GoConqr has a new look! Let us know what you think.

Sign up free

Flashcards

General Defences

Molly Hope Law A-Level English 47 cards

Cards in this deck (47)

  1. 1CONSENTCONSENT
  2. 2What did the case of Pretty establish?Consent is not a defence to murder or euthanasia.
  3. 3What did Brown establish?You can't consent to anything above an assault or battery.
  4. 4What are the exceptions that Brown highlighted?- Properly conducted games and sports.
    - Reasonable surgical interference.
    - Dangerous exhibitions, e.g. tattoos and piercings.
    - Horseplay.
  5. 5What is normal social intercourse?Shaking hands or bumping into people.
  6. 6What was said in Collins v Wilcock about normal social intercourse?Lord Goff: "most physical contracts of ordinary life are not actionable because they are impliedly consented to be all who move in society."
  7. 7What was said in Wilson v Pringle?Consent can be implied to "jostlings" of everyday life.
  8. 8When, in sports, is consent valid?Where the event is being properly conducted and supervised within the rules and regulations.
  9. 9What did LJ Bramwell say and in what case?R v Bradshaw: "he was unwilling to decry the manly sports of this country."
  10. 10What is the key legal principle when talking about sports in consent and which case does it come from?Barnes: where conduct goes beyond the rules and regulations, there is the potential for criminal liability.
  11. 11What makes an act unlawful in sport and which case outlines this?R v Bradshaw:
    - The type and rules of the sport.
    - The level at which it was played.
    - Nature of the act.
    - Degree of force used.
    - Extent of risk of injury.
    - State of mind of the defendant (MR).
  12. 12What is the law on medical procedures and consent?Patients do have to give written consent before any procedure.
  13. 13What is said about Body Adornment and consent?Tattooing and piercing is allowed but is regulated by Acts of Parliament such as the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969.
  14. 14What was seen in the case of Wilson?That tattooing has been allowed to happen at home.
  15. 15What did Brown establish about horseplay and who said this?Lord Mustill: "the law does not concern itself with these activities, provided at they do not go too far."
  16. 16When will the law intervene in terms of sexual activities and consent?When there is "extreme" sexual activities as seen in the case of Brown.
  17. 17What did Konzani establish?They stated that if you knew that the defendant had a disease and accepted this, then the defendant is not guilty. However, where the victim did not know and would not have consented, then the defendant is guilty.
  18. 18What if the consent was obtained by fraud?Tabassum: no consent if not true consent.
  19. 19What does Burrell v Harmer say about genuine/informed consent?"age in itself does not mean there is no consent, but the failure to appreciate the nature of the act does form the basis of a lack of consent."
  20. 20INSANITYINSANITY
  21. 21What is the definition of insanity and where was it defined?M'naghten:
    1. Defect of reason.
    2. Caused by a disease of the mind.
    3. So that the defendant does not know the nature and quality of his act or that what he is doing was wrong. (Windle)
  22. 22What is the law on defect of reason?Clarke: you must be unable to use reason, not just a failure to use it (the rules of insanity don't apply to people who simply have moments of confusion or absentmindedness.)
  23. 23What must the disease of the mind be?An internal illness that affects the mind.
  24. 24What are some examples that were given and in what cases?Bratty: psychomotor epilepsy.
    Kemp: hardening of the arteries.
    Sullivan: epilepsy.
    Burgess: sleepwalking.
  25. 25What else was said in Kemp and who by?Devlin J - the disease can be temporary.
  26. 26AUTOMATISMAUTOMATISM
  27. 27What is the definition of automatism?Bratty - an act which is done by the muscles without any control of the mind.
  28. 28What are the two elements to automatism?1. Involuntary actions - Hill v Baxter
    2. What causes you to act must be EXTERNAL - R v T
  29. 29What is self induced automatism?Quick - the insulin was external.
    Hennessy - the diabetes were internal.
  30. 30SELF-DEFENCESELF-DEFENCE
  31. 31What are the two elements for self-defence?- Was the force necessary?
    - Was the force reasonable?
  32. 32What did Gladstone Williams establish?Whether the force is necessary is subjective to the defendant, what the defendant thought the circumstances were.
  33. 33What was said in Hussain and Another?if the victim is retreating, it is highly unlikely you can say the force was necessary.
  34. 34What was said about pre-emptive attacks?Bird: you can attack first and still claim self-defence.
  35. 35What was said about self-defence and intoxication?S76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: if the defendant misjudges the situation as a result of intoxication then the rule from Gladstone Williams is no longer appropriate (unless they'd do the same if they were sober.)
  36. 36What was said in Palmer and by who?Lord Morris: the force must be proportionate.
  37. 37What is the law for was the force reasonable?S76(3) + (6) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: stated that the test is objective but the jury have to regard what the defendant thought the circumstances were.
  38. 38INTOXICATIONINTOXICATION
  39. 39What is the key question regarding intoxication?Did the defendant have the necessary mens rea when he committed the offence?
  40. 40What was established in Kingston?Drunk intent is still intent.
  41. 41What was said in the case of Allen?If the defendant didn't realise the strength of the drink or drugs it would voluntary intoxication not involuntary.
  42. 42What was established in Hardice?There is a difference between dangerous non-prescribed drugs (well-known to make people aggressive) and non-dangerous drugs.
  43. 43What is basic and specific intent crimes?Basic: the mens rea is intention or recklessness, e.g. assault or battery.
    Specific: the mens rea is only intention, e.g. s18 or murder.
  44. 44What was said in Sheehan and Moore?Can only use voluntary intoxication for specific intent crimes.
  45. 45What was established in DPP v Majewski?Becoming voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct and so, the mens rea is already established for basic intent crimes because of recklessness.
  46. 46What is the question regarding mens rea for intoxication?Could the defendant form the mens rea?
  47. 47What is dutch courage and what case does it come from?Gallagher: if the defendant made a decision to kill someone, but then got so intoxicated that they could actually kill them, the defence is to be disregarded.

Information

Description
A-Level Law (General Defences) Flashcards on General Defences, created by Molly Hope on 11/05/2017.
Created by
Molly Hope
Views
1
History
  • Created by Jessica Ridley · Jan 9, 2017
  • Copied by Molly Hope · May 11, 2017
Rating

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?