the examination. SECTION A 1. Malice aforethought is the intention to kill or the intention to cause GBH. 2. The actus reus will be the continuing act throughout the duration of the crime. It is necessary for the mens rea to be formed at some time during the actus reus. It can be at the beginning Thabo Meli 1954 or at the end Fagan v MPC 1969 or at some other stage; it can be present throughout as well. 3. The actus reus for basic criminal damage is set out in section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and requires that property belonging to another must be destroyed or damaged. Damage includes non-permanent damage and whether there has been damage is assessed by the time and cost of rectifying the damage Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary (1986); A v R (1978). 4. Oblique intention otherwise known as indirect intention is where the defendant’s actions are virtually certain to cause the consequences. The defendant will have one purpose in mind but in achieving it, it causes other consequences. The defendant may not even desire the consequences of his action, but the result is virtually certain. Nedrick 1986, Woollin 1996. 5. The Ghosh test is objective and subjective. Firstly you look to see if what was done was dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest person and if so you then go on to consider whether the defendant realised that what he was doing was dishonesty by those standards. 6. Section 2(1) of the Theft Act 1968 does not define dishonesty but it does state that there may be three situations where there is not dishonestly. Those situations are where you believe you have a right to it or where you believe the owner would have given consent or a belief that the property has been abandoned or the owner can’t be found. Page 1 of 6 7. The actus reus of attempt is where there is an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, s1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The defendant must have gone beyond purely preparatory acts and embarked upon the crime proper. One needs to look to see if the defendant has actually tried to commit the crime rather than just preparing himself for it. Example cases showing mere preparation include Gullefer 1987, Campbell 1990 and Geddes 1996. Example cases showing an attempt include Boyle and Boyle 1987 and Jones 1990. 8. The leading case on intoxication is Majewski 1977. The case states that voluntary intoxication will be a defence to specific crimes but not to basic crimes which can be done through recklessness. The effect of intoxication is to negate the mens rea. If this does not happen then the defence will not be successful, eg Kingston 1995. 9. If duress by threats is to be successfully pleaded there needs to be a threat of death or serious harm to the defendant or a close relative. It is further necessary for there to be no safe avenue of escape for the defendant and it must be used to make the defendant commit a specific offence. The test for ascertaining whether or not there has been duress is subjective and objective.eg R v Graham (1982). 10. Strict liability is where the actus reus has taken place but there is no mens rea. Usually there is no defence to strict liability. They are known as quasi- crimes as they attract very little stigma. Strict liability crimes are often found in areas such as motoring offences, health and safety, manufacturing and the food industry. SECTION B Scenario 1 Questions 1. (a) The offence that Jason may have committed is theft under s.1 of the Theft Act 1968. Theft is defined as dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. The dishonesty aspect is often considered in the light of the Ghosh test. Leading example cases include Turner 1971, Wain 1995. (b) Jason has appropriated the football which belongs to the football club. Jason would be adjudged dishonest in accordance with the Ghosh test. Was what he has done dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest person and if so did he realise that what he was doing was dishonesty by those standards. The answer is probably yes and therefore he is potentially guilty. eg Turner 1971, Wain 1995. 2. The defence that would be used is one of intoxication. - Intoxication does not provide a defence as such, but is relevant as to whether defendant had necessary mens rea. If the intoxication does not negate the mens rea then he will still be guilty, Kingston 1995. The defence of intoxication only applies to specific intent crimes, meaning there must be intention and that recklessness is not included and thus with basic crimes voluntary intoxication cannot be pleaded, Majewski 1976. The crime of theft is a specific crime as it requires intention, recklessness is not good enough. Providing Jason can show that his drinking alcohol negated his mens rea, he may well have a defence. Involuntary intoxication, which whilst not relevant in this scenario, is a defence to both basic and specific crimes, if it negates the mens rea. Page 2 of 6 3. (a) The offence for which Jason may be charged is basic criminal damage under s.1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The offence requires that there is either destruction of property and this includes where property may be made useless but not completely destroyed or where property is damaged. Whether or not damage has occurred is usually determined by the cost of repairing and the time taken to repair the property, eg Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary (1986); A v R (1978).The mens rea required is intention or recklessness and there must be no lawful excuse for causing the damage. (b) Jason intends to kick the ball and kicks it hard in an area where there are houses and is therefore reckless. It is quite likely that he doesn’t intend to smash the window but this is irrelevant. The window has been destroyed and so this combined with his recklessness means the offence has been committed. 4. (a) The offence for which Jason is likely to be charged is the attempted theft of bottle of milk. The actus reus of attempt is where there is an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, s1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981.Has there been an attempt to commit a crime? One needs to look to see if the defendant has actually tried to commit the crime rather than just preparing himself for it. It is possible to attempt the impossible R v Shivpuri (1986). It can be inferred from foresight of consequences where the consequences are virtually certain to occur as a result of the defendant’s actions and he is aware that this is so, but recklessness as to consequences is not enough. The mens rea for attempt is essentially that of the completed crime. Cases showing attempt include Boyle and Boyle 1987, Jones 1990 and Geddes 1996. (b) The mens rea for attempt is essentially that of the completed crime. So we need to look at whether Jason was dishonest and intended to permanently deprive the owner of his property. His quietly walking down the path seems to show a dishonest intention. He is only stopped from picking up the milk by the door opening which would tend to show his actions are more than merely preparatory and that he has intention to permanently deprive. Scenario 2 Questions 1. (a) Danielle is likely to be charged with murder. Murder is a common law offence but is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being during the Queen’s peace. The defendant needs to possess malice aforethought which includes intention to kill or intention to cause GBH. (b) When Danielle smashes the glass and stabs the jagged edge into Bob there is a clear intention to cause at least GBH. She may not intend to kill but her actions are not just reckless. Bob’s death amounts to murder, Bob is a human being who has died during the Queen’s peace. 2. The partial defences to murder have been changed by the Coroners and Criminal Justice Act 2009 and the Homicide Act 1957 has been substantially repealed. The appropriate sections of the new act are sections 52-56. With the situation in hand we need to look at the two partial defences under the 2009 Act. The first is diminished responsibility which is similar to the old definition. We need to see whether Danielle has an abnormality of mental Page 3 of 6 functioning and whether it is a significant factor in causing her actions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Legal Response to Colin Holmes
    J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.17.2.86 on 1 June 1991. Downloaded from Journal ofmedical ethics, 1991, 17, 86-88 Psychopathic disorder: a category mistake? A legal response to Colin Holmes Irene Mackay University ofManchester Author's abstract diminished responsibility upon which I propose to comment. Holmes is concerned with a conflict between law and The absence of any established medical or medicine about the problem ofpsychopathy, in particular psychiatric definition of 'moral insanity' or as it relates to homicide. 'psychopathy' is noteworthy in this article by Colin He looksfor a consistent set oflegal principles based on Holmes. It is not clear whether either can be referred to a variety ofmedical concepts and in doing so criticises the correctly as an illness or whether the two could be courtfor its commonsense approach, its disregardfor synonymous. Moral insanity is referred to as 'absence medical evidence andfor employing lay notions of of conscience', 'no capacity for true moral feelings', responsibility and illness. 'depravity', and 'absence of moral scruple'. This commentary explores how Holmes's notionsfit into Psychopathy appears to mean 'total lack ofcopyright. existing legal rules and explains how the court seeks the compunction or consequent moral emotion', 'absence assistance ofmedical evidence when looking at the evidence of conscience', 'inability to experience guilt' and 'lack as a whole to enable it to decide upon issues ofdefence, of respect for the moral claims of others'. which involve legal and not medical concepts. Holmes is concerned with the conflict between law There is a difficulty inherent in this paper, as it seeks to and medicine about what he refers to as the problem of psychopathy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of the Homicide Act 1957
    Journal ofmedical ethics, 1986, 12, 8-12 J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.12.1.8 on 1 March 1986. Downloaded from Forensic psychiatry symposium The origins of the Homicide Act 1957 J Higgins Regional Forensic Psychiatry Service, Liverpool Editor's note were certain serious wrongs, amongst them murder, which were 'botless', that is they could not be expiated Thispaper traces the history ofthe concepts ofinsanity and by compensation but had to be punished by death and diminished responsibility in English law. Insanity as a forfeiture ofproperty. Nevertheless for both groups of defence in Law has two components, and these two offences, botless and non-botless, there was no components developed quite separately. The idea that an assessment of culpability or responsibility - a sort of insane person may not know what he or she is doing when strict liability operated. It appears that the mentally he or she commits an offence, and isfor this reason not abnormal offender's family would have to pay guilty, goes back to the thirteenth century. The other compensation for any act done by him, including component, which developed in the seventeenth century, homicide, and thereafter take care of him - 'an insane was known as the 'right-wrong test'. According to this a person should be guarded and treated leniently by his person who commits an offence may be not guilty on the parents'. copyright. grounds that he does not know that what he is doing is wrong. The conceptofdiminished responsibility originated in the middle ofthe nineteenth century and was developed The twelfth to the eighteenth centuries in Scottish law.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Homicide Act for England and Wales?
    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 177 (Overview) A NEW HOMICIDE ACT FOR ENGLAND AND WALES? An Overview The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale QC, FBA Mr Stuart Bridge Dr Jeremy Horder Professor Martin Partington CBE The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Steve Humphreys and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This overview, completed on 28 November 2005, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. For those who are interested in a fuller discussion of the law and the Law Commission's proposals, our formal consultation paper is accessible from http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/murder.htm, or you can order a hard copy from TSO (www.tso.co.uk). The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on its proposals before 13 April 2006. Comments may be sent either – By post to: David Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WC1N 2BQ Tel: 020-7453-1212 Fax: 020-7453-1297 By email to: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments sent by post could also be sent on disk, or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format. All responses will be treated as public documents in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and may be made available to third parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Violence Against the Person
    Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime With effect from April 2021 Violence against the Person Homicide Death or Serious Injury – Unlawful Driving Violence with injury Violence without injury Stalking and Harassment All Counting Rules enquiries should be directed to the Force Crime Registrar Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime With effect from April 2021 Homicide Classification Rules and Guidance 1 Murder 4/1 Manslaughter 4/10 Corporate Manslaughter 4/2 Infanticide All Counting Rules enquiries should be directed to the Force Crime Registrar Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime With effect from April 2021 Homicide – Classification Rules and Guidance (1 of 1) Classification: Diminished Responsibility Manslaughter Homicide Act 1957 Sec 2 These crimes should not be counted separately as they will already have been counted as murder (class 1). Coverage Murder Only the Common Law definition applies to recorded crime. Sections 9 and 10 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 give English courts jurisdiction where murders are committed abroad, but these crimes should not be included in recorded crime. Manslaughter Only the Common Law and Offences against the Person Act 1861 definitions apply to recorded crime. Sections 9 and 10 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 gives courts jurisdiction where manslaughters are committed abroad, but these crimes should not be included in recorded crime. Legal Definitions Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act 2007 Sec 1(1) “1 The offence (1) An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised - (a) causes a person’s death, and (b) amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.” Capable of Being Born Alive - Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 Capable of being born alive means capable of being born alive at the time the act was done.
    [Show full text]
  • Developments in the English Law of Homicide
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 14 Number 3 Article 3 5-1-1960 Developments in the English Law of Homicide Ronald H. Maudsley Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation Ronald H. Maudsley, Developments in the English Law of Homicide, 14 U. Miami L. Rev. 355 (1960) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol14/iss3/3 This Leading Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ENGLISH LAW OF HOMICIDE RONALD H. MAUDSLEY* Although the several states of the United States have made many statutory changes in the common law rules concerning crimes, the common law still remains the basis of the criminal law of nearly all American jurisdictions.1 Even the federal courts, which rely entirely upon statutory enactments for their criminal law, take note also of common law doctrines.2 It is not surprising that many of the problems which face the states in the criminal law field are similar to those which challenge the initiative of judges and legislators in England at the present time. Legislation intended to meet some of these problems was passed in England in 1957; and it may be of interest to consider the provisions of the Homicide Act of that year as an attempt to deal with such problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Modernising the Law of Murder and Manslaughter: Part 1
    Journal of Politics and Law; Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015 ISSN 1913-9047 E-ISSN 1913-9055 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Modernising the Law of Murder and Manslaughter: Part 1 Graham McBain1,2 1 Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK 2 Harvard Law School, USA Correspondence: Graham McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: October 17, 2015 Accepted: November 2, 2015 Online Published: November 19, 2015 doi:10.5539/jpl.v8n4p9 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v8n4p9 Index 1. Introduction 31. Hawkins (1716-21) 2. Source Material 32. Blackstone (1765-9) 3. Legal Issues not Considered 33. Summary: Law to 1769 4. Meaning of Words 34. Foster (1776) 5. Benefit of Hindsight 35. East (1803) 6. Babylonian Code 36. Russell (1819) 7. Old Testament law 37. From 1819-1843 8. Roman law 38. Royal Commissions (1843-78) 9. Anglo-Saxon law 39. Stephen (1883) 10. Laws of Henry I (c.1113) 40. Kenny (1902) 11. Glanvill (c.1189) 41. Summary: Law to 1902 12. Summary: Law to 1189 42. Turner (1945) 13. Bracton (c.1240) 43. Royal Commission (1953) & Homicide Act 1957 14. Statute of Marlborough 1267 44. Smith & Hogan (1965) 15. Statute of Gloucester 1278 45. Criminal Law Revision Committee (1980) 16. Britton, Fleta & Mirror of Justices (c.1290) 46. Williams (1983) 17. Statute of Trespassers in Parks 1293 47. Law Commission Criminal Code (1989) 18. Edward III (1327-1377) 48. Carter & Harrison (1991) 19. Act of 1389 on Pardons 49. Justifiable Killing by 1998 20. From 1389-1551 50.
    [Show full text]
  • Cases and Materials on Criminal Law
    Cases and Materials on Criminal Law Michael T Molan Head ofthe Division ofLaw South Bank University Graeme Broadbent Senior Lecturer in Law Bournemouth University PETMAN PUBLISHING Contents Preface ix Acknowledgements x Table ofcases xi Table of Statutes xxiii 1 External elements of liability 1 Proof - Woolmington v DPP - Criminal Appeal Act 1968 - The nature of external elements - R v Deller - Larsonneur - Liability for omissions - R v Instan - R v Stone and Dobinson - Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - R v Miller - R v Speck - Causation in law -Äv Pagett - Medical treatment - R v Sw/YA - R v Cheshire - The victim's reaction as a «ovtt.j öcto interveniens — Rv Blaue - R v Williams 2 Fault 21 Intention -Äv Hancock and Shankland - R v Nedrick - Criminal Justice Act 1967 s.8 - Recklessness -fiv Cunningham - R v Caldwell - R v Lawrence - Elliott \ C -R\ Reid -Rv Satnam; R v Kevra/ - Coincidence of acft« re«i and /nens rea - Thabo Meli v R - Transferred malice -Rv Pembliton -Rv Latimer 3 Liability without fault 56 Cundy v Le Cocq - Sherras v De Rutzen - SWef v Parsley - L/OT CA/« /4/£ v R - Gammon Ltd v Attomey-General for Hong Kong - Pharmaceutical Society ofGreat Britain v Storkwain 4 Factors affecting fault 74 Mistake - Mistake of fact negativing fault -Rv Tolson - DPP v Morgan - Mistake as to an excuse or justification - R v Kimber - R v Williams (Gladstone) - Beckford v R - Intoxication - DPP v Majewski - Rv Caldwell - Rv Hardie - R v Woods - R v O'Grady - Mental Disorder - M'Naghten's Case -Rv Kemp - Rv Sullivan - R v Hennessy
    [Show full text]
  • Felony-Murder Rule a Doctrine at Constitutional Crossroads Nelson E
    Cornell Law Review Volume 70 Article 3 Issue 3 March 1985 Felony-Murder Rule a Doctrine at Constitutional Crossroads Nelson E. Roth Scott E. Sundby Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Nelson E. Roth and Scott E. Sundby, Felony-Murder Rule a Doctrine at Constitutional Crossroads , 70 Cornell L. Rev. 446 (1985) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol70/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FELONY-MURDER RULE: A DOCTRINE AT CONSTITUTIONAL CROSSROADS Nelson E. Roth* and Scott E. Sundby** INTRODUCTION Few legal doctrines have been as maligned and yet have shown as great a resiliency as the felony-murder rule. Criticism of the rule constitutes a lexicon of everything that scholars and jurists can find wrong with a legal doctrine: it has been described as "astonishing" and "monstrous,"' an unsupportable "legal fiction," 2 "an unsightly wart on the skin of the criminal law,"'3 and as an "anachronistic rem- nant" that has " 'no logical or practical basis for existence in mod- ern law.' "4 Perhaps the most that can be said for the rule is that it provides commentators with an extreme example that makes it easy to illustrate the injustice of various legal propositions. 5 Despite the widespread criticism, the felony-murder rule per- sists in the vast majority of states.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment : Public Opinion and Abolition in Great Britain During the Twentieth Century Carol A
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Master's Theses Student Research 8-1982 Capital punishment : public opinion and abolition in Great Britain during the twentieth century Carol A. Ransone Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Ransone, Carol A., "Capital punishment : public opinion and abolition in Great Britain during the twentieth century" (1982). Master's Theses. Paper 882. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PUBLIC OPINION AND ABOLITION IN GREAT BRITAIN DURING THE TWENTIETH CENTURY BY CAROL ANN RANSONE A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND IN CANDIDACY FOR THE.DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY AUGUST 1982 LIBRARY ~ UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND VIRGINIA CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PUBLIC OPINION AND ABOLITION IN GREAT BRITAIN DURING THE TWENTIETH CENTURY by CAROL ANN RANSONE Approved by TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE e I I I e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I iii Chapter I. BRIEF HISTORY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND PUBLIC OPINION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 Early Laws Requiring Capital Punishment Reform Movememt in the Nineteenth Century Initial Attempts to Abolish the Death Penalty Public Opinion in the 1920's Formation of Reform Organizations Abolition Efforts Following World War II Position Taken by Prominent Personalities Efforts to Abolish Capital Punishment in the 1950's Change Brought by Homicide Act of 1957 Statistics Relative to Murder _ Introduction of Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill II.
    [Show full text]
  • Homicide: Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter
    RepoRt HOMICIDE: muRdeR and involuntaRy manslaughteR (lRc 87 – 2008) report HOMICIDE: murder aNd iNvoluNtary maNslaughter (lrc 87 – 2008) © copyright law reform commission 2008 First published January 2008 ISSN 1393-3132 i law reForm commissioN THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION’S ROLE the law reform commission is an independent statutory body established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1975. the commission’s principal role is to keep the law under review and to make proposals for reform, in particular by recommending the enactment of legislation to clarify and modernise the law. since it was established, the commission has published over 130 documents containing proposals for law reform and these are all available at www.lawreform.ie. most of these proposals have led to reforming legislation. the commission’s role is carried out primarily under a programme of law reform. its Third Programme of Law Reform 2008-2014 was prepared by the commission following broad consultation and discussion. in accordance with the 1975 act, it was approved by the government in december 2007 and placed before both houses of the oireachtas. the commission also works on specific matters referred to it by the attorney general under the 1975 act. since 2006, the commission’s role includes two other areas of activity, statute law restatement and the legislation directory. statute law restatement involves the administrative consolidation of all amendments to an act into a single text, making legislation more accessible. under the Statute Law (Restatement) Act 2002, where this text is certified by the attorney general it can be relied on as evidence of the law in question.
    [Show full text]
  • Type Content Here… (Font: Arial, Size
    Child and Ormerod, Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Essentials of Criminal Law, 2nd edition Chapter 6 Summary: Manslaughter Moving from the discussion of murder in Chapter 5, Chapter 6 explores the other homicide offences. Our particular focus is manslaughter, both voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter (Chapter 6.2) Voluntary manslaughter arises where D commits murder (completes both actus reus and mens rea elements) but is able to rely on a partial defence. The partial defences are: Loss of self-control: D kills having lost control owing to a fear of serious violence or because of her justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s54); Diminished responsibility: D kills whilst suffering from a recognised mental illness that impacted her ability to reason or maintain self-control at the time of the killing (Homicide Act 1957, s2); Suicide pact: D kills V in pursuance of an agreement that they will both die together (Homicide Act 1957, s4). Involuntary manslaughter (Chapter 6.3) Involuntary manslaughter arises where a defendant completes the actus reus of murder (common among homicide offences), but does not commit murder because she lacks the required mens rea. D commits manslaughter in such a case if her mens rea does come within an involuntary manslaughter offence of: Unlawful act manslaughter: D commits a criminal act in dangerous circumstances, and this causes the death of V (key case: AG Ref No 3 of 1994); Gross negligence manslaughter: D causes V’s death through criminal negligence (key case: Adomako); Reckless manslaughter: D causes V’s death, being reckless as to causing death or GBH.
    [Show full text]
  • Herring: Criminal Law Concentrate, 6Th Edition
    Herring: Criminal Law Concentrate, 6th edition Accessories Those who aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of the principal offence; or are party to a joint enterprise with the principal. See chapter 10. Actual bodily harm (ABH) An element of the actus reus of s 47 OAPA. ABH is a bodily harm which is more than transient and trifling. See chapter 5. Actus reus The term used to classify those elements of the offence which do not relate to D’s state of mind (mens rea). See chapter 2. Aid, abet, counsel, or procure See accessories. Assault Also known as a common assault, a technical assault, and a psychic assault; it is where D intentionally or recklessly causes V to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful force. See chapter 5. Attempt An inchoate offence governed by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. See chapter 9. Automatism A defence (although the prosecution bear the burden of proof in relation to it) which negates actus reus. See chapters 2 and 14. Basic intent This term relates to the type of mens rea in the crime charged. See specific intent and chapter 14. Battery Also known as a common assault or a physical assault, it is where D intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to V. Burden of proof This is the duty of a party to satisfy the fact-finder, to a standard set by law, of the facts in issue. Causation This is a key element of result crimes, and requires the prosecution to prove D caused the result. Chain of causation This can be established in both fact and law, but D caused the result only if there is no break in the chain.
    [Show full text]