law paper one

• Magistrates court


  • There are about 160 across England and Wales, used to be over 300 but reduced due to government cuts
  • Cases heard by 3 unpaid, unqualified magistrates (sometimes 2 magistrates and a qualified district judge)
• What magistrates courts do

  1. Hear all summary cases

  2. Hear some triable either way cases (not sent to crown court)

  3. Commit indictable offences to crown court

  4. Deal with first hearings, bail, arrest warrants

  5. Hear about 1.5 million cases a year

  6. Can extend police questioning time
• Crown court


  • There are 84 across England and Wales, major cities have at least one
  • Hear all indictable offences (e.g. murder, rape, manslaughter, robbery)
  • Hear some triable either way offences where defendant pleads not guilty and elects trial by jury
• Crown court procedure


  1. If defendant pleads guilty, pre-sentence report prepared and judge sentences

  2. If defendant pleads not guilty, 12 member jury decides verdict

  3. Judge controls the courtroom, directs jury on legal matters, can send people to cells
• Appeals from magistrates court

  1. Defendant can appeal against sentence (heard by judge and 2 magistrates)

  2. Defendant can appeal against conviction (judge and 2 magistrates re-hear case)

  3. Prosecution or defence can appeal on point of law (case stated appeal to High Court)
• Appeals from crown court

  1. Defendant needs permission to appeal conviction or sentence to Court of Appeal

  2. Court of Appeal can quash conviction, dismiss appeal, or order retrial

  3. Court of Appeal can decrease but not increase sentence

  4. Prosecution can appeal acquittal or unduly lenient sentence (needs permission, referred to Attorney General)
• Further appeals to Supreme Court are very rare, requires matter of general public importance and permission
• identify


  d may try to argue intoxication as a defence
• define


  Intoxication can be voluntary (D chooses to drink) or involuntary (where they don't choose this). Crimes can be specific intent, where intent must be proven, or basic intent where recklessness is enough.
• voluntarily intoxicated


  where d has chosen to take an intox substance
• involuntarily intoxicated


  where d is not aware that he is taking an intox substance
• Lipman (voluntary+specific)


  shows d will not be convicted of a specific intent offence if the intoxication prevents him from forming the mens rea
• Gallagher (voluntary+specific)


  shows if d has the required mens rea of the specific offence he will still be guilty - drunken intent is till intent
• Majewski (voluntary+basic)


  shows D will always be reckless for choosing to intoxicate themselves, so it will not be a defence.
• Kingston (involuntary+specific)


  shows if the intoxication prevented D from really intending the crime, he will be not guilty as his mens rea is negated but if D still intended the crime even though he was intoxicated, he will still be guilty as his mens rea is not negated
• Allen (involuntary+specific)


  shows the intoxication must truly be involuntary
• Hardie (involuntary+basic)


  shows If the intoxication prevented D from realising a risk, he will be not guilty as his mens rea is negated but If D still realised the risk even though he was intoxicated, he will still be guilty as his mens rea is not negated
• apply


  EG here d has vol/invol and the offence has this MR which is specific/basic which means D will/will not be guilty so can/can't use defence
• identify


  x may be charged with robbery against y for ___
• define


  robbery is defined in s8 of the theft act 1968 as using or threatening force immediately before or at the time of stealing
• 5 parts?


  completed theft

  use force

  on any person

  immediately before or at time

  force used in order to steal

  +mens rea
• First, D must have a completed theft


  first element
• Robinson


  shows that if even one element of theft is missing there cannot be robbery
• D must also threaten or use force for the actus reus

  second element
• R v Dawson and James


  shows that even small force such as a nudge is enough for robbery
• R v Clouden


  force can be done indirectly
• RP and others v DPP


  shows pickpocketing is no force
• B and R v DPP


  shows it does not matter that V did not feel threatened as long as D sought to put V in fear
• S8


  specifies that force must be threatened then and there
• This force can be used on any person

  third element
• Smith v Demond


  shows V doesn't have to be threatened, someone else can be threatened with intention to steal
• This force must be used immediately before or at the time of theft

  fourth element
• R v Hale


  shows that if force comes after the theft, the courts may use a continuing act to make the two coincide
• The final part of the actus reus is proving that the force was used in order to steal

  fifth element
• R v Lockley


  shows this includes force used to escape after stealing.
• D also needs the mens rea which is intending to use the force in order to steal

  mens rea + apply
• what is loss of control


  partial defence to murder
• Where is LoC defined?

  s54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
• 3 parts to LoC

  loss of self control

  trigger

  sex and age and circumstances
• s54(1)(a)


  states D must be suffering from a loss of self control at the time of the killing.