Law paper 1

• Omission


  • Failure to act when there is a positive duty to do so
  • No good Samaritan law so there is no duty to act
  • In some situations a duty may arise and failing to do so will commit the AR of the offence
• Omission cases

  • R v Stone Dobinson - Duty to act which has been taken on voluntarily
  • R v Pittwood - Duty due to contractual employment
  • R v Dytham - Duty due to D's public position
  • R v Gibbins & Proctor - Duty to act due to special relationship
  • R v Miller - Duty arising from D creating a dangerous situation and failing to take steps to prevent danger
• Causation


  Relevant for result crimes to prove D has caused the consequence
• Causation

  1. Factual causation using but for test. R v White

  2. Legal causation using de minimis test. R v Paggett

  3. NAI that can break the chain of causation: Victim's own act, Medical treatment, Act of a 3rd party
• Thin skull rule


  D must take their victim as they find them, pre-existing condition included. R v Blaue . Meaning where V has a vulnerability which makes them suffer more than the average person, D will still be responsible as this never breaks the COC.
• Direct intent

  Aim, objective, and purpose to commit the act. R v Mohan
• Oblique intent

  Offence was a virtually certainty of D's actions, and D appreciated that the offence was a virtually certain consequence of the act. R v Woolin
• Subjective recklessness

  D must have foreseen the risk of the act and took the risk anyway
• Transferred malice


  D can be guilty of a crime if he intended to commit a similar crime but to a different victim
• Transferred malice cases

  • R v Mitchell - MR towards intended victim married up the AR towards actual victim
  • R v Pembiliton - Transferred malice cannot occur for two separate offences
• Coincidence


  MR and AR must be present at the same time for liability to be established
• Coincidence cases

  • Fagan v MPC - AR occurred before MR but treated as continuing act
  • R v Thabo Meli - MR occurred before AR but treated as series of events
• AssaultS39 CJA 1988


  Any act which intentionally or recklessly causes V to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
• Assault cases

  • Logdon v DPP - Emphasis is on what the victim thought was going to happen
  • R v Ireland - Silence could amount to an assault
  • Stephens v Myers - Gestures can amount to an assault
  • R v Constanza - Words can amount to an assault
  • Tuberville v Savage - Words can negate an assault
• Battery


  D recklessly or intentionally applies unlawful force to V
• Battery cases

  • Wilson v Pringle - Slight touch however hostile can amount to a battery
  • Collins v Wilcock - Slightest touch can amount to a battery
  • R v Thomas - Touching of clothing can amount to a battery
  • Haystead v DPP - Battery can be indirect
• ABHS47 OAPA 1861


  Common assault or battery that occasions some harm
• ABH some harm cases

  • R v Chan Fook - Harm must be not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant
  • R v Ireland - Psychiatric injury can lead to ABH
  • DPP v Smith - Cutting off a substantial amount of hair could lead to ABH
  • T v DPP - Momentary loss of consciousness amounts to ABH
• GBH OAPA 1861

  R v Saunders(main case)- GBH means nothing less than serious

  ----EXTRAS----

  R v Burstow- It includes psychiatric illness

  R v Dica- Biological harm, here it was HIV

  R v Bollom- Age physical and mental characteristics are taken into account

  R v Martin- it can be indirectly

  R v Brown and Stratton- Multiple injuries can amount to gbh
• Wounding

  JCC v Eisenhower - internal bleeding is not a wound

  Moriarty v Brooks - break to the continuity of the skin that bleeds (2 layers).

  R v Dume - wound can be inflicted indirectly.
• MR of S.20 GBH/Wounding

  R v Parmenter - Recklessness is sufficient, D does not need to intend to cause some harm
• MR of S.18 GBH/Wounding

  R v Belfon - Recklessness is not sufficient, D must intend to cause serious harm
• Murder

  Lord Coke- Unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being (human) under the King's peace with malice aforethought express or implied
• Diminished responsibility

  partial defence, which is a form of voluntary manslaughter found under s52 Coroners & Justice Act 2009
• Elements of diminished responsibility

  • D must be suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition
  • The abnormality must substantially impair D's ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgement or exercise self-control
  • The abnormality must provide an explanation for the killing
• Loss of control

  partial defence, which is a form of voluntary manslaughter found under s54 Coroners & Justice Act 2009.
• Elements of loss of control

  • D must be suffering from a loss of control
  • The loss of control must come from a qualifying trigger (fear or anger)
  • The standard of control test is used to compare D to someone of the same age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint
• Elements to establish gross negligence manslaughter

  • D owed a duty of care to V
  • D breached their duty of care
  • Breach caused the death
  • Negligence was gross
• Duty of care

  • Originally established in the neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stephenson but it was said to be too broad and now a duty of care is established through case law
• Cases establishing duty of care

  • R v Singh- duty to care due to tenancy, landlord to tenants
  • R v Wacker- duty to care is owed when carrying out a criminal enterprise, its owed between members
  • R v Stone & Dobinson- duty to care due to voluntary assumed responsibility
  • R v Bateman- duty to care owed doctor to patient
  • R v Pittwood- duty to care due to contractual employment
  • R v Evans- duty to summon assistance where you have created a dangerous situation
  • R v Litchfield- duty to care owed as captain to all those on the ship
• Breach of duty

  • D is compared to the standards of reasonable person performing the same task
• Cases on breach of duty

  • R v Bateman- compared to reasonable doctor
  • R v Litchfield- compared to reasonable sea captain
  • R v Holloway- compared to reasonable electrician
• To establish causation, the ordinary rules of Causation are used
• Unlawful act manslaughter

  R v Goodfelllow states there are four elements that need to be satisfied for D to be guilty for Unlawful act manslaughter.
• S1 Theft Act 1968


  D is guilty if they dishonestly, appropriate, property, belonging to another, with intention to permanently deprive the other of it
• AppropriationS3


  R v Morris -Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner
• Examples of appropriation


  • Lawrence v Met Police- appropriation where consent was obtained by deception
  • R v Pitham & Hehl- offering to sell another person's property without permission is appropriation
  • R v Hinks- V gives property as a gift but D acted dishonestly to get it
• PropertyS4

  Includes money and all other property real or personal including things in action and other intangible property.

  R v Kelly & Lindsay property has a broad definition, here it showed that body parts could be property.
• Examples of what can be property

  • Oxford v Moss- words on paper cannot be stolen because it is trade secrets but will go under copyright law
  • R v Akbar- exam papers can be stolen
• Belonging to another S5

  Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest.

  R v Turner the garage had possession of car so it belonged to the garage until D paid for it, this shows that D can steal own property.