Criminal law

• Voluntary manslaughter: Loss of Control


  351/55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
• Loss of Control


  • Subjective question for jury to decide by looking into D's mind to see if control was lost
  • Trigger lost if L.O.C not result of anger, if threat isn't of serious violence, if threat not from V
  • Objective test - if person of same age & sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint would have acted the same/similarly under the circumstances
• An ordinary and reasonable person can, if faced with extreme circumstances, lose their self control and kill
• Causation: Factual test (Rv White) + Legal test significant contribution (Rv Cheshire)
• Novus Actus Interventions: Victim's own act, Act of 3rd party, Medical intervention
• Thin Skull Rule


  Take victim as you find them (Rv Blaue)
• Murder


  Unlawful killing of a reasonable creature being under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought (express or implied)
• Murder


  • Actus Reus - Unlawful killing, human being, Queen's peace
  • Mens Rea - Malice Aforethought (express or implied), Direct/Oblique intent
• Defence of Consent


  • Defence arises when V has consented to injury that has caused, limited on public policy grounds
  • Not available for assault or battery cases, only for crime where harm is caused if activity falls within one of the recognised exceptions
• Defence of Consent


  1. Test 1 - Was there an injury?

  2. Test 2 - List of accepted activities for consent (is there social benefit?)

  3. Test 3 - Is Consent valid? (Fraud, capacity, threats)
• Defence of Self Defence

  Criminal law act 1967
• Defence of Self Defence


  1. Test 1 - Necessity for action, use of force not justified if not necessary

  2. Test 2 - What reasonable/balanced by amounts of force against harm sought to prevent
• Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful & Dangerous act
• Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful & Dangerous act


  1. Test 1 - Unlawful criminal Act

  2. Test 2 - Act must be dangerous (objective test)

  3. Test 3 - Causation (factual & legal)

  4. Test 4 - Mens Rea, D doesn't need to intend death, just MR for the act
• Omissions (failure to act)

  No good Samaritan law, exceptions created by state and case law creating a duty to act and a failure to do so a crime
• Exceptions where there is a duty to act


  • Contractual duty
  • Statutory duty
  • Duty because of a relationship
  • Duty as public official
  • Duty taken voluntarily
  • Failing to prevent a dangerous situation which you owed a duty
• Preliminary Offences Attempts


  Criminal attempts act 1981 - If with intent to commit an offence, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence
• Key Terms


  • Recklessness - taking an unjustified risk
  • Direct intent - desire/aim for outcome as a result of actions
  • Oblique intent - outcome unintended but foreseen to a virtual certainty
  • Negligence - failure to exercise appropriate and critical care expected to be exercised
• Theft


  To dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of it
• Theft


  1. Test 1 - Dishonesty (objective standards of reasonable and honest person)

  2. Test 2 - Appropriation - assuming rights of the owner

  3. Test 3 - Property (includes money, personal property, things in action, intangibles)

  4. Test 4 - Belonging to another at time of appropriation

  5. Test 5 - With the intention to permanently deprive
• Burglary


  Theft Act 39 1968 - Offence 1: enters any building/part of as trespasser with intent to commit any such offence in s2 - intent before.

  Offence 2: having entered building/part of as trespasser, he steals/attempts to steal anything in/part of building or inflicts GBH - opportunist.
• Burglary Common element 1 : Enters : is enough of D in the building to commit/attempt ( R v Ryan - stuck in window ). Common element 2 : building/ part of one : must be permanent structure. ‘Substantial’ portables can be classed as robbery ( R v Walkington - shop counter till)
• Involuntary Manslaughter: Gross Negligence


  Duty of care must be owed, Breach of duty of care conduct falls below the standard of an ordinary, reasonable man, Caused death, Risk of death and prudent person must foresee obvious risk of death, Gross negligence - negligence went beyond compensation and showed disregard for the life and safety of another
• Element 3 Burglary : Trespasser : intentionally or recklessly enters in possession of another without the right to do so. Entry must be voluntary if they have permission to do so they can enter ( R v Smith and Jones – stole from father‘s house.)
• MR 1st offence


  MR for offence / attempted offence required before entering
• MR 2nd offence

  Having required MR for offence when ne commits it, he doesn't need me MR for me offence
• Involuntary Manslaughter: Gross Negligence
• Test 1: Duty of care must be owed


  1. Donoghue v Stevenson

  2. Becker - Doctor > patient
• Test 2: Breach of duty of care condrict falls below the standard of an ordinary, reasonable man


  1. Jury decides

  2. It must be a serious enough breach (Adomako)
• Test 3: Caused death - causation


  1. Facmal & legal

  2. Rv Wacher - lorry (un of immigrants)
• Test 4: Risk of death


  1. A reasonable and prudent person must forsee obvious risk of death

  2. Singh - illegal immigration, died

  3. Misra - V died of toxic shock, ignored clear signs
• Test 5: Gross negligence


  Bateman - “negligence went beyond compensation and showed disregard for the life and safely of another”
• Theft Act 58 1968
• AR and MR of theft

  Rv Robinson - no theft no robbery
• AR: using or threatening force immediately before at the time of theft.


  (Rv hale - continuing appropriation where D tied up V while stealing from his house).
• Force must be noncable, can not be mureat for future


  Jostling is force (Dawson v James)
• Connection between force and meft


  Must be used in order to great
• Intoxication


  • Involuntary complete defence to an crimes
  • Voluntary intake too much alconei, drugs, savents, and is of limited application
• Principles to prove


  1. VI is a defence to specific intent comes (Rv Beard) not basic intent crimes (Rv Majewsm)

  2. Doesnt gold to me defence for D to not know strongm of intoxicating mostanice (Rv Aven)

  3. The person must be so intoxicated may cannot form MR of me offence (Rv hingston)
• Position is the same whether me intoxication is caused by annn langs

  • Rv Lipman
  • However sedatives are not wreated as reculess (Rv Hardie)