Structure Package - Criminal Law

• Criminal Law Question Structures

  • Assault
  • Battery
  • S.47 ABH
  • S.20 GBH
  • S.18 GBH
  • Murder
  • Diminished Responsibility
  • Loss of Control
  • Unlawful Act Manslaughter
  • Gross Negligence Manslaughter
  • Theft and Robbery
  • Defences
• Battery


  • Application
  • Unlawful Force
• S.47 ABH


  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to S.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
• S.47 ABH

  • Assault or Battery
  • Occasioning
  • Actual Bodily Harm
• Mens rea for S.47 ABH

  • Intention to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful force (assault) or apply unlawful force (battery)
  • Reckless as to causing the victim to apprehend unlawful force (assault) or applying unlawful force (battery)
• Murder

  • Unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being
  • Causation
• Diminished responsibility

  A partial defence to murder defined in S.2 Homicide Act 1957, as amended by S.52 Criminal Justice Act 2009
• Loss of control


  A partial defence to murder defined in S.54 Criminal Justice Act 2009
• Loss of control


  • Loss of self-control
  • Qualifying trigger
• Apply to scenario – justify reasoning.
• Provides an explanation for the killing:
• However, the D may be able to plead loss of control, this is defined in by S.54 CJA 2009.
• R v Jewell: Lord Rafferty: 'Loss of control is: "a loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgment or a loss of normal powers of reasoning." Requires sufficient evidence… "There must be more than the accused's bare assertion."'
• S.54(4)

  If D acted in a considered desire for revenge they can not rely on the defence.
• Define and apply relevant law to the scenario – justify reasoning
• S.55(3)


  D's fear of serious violence from the V against D or another
• R v Dawes: '"D incites the violence they cannot rely on this as a qualifying trigger."'
• S.55(4)

  A thing said or things said or done which a) Constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and, b) Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
• R v Hatter: '"Circumstances are extremely grave and whether D had a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged is judged objectively. The break of up a relationship will not usually satisfy this."'
• AG v Holley: 'the fact that D is particularly 'hot-tempered' or a low IQ is irrelevant.'
• D may be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter. This is a common law offence defined by the House of Lords in DPP v Newbury and Jones.
• Unlawful Act


  Must be a criminal offence.
• Cannot be an omission.
• Identify the unlawful act – Define the Actus Reus of the unlawful act and apply to scenario – justify reasoning.
• Dangerous


  Such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm.
• R v Church: 'Such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm.'
• R v Watson: 'Where a sober and reasonable person would be aware of a V's frailty and the risk of physical harm to him, then the D will be liable.'
• R v Carey: 'An assault is typically not an act which the sober and reasonable person would regard as subjecting V to some physical harm'
• Cause of death


  Legal – R v Cheshire: "Substantial and operating cause" – it must be more than minimal
• Duty


  Donoghue v Stevenson: "snail and ginger beer" – "Lord Atkin's Neighbour Principle: "take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions which you can foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour… Persons who are so closely and directly affected."
• R v Wacker: 'illegal immigrants – irrelevant that the Vs were parties to an illegal act.'
• Omission where there is a duty

  R v Miller: "cigarette" – Duty as a result of creating a dangerous situation
• Omission where there is a duty

  R v Pitwood: "train" – Duty by virtue of contract
• Obvious risk of death

  R v Misra: "the risk must relate to death – it was not enough to show there was a risk of bodily injury or injury to health."
• Apply to scenario – justify reasoning
• D may be guilty of attempted _______ contrary to S.1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
• R v Gullefer: 'D must have embarked upon the crime proper.'
• R v Geddes: 'D must move from the point of planning to implementation… has he done an act which shows he is actually trying to commit the full offence?'
• Note: Attempting the impossible
• Attempting the impossible


  The combined effect of S.1(2) and S.1(3) means a person can be guilty of an attempt even if the commission was impossible.