1 Criminal Law -

2 liability Mens rea is the guilty mind or intention needed for a crimeActus reus is the physical act of a crime, e.g scaring someone into fearing violence is the physical act of assault Transferred malice – where d intends the crime but not the person he injured, his intention is transferred to that person (Latimer) Three types of intention: Direct intention Oblique intention Recklessness Strict liability – this is where no intention(mens rea) is required for the offence. E.g selling a lottery ticket/alcohol to a fourteen year old will result in liability even if she looked much older!

3 Topic One Non Fatal Offences

4 Causation Rules – can d argue he didn’t actually cause the outcome?1.D’s act must factually cause the result – as in r v White where he tried to poison mum but she died of something else – so he was not guilty of murder ! ( was charged with attempted murder though) 2. What if there were other contributory factors causing death/injury caused by another person? E.g R v Smith where d stabbed victim, doctor was also negligent when treating victim, so contributed to death. Held – d’s original act only has to be a significant cause of death for him to be liable ( not the only cause) 3. What is, unknown to the defendant, the victim had an unusual allergy or a weak heart making him more prone to death from d’s act Can he argue it was not his fault as he didn’t know? Held – No, you must take your victim as you find him( V Blaue).

5 Task: Identify the most likely offenceDan texted Patrick telling him he would kill him when he found out he had been seeing his girlfriend. Dan was scared. Task: Identify the most likely offence Dan pushed Patrick at the bus stop. Dan lost his balance and fell, twisting his angle and breaking his nose. No physical contact or harm so assault only. Ahasanul threw a chair at Mustafa during an argument about who was best at law. The chair hit his head causing a severe fracture. S20 – there are multiple injuries so could use Brown and Stratton to justify gbh charge.Alternatively, s47-abh. No evidence of intention to cause serious harm but reckless as some harm foreseeable Severe fracture = gbh. S20 and s18 relevant. As he used a weapon (chair) could be specific intention

6 s18 S20- OAPA 1861 S47 – OAPA 1861 Criminal Justice Act 1988 batteryActus reus- to wound or inflict gbh(serious harm) Keywords:‘Wound’ =blood loss / breakage of the skin (Eisenhower), ‘gbh/serious’ can include biological harm(Rv Dica ) or multiple injuries(Brown and Stratton – cross dresser) Men rea – direct(specific)or oblique intention to cause gbh or resist lawful arrest. -Direct intention means to intend direct consequences.( R V Mohan) Oblique intention is where d doesn’t intend the actual outcome but it was a virtually certainty it was going to happen and he knew this. ( r v Woolin) S20- OAPA 1861 Actus reus -‘To wound or inflict gbh’ Same as s18. Mens rea - intention or recklessness as to causing SOME harm.(savage) Recklessness= where reasonable man would foresee risk of some harm and d chose to ignore it.(Cunningham) S47 – OAPA 1861 a/r – assault (or battery) causing actual bodily harm. Keywords-Actual- ‘more than trivial’ or ‘causes discomfort’ (r v chan fook.) Can include psychological harm such as depression.( Chan fook) Mens rea- intention or recklessness as to the assault or battery only.( don’t have to have intended any harm at all! Criminal Justice Act 1988 battery a/r = application of unlawful force Keywords: force’ can include the slightest touching’ if unlawful (R v Thomas) Unlawful = where no consent, or not done in self defence. m/r – direct intention( Mohan) or Recklessness ( Cunningham) Assault To cause v to apprehend immediate unlawful violence ‘Apprehend’ means to cause fear (Logdon) Immediate is where d doesn’t know what will happen next. ( R v Smith woking) Direct intention or recklessness.

7 Wounding or inflicting gbh R v Eisenhower – victim was shot in the eyeball with a pellet gun. Multiple injuries can amount to serious harm Assault R v Thomas – d touched a girls skirt hem. To apprehend harm means to fear it Battery The slightest touching can amount to force(battery) Assault causing abh R v Logdon – d pretended to have a gun. Wounding or inflicting gbh Wound means there must be a breakage of the skin Brown and Stratton – victim was a cross dresser.Dad broke his teeth and left arm. R v Dica – d, knowing he had HIV, had unprotected sex with v.She contracted HIV Bodily harm can include biological harm.( also consent wasn’t real as she didn’t know he had HIV)

8 Comment on problems/criticisms of law Non Fatal Offences and how it could be reformedExplain/example Language has different legal definition to everyday understanding e.g assault implies hitting in everyday language but in law it means to cause fear only ( r v Logdon) Sentencing does not always reflect the seriousness of the offences For example, s47 and s20 both have max sentences of 5 years by gbh is more serious than abh, No clear boundary between battery and s47 abh Abh requires more than trivial harm or causes discomfort ( chan fook)but most physical contact will involve at least some of this. Often difficult to prove s18 gbh was specifically intended So police officers usually charge under s20 as easier to secure a conviction.

9 MURDER AND VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER DEFENCESTopic Two MURDER AND VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER DEFENCES Remember – Voluntary manslaughter - loss of control and diminished responsibility can only ever be considered as special defences to murder!!!Dont use either for anything else!! If successful, they could reduce d’s conviction from murder to manslaughter.

10 Murder Revision If d shows he has intention for gbh or murder and d dies, he will always be liable for this offence. Actus Reus Unlawful killing of a human being under the Queens Peace Mens Rea Malice aforethought, express or implied’ means intention to kill or cause gbh’ (vickers) intention can be direct or oblique Unlawful is not in self defence Direct is where d intends the direct consequences (Mohan) Queens Peace is not war time Oblique intention : . Was the outcome a virtual certainty and did d foresee it?(Woollin)

11 Loss of Control – vol manslaughter defence.Doughty -Crying baby is an innocent act D must have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged There must be a loss of Control (no evidence of planning revenge e.g time delay) The ordinary person with normal powers of self restraint would have reacted in a similar way. Ibrams v Gregory – planned attack Camplin – where d was 15 and hit someone who had raped him

12 Diminished responsibility defenceTest/elements to be proved for a successful plea of d/r. Some explanation of key words. 1. There must be an abnormality of the mind (Byrne) ‘abnormality’ means a state of mind so different from ordinary persons’s it s considered abnormal. (Byrne) IT must be caused by a recognised medical condition It must restrict d’s ability to a) control his reaction,OR b) make a rational judgement THE ANORMAILITY MUST BE THE SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE/explain d’s reaction This can include depression (seers) , a personality disorder, paranoia or another mental illness ‘substantial doesn’t mean total or minimal – just something in between

13 Application – murder/vol msJohn’s mother was disabled. One day John overheard one school friend make this comment ‘ John’s mum – what a sight! Stupid cripple’. John waited till after school, then followed Simon home . Sally, who ad post natal depression, shot her husband twice with a gun during an argument Q1.What criminal liability does Sally have for his death? Q2.What effect might the post natal depression have at her trial? Voluntary manslaughter defence of d/respons. Now explain and apply the four rules. Murder. Define the ar and m/r , explain and apply

14 Involuntary manslaughterUnlawful Manslaughter Gross Negligence If there is no evidence d intended death or gbh, but someone has died, the d will be charged with either GROSS NEGLIGENCE or unlawful act manslaughter

15 Gross Negligence – must knowUse this offence where d has FAILED TO DO something he should have, and someone has died as a result. Elements of Gross Negligence Helpful explanations 1. D must owe a duty of care to victim (Rules come from R v Adamako) e.G doctor/patient, pilot/passenger OR if d has created a danger ( miller – the tramp who started a fire had a duty of care to put out a fire he started) 2. D must have breached that duty Must have not done what the reasonable person would do in that situation 3. The breach must have been ‘gross’. There must have been a foreseeable risk of death from failing to act 4. It must have caused death

16 Unlawful Act manslaughterWhere d doesn’t intend death but causes it through his unlawful actions. Unlawful Act manslaughter Unlawful act manslaughter – what must be proved Helpful explanation of keywords. 1.There must be an unlawful act e.G an assault/battery/criminal damage. State what the act was. 2.It must be ‘dangerous’ Must be some harm foreseeable (Mitchell – d pushed a man in a post office, who fell into an old lady and she died.) 3.must be the substantial cause of death Must be the substantial and operative cause fo death(R v Smith) 4.must have intended only the unlawful act (or been reckless to it)

17 Topic 3 -Property Offences

18 Burglary s9 Theft Act 1968 – enter a building as a trespasser…’Theft – Theft Act 1968 a/r, m/r Key words: Dishonestly - was D’s conduct dishonest by reasonable person’s standards? R v Hinks – D accepted gifts of money from a vulnerable man. Appropriate – assume rights of owner. R v Morris – switched labels in supermarket Property – Oxford v Moss – information is not property. Belonging to another – cannot steal own property if another has a right of possession (R v Hall) Intention to permanently deprive – R v Veyluml – D cannot replace exact notes taken after leaving IOU. Property Offences 1 Burglary s9 Theft Act 1968 – enter a building as a trespasser…’ AR –Key words: Enter – entry must be effective Building or part of building – to be abuilding has to have some degree of permanence R v Leathey Part of a building – includes going behind shop counter. R v Walkington As a trespasser – not having permission or going beyond permission. R v Collins – man went into bedroom pretending to be someone else. MR – S9 1 a – with intention to steal, cause GBH or criminal damage OR S9 1 b – having entered building, then decide to steal or cause GBH Aggravated Burglary s10 Any burglary + use of weapon 1 4 3 Robbery S8 Theft Act 1968 Key words: Use or threaten force - R v Dawson – D nudged V who lost balanced, D took wallet. Nudge was enough force. Force must be either immediately before or during theft – R v Hale – one burglar upstairs committing theft other downstairs tying V. There must be a completed theft 2

19 Making off without payment – Theft Act 1978New offence E.g. Where person has a meal in restaurant and walks out without paying or failing to pay a taxi driver, or filling up cwithout ar with petrol and leaving paying. AR – to make off from the spot without paying. MR – knowing payment is required for services TWOC Taking without owners consent – e.g. joy riding, does not fit into offence of theft as no intention to permanently deprive. AR – take vehicle without authority MR – to do this knowing consent is required.

20 Topic 4 – General Defences

21 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 Consent Intoxication Voluntary & InvoluntarySelf Defence Consent Intoxication Voluntary & Involuntary 2 1 Attorney General Case Consent can never be a defence to bodily harm R v Brown – consent not a defence to sadomasochism R v Wilson – but can be for tattooing/body piercing 1 Force must be necessary and reasonable R v Martin – D shot burglar in back. Force was not necessary. Voluntary Intox DPP v Majewski After taking hallucinary drugs D strangled his girlfriend. Specific Intent Offence – available Basic Intent Offence –Not Available Involuntary Intox A complete defence if D has been involuntarily Intoxicated R v Hardie Includes: Prescribed drugs, Soporic Drugs, Laced Food/Drinks. 3 Exceptions: Physical sport R v Barnes – consent can be a defence so long as playing within rules of game. Rough Play R v Aitken – D allowed defence of consent as all consented earlier to playing ‘rough’ games. 2 Duress 3 Duress can never be a defence to murder (R V Howe).However, can be a defence to a less serious serious crime, if offence committed to avoid a worse result. ( R v Conway) Consent must be genuine and informed R v Dica – HIV 1 2

22 Bratty v AG for NI - Automatism 2. Must be a Disease of the MindIs an involuntary reaction and is a full defence if successfully proven Bratty v AG for NI - Automatism An act by the muscles with no control by the mind, like a reflex or spasm due to an external factor. This can include involuntary intoxication or concussion after an accident. Hill v Baxter – D must have lost control his muscles or mind due to external cause.. 4. Insanity – definition comes from the Mc Naughton Rules 5 Insanity & Automatism There must be a defect of reason. 2. Must be a Disease of the Mind This can include epilpesy or diabetes (R v Quick)So long as it is an internal cause, not an external one caused by drugs etc. 3. The disease of the mind causes the D to not know the nature and quality of his act, or not know he was doing wrong 5

23 Evaluation of offences against propertyEvaluation of murder The intention to cause serious injury (GBH) should not be part of murder’s definition. Life sentence verdicts have been criticised as it does not take into consideration the circumstances of the case e.g. a person who has committed Euthanasia is not a cold blooded murderer. Evaluation of offences against property Theft – ‘belonging to another’ has a wide meaning for example someone can steal there own property and still be found guilty of theft. Robbery - A completed theft should not be necessary as s9(1)(a) allows a person to be guilty of burglary even if they just had the intention to steal. Burglary – you can be guilty of burglary even if you did not steal anything (R v Walkington), in contrast to theft where you are guilty if you ‘appropriate property belonging to another’ Evaluation of involuntary manslaughter A person who commits unlawful act manslaughter and did not realise the risk of injury is guilty. This is unfair as well as the reasonable man test which is very subjective. A person who commits gross negligence manslaughter and did not have the mens rea at all is still guilty. D does not know what they did was a crime until they are taken to court for it. Evaluations/ commentary in Criminal Law Evaluation of non fatal offences Words like ‘occasioning’, ‘grievous’ in definitions of offences from the Act are not used any more therefore parliament should pass an updated Act. The sentence for ABH and GBH s.20 carry 5 years whereas GBH s18 carries the same for murder! Therefore sentence does not reflect blame. The police are unlikely to charge the offence of assault where someone has shouted ‘boo’ for example, likewise for battery if some one has just stroked a person’s cheek! Evaluation of murder defences Diminished responsibility relies on jury to decide if the mind is abnormal and substantial. This can mean that dangerous criminals receive a lesser sentence. Loss of control has been criticised as ‘fitting typical male violence’. Where women are less likely to lose control and kill suddenly.

24