A2 Law Unit 3

?

Murder

Def- The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature under the Queens peace in any country of the realm, with malicaforthought.

AR- The guilty physical act, must voluntary (Baxter), can be state of affairs (Winzar), can also be omission (Stone + Dobinson) For murder the AR is the act so for example shooting or stabbing.

MR- The mental element of a crime, for murder this is maliceaforthought, this means intent to kill or cause GBH. there are two types expressed and implied. Expressed means intent to kill (Ian Brady), implied means intent to cause GBH (Vickers), forsight of consequences is also evident for intent (Maloney)

1 of 9

Voluntary Manslaughter- Diminished Responsibility

Intro- DR is type of voluntary manslaughter, one of three special defences. can only be used for murder, gets lower sentence not aquitted. Homocide Act 1957- ammended in the Coroners and Justice act 2009. Leading case= RvBryne.

1- Def was suffering from ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FUNCTIONING. Shown in case Bryne= his state of mind was so different from that of an ordinary human that the reasonable man would term it abnormal 

2- Must be a RECOGNISED MEDICAL CONDITION. Shown in case Ahluwalia she suffered from battered woman syndrome. 

3- Must SUBSTANTIONALLY IMPAIR defs ability to:                                                                  Understand Nature of Conduct= Automatic state, eg see the devil in a person.                              Form Rational Judgements= Paranioa/Schizophrenia                                                                Exercise Self Conrol= RvBryne, medical condition ment unable to control pervated desires

4- Must be a LINK between the medical condition and the killing. Cae example, RvSeers. 

2 of 9

Voluntary Manslaughter- Loss of Control

Intro- Type of voluntary manslaughter. one of 3 special defences a defended can raise when charged with murder. Only a partial defence meaning def cannot be aquitted however can lesser sentence. Found in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Loss of control replaces provocation. Def must succesfully prove following 3 things to have the defence. 

  • Must be a loss of control- Def must prove there was a loss of control at the time of the killing. Under provocation this had to be sudden however that is no longer the case (Alhuwalia)
  • There must be a qualifying trigger- this can be one of two things:                                                   Fear of violence. Def must fear serious violence toward def or another identified person           Things said or done. This must have came from someone with grave characcter and the           def had a justifiable sense of being wronged. (Doughty)

Excluded matters= Sexual Infidelity (Humes)                                                                                                        Revenge (Ibrams+Gregory)

  • Standard of Self conrol- A person of the defs same sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint, in the same circumstances might have reacted in the same way. (Camplin) - Leading case, takes into account age. 
3 of 9

Involuntary Manslaughter- Gross Negligence

IV- is the unlawful killing of reasonable creature where the def doesnt have the mens rea to kill or to cause serious harm. 

The case of Adomako clarified requirements of Gross Negligence Manslaughter. 

  • Duty Of Care. Donoghue V Stevenson = Must take reasonable care to avoid acts/omissions that you can reasonably foresee may harm your neighbour. An example of duty of care, Singh, Duty to manage/maintain property + Khan and Khan, duty to summon medical assistance. It is irrelevent if the act was illegal (Wacker)
  • Breach of Durty. This is where the def fails to reach the standard of care expected, case eg, Stone & Dobinson, they were expected to care more. 
  • Gross Negligence. Negligence is not enough, it must amount to gross. Bateman shows it becomes gross when it goes beyond a matter of mere compenstation between the subjects and shows such disregard for the life and saftey to others. 
  • Substantial cause. Misra confirmed that there must be a risk of death not just a risk of harm
4 of 9

Involuntary Manslaughter- Unlawful Act MS

IV is unlawful killing where def doesnt have intention to kill/cause serious bodily harm. Max sentence is life however judge has dicretion in sentencing. 

AR- 3 elements. 

  • Unlawful Act- this means it must be an unlawful/criminal act, a civil wrong is not enough (Franklin). It cant be an omission (Lowe) 
  • It must be a dangerous act - The test for this is an objective one set out in the case Church. Must bve such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise a risk of some harm. It does not matter if victim was unintended shown in (Mitchell). The unlawful act cant be aimed at property (Goodfellow) And the risk must be physical (Dawson)
  • The unlawful act must be a substantial cause of death. the general rules of causation apply. Chain of causation (Corion Augiste) - air bomb in bus shelter. 

MR- Needs to be proven def had intention for the unlawful act, confirmed by Newbury&Jones

5 of 9

OATP- Assault

Intro- Contained in S.39 of the Criminal Justice Act. Summary offence, max sentence = 6 months

AR- The def causes the victim to apprehend immediate, unlawful violence. Apprehend means fear, there is no need for physical contact (Logdon), even letters (Constanza) or phone calls (Ireland) can amount to an assault. The courst are quite liberal on 'immediate' in order to give the most justice to the victim (Smith). The violence must be unlawful, for example it cant be within a boxing match or football game where there is mutual consent. 

MR- Where the def intended to cause the vitcim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence or does so recklessly. There are two types of intenct, Direct, Oblique. Direct is where the def directly intends the consequence (Savage). Oblique means there was a virtual certainty that the consequence will happen even though it wasnt the defs intended consequence(Wollen). Or the def can do so by being reckless, ths is where the def takes an unjustifiable risk and is aware of the consequence (Cuningham). 

6 of 9

OATP- Battery

Batter is contained in S.39 of the Criminal Justice Act, is is a summary offence with a max prison sentence of 6 months.

AR- This is where the def applies unlawful force to the victim. For battery, a slight touch is enough, shown in the case Thomas where the contact was with clothing. Indirect acts also apply (Haystead) 

MR- When there is intention to cause unlawful force (Savage) or it was done recklesslu (Venna) 

7 of 9

OATP- ABH

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is commonly reffered to as ABH. It is found in S.47 of the OATP Act. It is a triable either way offence which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years 

AR- The def commits an assault or battery which causes the ABH. ABH is any hurt or injury which interferes with the health or comfort of the vitctim (Miller). This was then qualifeid by Chan Fook who stated it should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant. Psychiatric harm can amount to ABH as shown in the case (Smith), and (TvDPP) shows that a loss of conciousness even momentarily amounts to ABH. 

MR- It needs to be proven the def had the MR for the assault/battery (RvRoberts) Either intention (Roberts) or recklessness (Cunningham)

8 of 9

OATP- S20+S18

Both S20 + S18 are contained in the OATP act. S20 has a max sentence of 5 years whereas S18 has a max sentence of life. 

AR- The AR for both of these offences mean the same as confirmed in the case Burstow. S20 states it requires the def wounds or inflicts GBH to victim whereas S18 states the def wounds or causes GBH to the victim. Burstow confirms that inflicts and cause mean the same thing. The harm must be unlawful, for example if a footballers tackle results in a coma that is not unlawfyul. 

A wound means a cut or a break in the continuity of the whole skin (JCC v Eisenhower)                GBH means really serous harm however doesnt have to be life threatening eg could be break of an arm. Bollom shows assesment should be based on the particular victim. Dica shows a disease can be GBH. 

MR- this is what seperates the offences.S20 it is intention or subjective recklessness to cause some injury, although not serious. (Mowatt) S18 is where the def intends to cause serious harm/wound, being reckless is not sufficiant. (Belfon) shows intent. 

9 of 9

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »