CRIM LAW

• What is an omission?


  A failure to act upon something
• Elements of Actus Reus - Factual Causation

  'But for'(Pagett / White)
• Causation and NAIs: Act of Victim


  The case ofRobertsshows that a victims actions can break the causation chain if the victims reaction was reasonably foreseeable.
• Causation and NAIs: Act of 3rd Party


  The case ofWilliamssays if the 3rd party is responsible, their conduct must be in itself potent in causing death/harm.
• Causation and NAIs: Act of Nature

  Extreme weather conditions break the chain of causation
• Elements of Actus Reus - Causation : The Thin Skull Rule


  The idea that the courts believe you must take the victim as you find them, if you cause harm to someone with more vulnerabilities or susceptible circumstances, you are liable for the full extent of damaged caused (Blaue)
• Omissions: Contractual Duty


  You may have a duty to act under a contractual duty (Pitwood)
• Omissions: Special Relationships


  A duty to act is owed when there is a special relationship between the defendant and victim such as guardianship (Gibbons v Proctor)
• Omissions: Official Position

  A duty to act is owed in circumstances your official position requires to be, such as police having to act regardless inDytham
• Omissions: Creating Dangerous Situations


  A duty to act is owed to minimise the risk of a dangerous situation created is required underMiller
• Omissions: Voluntary Assumptions


  A duty to act is owed from someone that voluntarily assumes a duty to care for others underStone v Dobinson
• Elements of Mens Rea: Coincidence


  Actus Reus and Mens Rea need to happen together for someone to be convicted -Fagan / Thabo Melishow that in a continuing act one element can be made up later
• Elements of Mens Rea: Transferred Malice


  Someone's mens rea to cause harm to one party transfers to another party unintentionally (Mitchell)
• Elements of Mens Rea: Strict Liability


  When someones guilty act is enough to prosecute them - mens rea isn't required. (Selling alcohol to children)
• What is Lord Coke's definition of Murder?

  The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the monarchs peace with malice aforethought.
• AR of Murder: Unlawful Killing


  The killing had no legal justification or defence. The D's act or omission must be the cause of death to V.
• Should I mention omissions in Murder essays under AR?


  If they are there, yes you can
• AR of Murder: A Reasonable Person in Being


  The victim was a foetus that was born alive, a human being underAttorney General Ref (3 of 1994). It is important V was not already braindead as demonstrated inMalcharek
• AR of Murder: Under the Monarchs Peace


  The murder wasn't during a war where death occurs
• What else do I need to talk about in a murder essay?

  NAIs, Kimsey's Deminimis Principle "more than a trifling link", thin skull.
• MR of Murder: Direct Intent


  The D had a direct intention to kill with malice aforethought or a direct intention to cause GBH. It was D's aim, desire and purpose to bring about the outcome underMohan
• MR of Murder: Indirect Intent

  The intention to cause GBH or death was indirect, however intent may be found if D foresaw death or serious injury as a virtual certainty (Nedrick). The case ofVickerssays intent to cause GBH is sufficient mens rea for murder.
• Under what statute is the defence of Diminished Responsibility dealt under?

  s2(1) Homicide Act 1957 was amended into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
• What's the standard of proof for diminished responsibility?

  On a balanced probability
• Is diminished responsibility a full or partial defence?

  Partial
• Tests used for Diminished Responsibility: 1) Abnormality of Mental Functioning

  s2(1):State of mind so different from an ordinary person that they would see it as abnormal underByrne
• Diminished Responsibility: Objective Test

  The jury will decide if the D was suffering from an abnormality in their mental functioning
• Tests used for Diminished Responsibility: 2) Recognised medical condition

  s52(1a):Recognised on WHO's list(Use Seers and Martin)
• Tests used for Diminished Responsibility: 3) Substantially Imparing D


  s52(1a):Understand conduct (delusions), form rational judgement (paranoid schizophrenia), exercise self control (psychopathy)
• What does Lloyd discuss about the definition of "substantially" in Diminished Responsibility?


  Substantial does not meant total nor does it mean trivial or

  minimal
• Tests used for Diminished Responsibility: 4) Provides explanation for D's killing


  There needs to be a causal connection between D's abnormality of mental functioning and the death caused.s2(1b) of the Hom. Act 1957says the abnormality causes D to carry out the killing.
• Diminished Responsibility: Intoxication


  Dowdsrecognises that your responsibility cannot be diminished by alcohol alone
• Diminished Responsibility: Addiction


  Woodrecognises that addiction and dependencies can cause abnormality in mental functionings such asAlcohol Dependancy Syndrome, but it must cause abnormality
• What is the effect of successfully proving a partial defence?

  It is likely to mitigate their sentence, and in certain circumstances where the law have fallback offences, it could downgrade their sentence (Murder -> Voluntary Manslaughter)
• What is the effect of successfully proving a full defence?

  The defendant is likely to be acquitted
• What is the defence of Loss of Control?

  When the defendant faced extreme circumstances where they lost their control and ended up killing somebody
• What statute is Loss of Control covered under?

  s54 Coroners Justice Act 2009
• What must the D show regarding Loss of Control?

  Their acts were committed from a LOC under s54(1)(a).Ahluwaliashows it doesn't need to be sudden however if the D acted in revenge they cannot use the defence underIbrams v Gregory
• Tests for Loss of Control: 1) Qualifying trigger


  1)s54(1)(b)says the defendant's LOC must have a qualifying trigger+ s55(3)says attributable to D's fear of assault from V(UseAhluwaliafor yes andDoughtyfor no)
• Tests for Loss of Control: 2) Things said or done

  s55(4)things said or done that caused LOC were extremely grave and gave a justifiable sense of being seriously wrongedDawesandJohnson. The jury decide objectively as seen inHatter.