Criminal Cases

Cop saw guy getting beat. People in authority have duty to act

Level crossing gate keeper. Duty of care imposed by contract/job

Parents fail to feed child. Parents have duty of care to children

Squatter burns down house. Duty of care to counteract danger you create

Drunk guy pulled from hospital to road and arrested for public intoxication. State of affairs can be crime

Poisen mother but she dies from unrelated heart condition. BUT FOR TEST

Accelerating death of dying person still murder. Morphine

Train track crew foreman. D's actions don't have to be the only cause of bad result for D to be liable.

Deaf guy run over by carriage. Generaly, Vs actions do not break chain of causation for D liability

Old lady chased and dies from preexisting bad heart. D takes V as he finds him

Speeds towards cop. Direct intent is aim or purpose to commit offence.

Threw baby killed case. Indirect intention requires virtual certainty of prohibited consequence and D understood that certainty.

V thrown of bridge. Virtual certainty and D's knowledge of it only allows jury to infer intent, not requires it.

Intent includes the means as well as the end

Money laundering. Belief something is stolen or illegal is enough. No actual knowledge required.

Porn shop. Wilful blindness not excuse for not knowing something illegal.

Boys accidently burn down houses. Recklessness needs awareness of risk or risk will occur, was risk unreasonable

Any foreseen risk no matter how small is recklessness

Assuming any one right of an owner is sufficient for S3(1) Theft Act definition of appropriation

D convinces manager to allow purchase of goods with stolen cheques. Appropriation can occur even with consent

D convinced low IQ V to give them money. A gift pursued dishonestly with intention to permanently deprive can be appropriation under S3(1) Theft Act 1968

Stolen motorcycle parts. Bonafide good faith purchaser of goods for value protected by S3(2) Theft Act 1968

Stolen test answers. Confidential information is property that can be stolen

Fence put up around property, assumes control of all property in fence whether aware of it or not.

Golf balls from lake. Owner possess/controls all items within a piece of property.

Partner can steal partnership property even though they have legal ownership of the property

Edge sorting cards (cheating). Common law test for dishonesty.

Actual state of D's knowledge or subjective belief of the facts AND applying that knowledge/belief would a decent ordinary person consider D's conduct dishonest

Taking doors from one council house to use on another was theft since D was treating property as his own

Mens rea for accessory. d must have mens rea as to the perpetrator's offence

Case failed since D was using force to make someone pay a debt, not dishonest. Robbery requires m.r and a.r of theft.

Small amount of force is enough in Robbery offence

Robbery offence, force can be enacted on person or property

Intention to cause fear of violence is enough in Robbery offence. V doesn't actually have to feel fear

Robbery is ongoing offence, use of force can happen at any time during the offence

Force must be used in order to steal for robbery conviction

Burglary does not require entire person to enter, a partial entry into building is fine. Merely substantial and effective entry.

A "building" must have some degree of permanence

Entering a specific restricted part of a building is enough to be trespassing for burglary

Entering in excess of a permission is trespassing

Any item used or intended to be used to injur or incapacitate someone is a weapon of offence in aggervated burglary

Not telling the police about stolen goods is not handling stolen goods

Lying to police about stolen goods is handling by assisting in retention of the goods

Handling stolen goods, other than recieving them, requires D to do so for benefit of another

Goods are no longer stolen when they are returned or taken into possession/custody by a lawful authority

Theft can be a continuous act, not always instantaneous

Knowledge of criminality is subjective, what D actually knew at the time

Knowledge of criminality must be present at time of the actions

If the action is continuous the mens rea knowledge can occur at any point

D need not know exactly what the stolen goods are, merely that they are stolen

Belief goods are probably stolen is not enough for belief mens rea

Suspicion goods are stolen not enough for belief mens rea

Belief is something short of knowledge. Belief is when in light of what D has seen there is no other reasonable conclusion. Subjective based on D mind

D eating at restaurant is implied representation of intent to pay, not paying makes that representation fraudulent

Using a credit card past its credit limit is fraud by fraudulently implying having authority by the credit card company to use that card

Omission can be fraud if D has legal duty to disclose info, doctor didn't disclose being paid twice

Fraud can occur via an agent

For D to know A, A must be true AND the D must think A is true. Knowledge strict test in law

Mens rea for fraud. D must know representation is false OR might be false/misleading. Cannot be willfully blind to that potential

D must intent to gain/cause loss FROM the fraudulent representation. D told lies to open a bank account

D using money from care home resident's account for D's benefit was fraud by abuse of position s.4 FA 2006

Items in D's house or stored elsewhere as well as items in his possession can be "articles" under s.6 FA 2006

Any item can be an article under s.6 FA 2006 as long as it's intended to be used in fraud. Cell phone used to record cinema was an article

Articles must be in possession with intention for use in or in connection with a FUTURE fraud for s.6 FA 2006 to apply

"Making off" is leaving the place payment is required/expected

If you have permission to leave it's no making off without payment

Payment on the spot means where the customer has knowledge of when/where payment is due

Payment with stolen credit card is payment, however it is also fraud

If goods/service provided are so poor that payment cannot reasonably be provided, leaving is not making off without payment

There must be intent to not pay permanently for making off without payment. D intended to pay for hotel when he had money, thus lacked mens rea for making off without payment

Assault can be by words or silence AND psychiatric illness can be ABH if medical diagnosis. Inflict = causes

Holding sword saying he'd draw if the judge wasn't in town. Statement can disclaim criminal liability from an act that would otherwise be assault.

Any act by D that intends or recklessly causes V to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence is technical assault. Actually applying the personal violence is battery

MR Technical assault is intent or recklessness as to causing apprehension of immediate unlawful personal violence

Conditional threats are technical assaults

Fake gun shown to tax inspector. Threat need not be credible, all that is required is V to apprehend immediate unlawful physical violence

D stalking a co-worker. Technical assault can be by written word and immediacy is "any time not excluding the immediate future"

D touching V's clothes is personal violence

Acid in the hair dryer. Personal violence can be committed indirectly

Police pricked by syringe. you can inflict personal injury by ommitting to remedy a danger

Aggression not required for battery offence

Actual bodily harm must be more than transient or trifling but need not be permenant

D need not foresee the ABH, merely intend or reckless to the act that caused the harm

ABH is hurt or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim

GBH is really serious harm

GBH is "serious harm" the word really is not required

GBH takes into account totality of all victims injuries as well as the victim's age/health

Both inner and outer layers of skin must be broken for wounding

Maliciously means intent or recklessness as to some bodily harm, DOES NOT require intent or recklessness to GBH or wounding

Test for malice is subjective to D's mind. Did the D intend or was reckless to causing some harm?

GBH with intent has same intent definition as in murder

Starting point of criminal assault/battery is lack of consent. Can't consent to GBH usually.

One consents impliedly to the contacts of everyday life when they venture in public

Consent defence can work for GBH if the D did not foresee or intend GBH occuring and the V consented to the initial action

If D intended or foresaw ABH consent does not work unless for surgery, body modification, religious, sport, horseplay, and sometimes sex

RAF fire resistant clothing horseplay. Consent can be defence of GBH if V consented and no harm was foreseen

D a dentist who was suspended and didn't tell patients did not have valid consent from her patients. Consent obtained dishonestly is not a defence

D punched man who was holding down a robber for police. Defence of prevention of crime worked as D genuinely believed he was stopping an unlawful assault/battery

A pre-empted strike is allowed under self defence if the D believed there was eminent attack on them coming

D starting the altercation does not rule out self defence

D boarder guard on NI boarder. 3 of 4 shots fired at incoming car were in self defence. 4th shot at car as it drove away wasn't and self defence failed, D convicted

Intent to wound not enough for s.18 OAPA 1861

If D has not "embarked on the crime proper" there can be no attempt offence. Dog racing track

D pointing loaded gun at V whilst sitting in V's car was attempted murder

D approaching post office with all the tools for a robber but arrested in front was not attempted robbery as he had not started the offence, merely preparatory actions.

D hiding cutting equipment nearby and stooping to inspect a padlock was attempted burglary, had already embarked on the offence when caught

OBITER virtual certainty test applied for attempted murder

If the offence attempted requires knowledge or belief of a circumstance as well as the intent, D needs to have that same level of knowledge/belief for an attempt conviction

For attempt conviction, if the MR of the offence attempted includes recklessness to a circumstance than the D only needs to meet that recklessness level. No knowledge or belief required

If the offence attempted has an additional mens rea component besides intent the D must also have that MR to commit attempt offence

D can be guilty of attempt by conditional intent provided the condition is definite

D can be guilty of attempt even if offence attempted is impossible. Smuggling in fake drugs

Self defence is all or nothing defence. If the criteria aren't met for the defence the act in question is criminal

Life starts when baby exists independently of the mother

Life ends when brain stem activity ends

Terrorist who killed woman argued he thought he was at war and thus not under Queen's Peace. HELD murderer as Queen's Peace is a jurisdictional issue

Where a series of acts is impossible to divide the actus reus is considered continuous and the mens rea can occur at any time. Usually for planned killings

Unless under grave circumstances normal irritation or even extreme anger won't constitute loss of control for voluntary manslaughter defence

Loss of control is loss of ability to act according to considered judgement or normal powers of reasoning

The greater level of deliberation the less likely the killing was due to true loss of control AND if sexual infidelity is important context to the killing it can be used to evaluate voluntary manslaughter cases

Abnormality of mental functioning is what a reasonable man would deem abnormal. Question for the jury

Voluntary intoxication is not abnormality of mental functioning for deminished responsibility defence

Doctor's unplugging life support of a brain dead victim was not murder

Subjectively reckless manslaughter occurs when D foresees a highly probable risk of GBH/death and took that risk unjustifiably

Unlawful act manslaughter requires a D to commit a dangerous criminal act that causes the death of the victim

For unlawful act manslaughter the act must be a criminal act not a tort or civil wrong

Killing another whilst driving dangerously is not manslaughter by unlawful act as driving is lawful, the degree of negligence made it illegal

Giving someone drugs is not manslaughter AND manslaughter by criminal act can not have supply or possession of illegal as the act

D and V were playing with a gun they both thought was unloaded and D shot/killed V. No Unlawful Act manslaughter as no foreseen risk and no virtual certainty

An act is dangerous if a reasonable sober person would foresee some risk of harm, need not be serious harm

Gross negligence manslaughter requires

Q

1. D owes V duty of care

2. D breached duty of care

3. Breach caused V's death

4. There was obvious risk of death

5. Breach was sufficiently serious

For gross negligence manslaughter a reasonably prudent person must have foreseen an obvious and serious risk of death AND duty of care exists between landlord and tenant

For gross negligence manslaughter the obvious serious risk of death must be present at the time of breach of duty

Gross negligence is negligence that is truly and exceptionally bad

D must prove they suffered disease of mind when commuting offence and as a result of that disease they had defect of reason AND as a result did not know what they were doing or didn't know what they did was wrong

D's blood disease caused him to black out and attack his wife, this was a disease of the mind for an insanity defence

Diabetic D taking too little insulin caused him to go loopy. This was disease of the mind for insanity defence

D was rape victim who developed PTSD. PTSD caused D to commit to robbery. HELD the PTSD was an external factor added by the rape and thus not disease of the mind for an insanity defence

For an insanity defence the D must suffer more than momentary confusion and be completely deprived of reasoning power

D had epileptic fit that caused him to attack another. His insanity defence worked as he did not know what he was doing

D helped his suicidal wife kill herself. Thought it was morally right bit knew it was illegal. HELD defence if insanity failed as D knew what he did was illegal

For a defence of automatism the defendant must have a complete destruction of voluntary control

Alcohol and drug based intoxication not compatible with automatism defence for direct intent crimes. Non alcohol/drug based can be a defence if the defendant did not know they would be automatic

Intoxication defence requires total obliteration of capacity to know what he was doing

Voluntary intoxication to Majewski levels is only a defence for crimes of specific intent. D on LSD thought he was killing a snake but killed a human. No intent for murder but reckless use of a known dangerous drug constitute mens rea for manslaughter

If D voluntarily uses drugs that turn out to be much stronger than expected causing an unusually strong effect, this is still voluntary intoxication. D guilty of all direct intent offences

Just because D does not remember their actions does not mean they were too intoxicated to have had the mens rea to complete them at the time they were done. It is merely a factor to consider

Duress by threat requires:

1. D must reasonably believe he had good reason to fear death or serious injury for non-compliance with the threat?

2. Would a donor person of reasonable firmness with same characteristics as D have responded in the same way?

Characteristics to be considered in Hasan duress test are things to put them in a category that may make them less resistant to pressure like: age, sex, serious physical illness, or psychiatric illness

For necessity defence:

1. Act is done to prevent otherwise inevitable evil

2. No more is done than reasonably necessary

3. Evil done is lesser of two evils

Necessity defence can apply to mundane situations like Road Traffic Act offences