Karteikarten
Murder, Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Karten in diesem Stapel (31)
- 1Definition of MurderCoke: Unlawfully killing a person in being under the queens peace with malice aforethought (year and a day rule has been abolished)
- 2AR of murderUnlawfully killing another person (through an act not an omission)
- 3MR of murderMalice a forethought (The intention to kill or to cause GBH)
- 4The two types of intentionDirect intention: where the consequences are desired
Oblique intention: where the consequences are not desired but virtually certain to happen (rule of evidence only) - 5How do you identify oblique intention:The Nedrick/Woolin test: two stage test
1. Was the result virtually certain?
2. Did the defendant appreciate this? - 6What is causation and when is it applied?Causation is applied in AR to determine whether D caused V's death:
Factual Causation: The 'but for test'
Legal Causation: De minimis test
Intervening Acts: Novus Actus interveniens - 7What does the thin skull rule dictate and in what case was this applied?That you take your victim as you find them as seen in Blaue
- 8Can the acts of a third party break the chain of causation?Yes, as seen in Pagett and Cheshire
- 9Does medical treatment break the chain of causation?If it is grossly negligent as seen in Jordan however, in general it will not as seen in Cheshire
- 10What are absolute liability offences and give an example of a case?Absolute liability offences are offences for which the prosecution need not prove mens rea in relation to ANY element of the actus reus
as seen in state of affair cases: Larsonneur and Winzor v Chief Constable of Kent - 11Why do strict liability offences exist? (what are the benefits of them)Promotion of care (To protect people)
Deterrent value (ensures compliance to avoid criminal prosecution)
Easier enforcement (no MR needed) - 12What is an omission and is there a criminal liability for an omission?The general rule is that there is no criminal liability for failing to act. Thus, a defendant will not be criminally liable for an offence by his failure (or omission) to perform an act.
- 13What are the six exceptions to the general rule for an omission?• where there is a special relationship between D and V
• where D voluntarily assumes responsibility of V
• where there is a contractual duty
• where public office creates a duty to act
• where D creates a dangerous situation he has a duty to avert such danger
• where statute imposes a duty on D to act - 14Give a case for special relationships in relation to omissionsDownes : Where there is a special relationship between D and V, D is under a positive duty to act. This was then confirmed in Gibbins and Proctor
- 15Case for Voluntary assumption of responsibility and legal principleStone and Dobinson: Where the defendant has voluntarily assumed responsibility for the victim a positive duty to act may be imposed on the d.
- 16Case and legal principle for Contractual dutyPittwood (train case): A contract can create a positive duty to act.
- 17Case and legal principle for Public office (Public duty)Dytham (The Police case): Public office can create a positive duty to act.
- 18Case for and legal principle for Creation of a dangerous situationMiller: A defendant who is responsible for creating a dangerous situation has a duty to prevent a prohibited result from occurring
- 19When can there be criminal liability for an omission in Statutory exceptions?Where a statute imposes a duty on the defendant to act, then his failure to do so will amount to a criminal offence. For example, failing to provide a police officer with a specimen of breath is an offence under s.6, Road Traffic Act 1988.
- 20How do you apply the but for test? (factual causation)But for the defendant’s conduct/omission, would the victim have died?
If yes – V would have died anyway, D is not the factual cause of death.
If no – V would not have died but for D’s conduct/omission, D is the factual cause of death. - 21How do you apply the de minimis test? (Legal Causation)Were the accused’s actions more than a minimal or slight or trivial cause of the result?
- 22What do you ask during the novus actus interveniens stage?Was there present a new intervening act/event that breaks the chain of causation between the accused’s actions and the result
- 23Can the acts of the victim break the chain of causation?If the act of the victim is reasonable then no it doesn't however, if the acts of the victim are unreasonable then yes as seen in Roberts
- 24What is direct intention?Where a consequence is wanted (or desired)
- 25Which type of recklessness is used currently in the UK?Cunningham recklessness (Subjective recklessness)
- 26What is the Cunningham recklessness test?The test requires proof that
1) D was aware of the existence of the unjustifiable risk
2) and nevertheless went on to take it - 27Must the actus reus and mens rea coincide?The principle of coincidence provides that the actus reus and mens rea of a criminal offence must coincide. However, courts have attempted to get round this requirement by creating several theories, such as the ‘continuing act’ theory in Fagan v MPC and 'single transaction theory' in Thabo Meli
- 28What is transferred malice?Where the defendant has the mens rea to commit an offence against a particular person or property, but he commits the actus reus of that offence against a different person or property as it gets transferred as seen in Latimer (belt case)
- 29What are strict liability offences?Strict liability offences are those which do not require mens rea to be proved in respect of AT LEAST one element of the actus reus. As seen in Woodrow
- 30What are the two main types of homicide?1) Murder
2) Manslaughter - 31Which case defined what grievous means and what does it mean?It was defined in DDP v Smith: Grievous=Really serious (it's also up to the jury to decide whether something is serious or not)
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Fundamental things that you should know about Murder, Actus Reus and Mens Rea
- Erstellt von
- alan.10a
- Aufrufe
- 268
- Tags
- Bewertung