Criminal Law

Question

The case of Stone v Dobinson [1977] demonstrates a duty can arise in which situations?

Answer 1

Relationship

Answer 2

Voluntary Assumption

Answer 3

Statute, Voluntary Assumption, Law Enforcement, Contract of Employment, Marriage

Answer 4

Contract of Employment, Statute, Law Enforcement,. Relationship, Voluntary Relationship, Creating a Dangerous Situation

Answer 5

You can have a duty under a law enforcement

Answer 6

You have a duty to act when you see something is not right

Answer 7

Instan [1893]

Answer 8

Lewis v CPS [2002]

Answer 9

Lowe [1973]

Answer 10

Miller [1982]

Answer 11

Evans [2009]

Answer 12

Take reasonable steps

Answer 13

Look at the defendants state of mind at the time

Answer 14

Woolmington v DPP [1935]

Answer 15

Woolmington v DPP [1967]

Answer 16

Winzar v CS Working Police Station [1983]

Answer 17

Winzar v CC of Kent [1983]

Answer 18

Circumstance

Answer 19

Consequence

Answer 20

Causation in Fact - BUT-FOR-TEST = White [1910]

Answer 21

Causation in Law - SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE = Cheshire [1991]

Answer 22

Causation in Law - SUBSTANTIAL = Cheshire [1991] & OPERATING CAUSE.

Answer 23

You transfer actus reus from A to B & has to be actus reus of the same crime = transferred malice.

Answer 24

You cannot transfer malice until both the mens rea and actus reus have been committed against both the V's.

Answer 25

This is part of the mens rea and the defendants state of mind at the time of their actions

Answer 26

This is part of the actus reus and is a word describing some form of conduct

Answer 27

AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1997]

Answer 28

AG Reference (No.2 of 1994) [1998]

Answer 29

Thinking about the risk and unreasonably concluding it would not happen.

Answer 30

Thinking about the risk and running it anyway

Answer 31

Miller [1982]

Answer 32

Thabo Meli [1954]

Answer 33

Lowe [1973]

Answer 34

Church [1965]

Answer 35

Fagan v MPC [1969]

Answer 36

Le Brun [1991]

Answer 37

Failing to take reasonable steps

Answer 38

Failing to take reasonable care

Answer 39

Unreasonable Interference

Answer 40

Unreasonable Inadvertance

Answer 41

Put poison in the V's drink causing them to suffer a heart attack & die. Guilty for murder as his actions caused the V's death.

Answer 42

Put poison in the V's drink causing them to suffer a heart attack & die. Was not the cause of her death = causation was missing & so wasn't guilty of murder. Guilty of attempted murder.

Answer 43

Fagan v MPC [1969]

Answer 44

Le Brun [1991]

Answer 45

Miller [1992]

Answer 46

Church [1965]

Answer 47

Miller [1982]

Answer 48

Direct & Oblique

Answer 49

Direct & Opaque

Answer 50

Yes - Virtually certain

Answer 51

Woolinmington v DPP [1935]

Answer 52

Woollin [1998]

Answer 53

Subjective

Answer 54

Subjective

Answer 55

Subbjective

Answer 56

Nedrick [1986]

Answer 57

Nedrick [1985]

Answer 58

Forseeing something as a natural consequence is evidence of intention.

Answer 59

Forseeing something as a natural consequence cannot be evidence of intention

Answer 60

Mistake of fact - defendant damaged property believing it was his own

Answer 61

Mistake of law - defendant damaged property believing it was his own

Answer 62

Maloney [1985]

Answer 63

Hancock [1986]

Answer 64

'A person acts recklessly with respect to...a) circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exists...b) a result when he is aware that it will occur & it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take that risk.'

Answer 65

'A person acts reckless is he does an act which creates an obvious & serious risk that property will be destroyed or damaged & either a) recognised there was some risk but nevertheless went on to do it or b) gave no thought to the possibility of there being such a risk.'

Answer 66

Cunningham [1957] - meaning of recklessness (if aware of the risk)

Answer 67

Brady [2010] - test - was what they did unjustifiable?

Answer 68

Adomako [1994] - test - was it objective?

Answer 69

Brady [2006] - test - was what they did unjustifiable?

Answer 70

DPP v Santana Bermudez [2003]

Answer 71

DPP v Morgan [1976]

Answer 72

DPP v B (A minor) [2000]

Answer 73

The subjective test ran counter to the principles of mens rea & should revert to having an objective test

Answer 74

The objective test ran counter to the principles of mens rea & should revert to having an subjective test

Answer 75

Negligently

Answer 76

Recklessly

Answer 77

S.18. ABH doesn't involve wounding or intent

Answer 78

S.47. ABH doesn't involve GBH or wound

Answer 79

Physical Assault (Battery)

Answer 80

Psychic Assault (Assault)

Answer 81

Psychic Assault (Assault)

Answer 82

Physical Assault (Battery)

Answer 83

only involves proof of contact, no injury.

Answer 84

involves proof of contact causing an injury

Answer 85

Fagan v MPC [1969]

Answer 86

Williams (Gladstone) [1987]

Answer 87

Fagan v MPC [1969]

Answer 88

DPP v Santana Bermudez [2003]

Answer 89

By frightening someone

Answer 90

By making them fear something is going to happen

Answer 91

Turberville v Savage (1669)

Answer 92

Constanza [1997]

Answer 93

Ireland v Burstow [1998]

Answer 94

Smith v CS of Working (1983)

Answer 95

Silence cannot negate an assault.

Answer 96

Silence can negate an assault.

Answer 97

No - Constanza [1997]

Answer 98

Yes - Constanza [1997]

Answer 99

an assault occurred because the defendant was on the other side of the window and this was classed as sufficiently imminent

Answer 100

an assault didn't occur because the defendant was on the other side of the window and therefore couldn't touch the V immediately and just frightened the V.

Answer 101

Lord Diplock in Ireland [1997]

Answer 102

Lord Steyn in Ireland [1997]

Answer 103

Logdon v DPP [1976]

Answer 104

Lowe [1973]

Answer 105

a strict liability crime

Answer 106

a full mens rea offence

Answer 107

An intent to wound

Answer 108

An intent to cause GBH

Answer 109

Bryony [1985]

Answer 110

Bryson [1985]

Answer 111

Inflicted Grevious Bodily Harm

Answer 112

Wounded with intent

Answer 113

Inflicted Actual Bodily Harm

Answer 114

DPP v Morgan [1961]

Answer 115

DPP v Smith [1961]

Answer 116

The V was really frightened

Answer 117

It was a recognisable psychological condition

Answer 118

a break in the continuity of the whole of the skin.

Answer 119

a scratch that draws blood

Answer 120

Saunders [1985]

Answer 121

Rupert [1974]

Answer 122

Bollom [2003]

Answer 123

No - Burstow [1998]

Answer 124

Yes - Burstow [1998]

Answer 125

need not be permanent, but it should 'not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant.'

Answer 126

must be permanent and enough to be 'wholly significant'

Answer 127

a womans ponytail being cut off = held to be ABH as no need to show pain because harm includes hurt or damage. Court emphasised hair was an intrinsic part to the identify of individual.

Answer 128

a campaign of domestic violence where the def had caused the V to suffer severe psychological harm but this wasn't concluded as an actual recognised illness.

Answer 129

The V was really frightened

Answer 130

It was a recognisable psychological condition

Answer 131

approached a stranger sitting at the roadside. Asked him what his problem was and he was attacked breaking his nose and suffering other injuries.

Answer 132

approached a stranger sitting at the roadside. asked him what his problem was and he said there wasn't one. punched him in face breaking nose & suffering other injuries.

Answer 133

Rush (1994) & DPP v A [2001]

Answer 134

Rushmore (1992) & DPP v A [2001]

Answer 135

Savage v Parmenter [1982]

Answer 136

Savage v Parmenter [1992]

Answer 137

'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort' of the V - Donovan [1934]

Answer 138

'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort' of the V - Chan-Fook [1994]

Answer 139

grazes, minor bruising, scratches, abrasions, swellings, reddening of the skin, superficial cuts, a 'black eye'

Answer 140

major bruising, distress, cuts, drawing blood, swellings, a 'black eye'

Answer 141

Unlawful killing of another under the queen's peace

Answer 142

Unlawful killing of another person under the queen's peace

Answer 143

AG Reference (No.4 of 1992) [1998]

Answer 144

AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1998]

Answer 145

V was extremely drunk and ran away from def who was assaulting him - died when feel in to a gutter & was hit by a car.

Answer 146

Girl refused blood transfusion due to her religion after being stabbed by the def 4 times.

Answer 147

It is now the law that a defendant is liable for murder only if the V died within a year and a day of the def's actions.

Answer 148

It used to be the law that the def would be liable for murder only if the V died within a year and a day of the def's actions & this act abolished the rule as it gave rise to difficulties.

Answer 149

Corbett [2000]

Answer 150

Corbett [1996]

Answer 151

Corbett [1998]

Answer 152

Corbett [1975]

Answer 153

Caldwell [1981] - def did not intend to kill but intended to cause GBH = sufficient for murder conviction.

Answer 154

Cunningham [1982] - def did not intend to kill but intended to cause GBH = sufficient for murder conviction.

Answer 155

Medical intervention (Cheshire [1991]); V refuses medical treatment (R v Blaue [1975]); D's conduct still operative (Blaue); Reasonable attempt to escape by V (Roberts; Corbett [1996])

Answer 156

V ran away and suffered a heart attack (Cheshire [1991]); Failure of medical intervention by medical staff; D's conduct is operative (Blaue); Def committed an assault made worse by a third party

Answer 157

Malice anafterthought

Answer 158

Malice aforethought

Answer 159

Both at the same time

Answer 160

Intention to kill

Answer 161

Intention to inflict GBH

Answer 162

Either one must be in use

Answer 163

Woollin [1999] - tested subjectively (def knew, wanted, desired). Jury may fin intention only if the death or GBH was a virtually certain result.

Answer 164

Cunningham [1982] - tested subjectively (def knew, wanted, desired). Jury may fin intention only if the death or GBH was a virtually certain result.

Answer 165

Where murder is reduced to manslaughter

Answer 166

The same as murder

Answer 167

Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 168

Abnormality of mental functioning (diminished responsibility)

Answer 169

A loss of self-control

Answer 170

Intending to do unlawful/dangerous act (Constructive Manslaughter)

Answer 171

Negligence

Answer 172

Recklessness

Answer 173

Gross Negligence

Answer 174

Negligent, dangerous, caused the death of the V

Answer 175

Unlawful, negligent, caused the death of the V

Answer 176

Unlawful, dangerous, caused the death of the V

Answer 177

If there is a desire or purpose to intend to kill or cause GBH, don't have to use Woollin. Virtual certainty does not need to be discussed if def had direct intent.

Answer 178

Virtual certainty still needs to be discussed even if the def had a desire or purpose to intend to kill or cause GBH as you need to look at whether the reasonable person would have been aware of the risk.

Answer 179

Pittwood (1902)

Answer 180

Lowe [1973]

Answer 181

AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1998] & Dhaliwal [2006]

Answer 182

AG Reference (No.4 of 1994) [1998] & Dalby [1982]

Answer 183

An offence against property is not successful under constructive manslaughter

Answer 184

An offence against property is successful is caused the death of V

Answer 185

Dhaliwal [2006] - husband was abusive to wife causing severe emotional trauma = committed suicide. Psychological damage is not a crime or unlawful act.

Answer 186

Goodfellow [1986] - husband was abusive to wife causing severe emotional trauma = committed suicide. Psychological damage is not a crime or unlawful act.

Answer 187

Dalby [1982]

Answer 188

Goodfellow [1986]

Answer 189

Church [1966]

Answer 190

Dawson (1985)

Answer 191

Dalby (1982)

Answer 192

The V was a frail 87 year old man & def broke in to his house. Man had serious heart condition, suffered a heart attack & died. This wouldn't have been foreseeable to the reasonable person just because of the age of the man. The man wasn't convicted because of this reason.

Answer 193

The V was a frail 87 year old man & def broke in to his house. Man had serious heart condition, suffered a heart attack & died. This would have been foreseeable because of frailty of the old man. The def wasn't convicted because wasn't enough evidence to link burglary to heart attack.

Answer 194

Supplied the V with heroin with the knowledge the V would administer it & had a weak heart.

Answer 195

Prepared the heroin & applied the tourniquet to V's arm then V self-injected.

Answer 196

In Dias the def was not found guilty, even though purchased heroin & prepared syringe for V, because the V broke the chain by administering it themselves. In Finlay the def was not guilty because it was not reasonably foreseeable that the V would administer the heroin straight away when it was prepared.

Answer 197

In Dias the def was not found guilty, even though purchased heroin & prepared syringe for V, because the V broke the chain by administering it themselves. In Finlay the def was liable as self-injection didn't break chain as was reasonably foreseeable.

Answer 198

Subjective Negligence Manslaughter

Answer 199

Subjective Recklessness Manslaughter

Answer 200

It wasn't the unlawful, dangerous act that caused the death of the V (the punch) - it was the affray because the def's behaviour caused the V to run away. Reasonable person would not have realised this was likely to cause physical injury.

Answer 201

It wasn't know to the def that the V had a weak heart and that her behaviour would cause the V to suffer a heart attack and therefore the link was missing between the actus reus & mens rea.

Answer 202

Cato [1987] - def supplied heroin to V & with consent he administered it - V died from overdose. CA held that the unlawful act was the possession of the drugs, not the administration which caused the death. Therefore link was missing.

Answer 203

Cato [1976] - def supplied heroin to V & with consent he administered it - V died from overdose. CA held that the unlawful act was the possession of the drugs, not the administration which caused the death. Therefore link was missing.

Answer 204

Caldwell [1981]

Answer 205

R v G [2003]

Answer 206

Adomako [1994]

Answer 207

Singh [1999]

Answer 208

Lidar [2000]

Answer 209

Goodfellow (1986)

Answer 210

Subjective

Answer 211

Must be a risk of GBH

Answer 212

Must be a risk of death

Answer 213

D owed duty of care towards V; D breached the duty; Breach caused V's death; Breach (negligence) so gross as to amount to crime.

Answer 214

D owed duty of care to V; D breached the duty; Breach caused injury; Breach was negligent

Answer 215

Due to the relationship (sisters).

Answer 216

Because she created a dangerous situation

Answer 217

R (On Application of Rowley) v DPP [2003]

Answer 218

R (On Application of Rowley) v DPP [1991]

Answer 219

Def followed up complaints about a defective gas fire within a lodging house he run with his father. Contact a gas fitter who did not reasonably foresee that there was a problem with carbon monoxide and caused the death of a lodger.

Answer 220

Def followed up complaints about defective gas fire within a lodging house he run with his father other than to inspect it himself. Lodger died of carbon monoxide poisoning from the fire.

Answer 221

destruction to property belonging to another person without lawful excuse

Answer 222

destruction of or damage to property belonging to another without lawful excuse

Answer 223

damage of property belonging to another without lawful excuse

Answer 224

destruction of or damage to property belonging to another person without lawful excuse

Answer 225

Spitting on a policeman's coat was held to be an assault not criminal damage

Answer 226

Spitting on a policeman's coat was held not to be criminal damage because of the coats material

Answer 227

Def flooded a police cell by blocking a toilet = resulting in criminal damage

Answer 228

Def pulled his bed apart in a police cell = resulting in criminal damage

Answer 229

Avon v Shimmen [1986]

Answer 230

Denton [1982]

Answer 231

Hardman v CC of Avon [1986]

Answer 232

Hardman v CC of Avon [1968]

Answer 233

A (A Juvenile) v R [1978]

Answer 234

Samuels v Stubbs [1972]

Answer 235

Hardman v CC of Avon [1986]

Answer 236

Def flooded a police cell by blocking a toilet = resulting in criminal damage

Answer 237

Def pulled his bed apart in a police cell = resulting in criminal damage

Answer 238

Whiteley [1991]

Answer 239

Whiteley [1996]

Answer 240

Aggrivated Criminal Damage

Answer 241

Criminal Damage

Answer 242

Denton [1999]

Answer 243

Denton [1982]

Answer 244

Denton [1999]

Answer 245

Denton [1982]

Answer 246

belief in god's consent is not enough

Answer 247

belief in god's consent is enough

Answer 248

Property is in need of immediate protection & Means adopted are reasonable in all circumstances

Answer 249

Property was deemed dangerous & means adopted are reasonable in all circumstances

Answer 250

Def set fire to bedding in block of flats to demonstrate inadequacy of fire alarms = no defence. Did it to show inadequacy of fire alarms not to protect the property.

Answer 251

Def set fire to bedding in block of flats to demonstrate inadequacy of fire alarms = defence. By proving the inadequacy of the fire alarms - protecting property.

Answer 252

Baker & Wilkinson [1997]

Answer 253

Baker & Wilkins [1997]

Answer 254

Damage done to property during a burglary

Answer 255

Same as criminal damage except property doesn't have to belong to another

Answer 256

Def caused fire in a flat that, unbeknown to him, no one was in. However, a reasonable person would have thought there was a risk = doesn't have to be an endangerment.

Answer 257

Def caused fire in a flat that, unbeknown to him, no one was in. However, a reasonable person would have thought there was a risk = does have to be an endangerment to life.

Answer 258

must be shown that def intended to destroy or damage property & must show def intended or was reckless to endangerment of a life due to criminal damage.

Answer 259

must be shown that def intended or was reckless in destroying or damaging property & must show def intended or was reckless to endangerment of a life due to criminal damage.

Answer 260

there has to be the risk of endangerment from the criminal damage

Answer 261

that endangerment must be a result of the criminal damage

	Erstellt von Jade Herring vor etwa 11 Jahre

Nächster

Criminal Law

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

Frage 1

Frage 2

Frage 3

Frage 4

Frage 5

Frage 6

Frage 7

Frage 8

Frage 9

Frage 10

Frage 11

Frage 12

Frage 13

Frage 14

Frage 15

Frage 16

Frage 17

Frage 18

Frage 19

Frage 20

Frage 21

Frage 22

Frage 23

Frage 24

Frage 25

Frage 26

Frage 27

Frage 28

Frage 29

Frage 30

Frage 31

Frage 32

Frage 33

Frage 34

Frage 35

Frage 36

Frage 37

Frage 38

Frage 39

Frage 40

Frage 41

Frage 42

Frage 43

Frage 44

Frage 45

Frage 46

Frage 47

Frage 48

Frage 49

Frage 50

Frage 51

Frage 52

Frage 53

Frage 54

Frage 55

Frage 56

Frage 57

Frage 58

Frage 59

Frage 60

Frage 61

Frage 62

Frage 63

Frage 64

Frage 65

Frage 66

Frage 67

Frage 68

Frage 69

Frage 70

Frage 71

Frage 72

Frage 73

Frage 74

Frage 75

Frage 76