Your SlideShare is downloading. × Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource Shared Resource
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply Shared Resource


Published on

Published in: Education, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Strict Liability - Revision Questions Define strict liability. Give an example of a common law strict liability offence. What is the difference between strict liability and absolute liability? An example of a case involving absolute liability is _________________ What presumption is made when interpreting statutes? The 4 factors are laid out in _______________________________ These are factors are: 1. Quasi-criminal offences of a regulatory nature e.g. ______________ 2. Matters of social concern e.g. ______________________________ 3. The wording of the Act e.g.________________________________ 4. The size of the penalty e.g. ________________________________ Does it provide social benefits or injustice? For each case think of how a prosecution could benefit society or lead to injustice. For Against
  • 2. Actus Reus test Section A In R v Lowe [1973] it was confirmed that there was a general rule that there was no liability for a failure to act. In the table below list the 5 exceptions to this general rule and alongside give an example e.g. case or Act. (not including R v Lowe) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Section B match the following cases with the legal principles: a. R v Khan & Khan 1998 v. The actions of the victim may break the chain of causation if they are beyond ‘a range of reasonable responses’ b. Fagan v MPC 1969 w. Assaults can be committed by omission c. DPP v Santana- x. Absolute liability occurs where the def. does not have to have acted voluntarily. Bermudez 2003 d. R v Williams 1992 y. An assault is a continuing act e. R v Larsonneur 1933 z. Whether a person is under a duty to act is a question of fact for the jury to decide a. 11. B 12 C 13 D 14 E 15
  • 3. Section C Glossary – define the following terms: Actus reus 16. Mens rea 17. Chain of 18. causation Novus actus 19. interveniens De minimis 20. Section D R v White 1910 21. R v Pagett 1983 22. 23. You take your victim as you find him (egg shell skull rule) 24. The actions of the victim may break the chain of causation if they are considered ‘daft’ 25. Medical negligence will only break the chain of causation if the defendant’s act is insignificant
  • 4. Mental Element Test Glossary 1. the mental element of a crime Direct intent 2. Oblique intent 3. Conditional 4. intent Transferred 5. malice Subjective 6. recklessness True of false There are currently 2 tests for recklessness 7. R v Latimer[1886] illustrates how the actus 8. reus and mens rea do not always have to occur at the same time. The mens rea for one offence can always be 9. transferred to any offence D commits The continuing act theory is known as a ‘legal 10. fiction’
  • 5. Match the case 11. If D knows something is ‘highly probable’ this is sufficient to amount to intention 12. Guidelines for a jury to infer intent are the greater the probability is that that consequence was foreseen the greater the probability is that that consequence was also intended 13. Recklessness is where a def. does an act which creates an obvious risk and when he does an act has not given any thought to it or has but goes ahead with it anyway 14. The Nedrick direction is only required where the simple direction is insufficient 15. In deciding whether a consequence was intended the jury should consider was death or really serious injury in a murder cases … a natural consequence of the defendant’s act? R v Caldwell 1982 R v Hancock & Shankland 1986 R v Hyam 1975 R v Moloney 1985 R v Wright 2000 Case table Insert the case name or principle(1 mark) and year (1 mark) 16. The actus reus and mens rea have to coincide in time unless there is a continuing act 17. Intention can be inferred when the resultwas a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that R v Woollin____ 18. 19. Maliciously means intentionally or recklessly and it is necessary that D foresaw the risk 20. Subjective recklessness is the appropriate test for all crimes requiring recklessness as the mens rea Secion C – Glossary
  • 6. Complete the table: Term Definition 19. Actus reus 20. Burden of proof 21. Causation 22. Chain of causation 23. Mens rea 24. novus actus interveniens 25. Omission 26. prima facie 27. Standard of proof
  • 7. Voluntary Manslaughter Test 1. Which Act provides for the offence of voluntary manslaughter? 2. What is the legal consequence if one of the sections of the Act is satisfied? 3. Outline the 3 main sections of the Act (10m) S S S True /False 4. According to Weller 2003 the objective test is now whether D should reasonably have controlled himself. T/F 5. The effect of Camplin 1978 was to make the objective test tougher by not allowing any characteristics. T/F 6. The objective test was softened in Morhall 1995 by allowing undesirable characteristics to be taken into account. T/F
  • 8. Fill in the legal principle for the following cases: 7. R v Ahluwalia [1992] 8. R v Byrne [1960] R v Doughty [1986] 9. Rv Dietschmann 10. 2003 R v Duffy [1949] 11. R v Humphreys 12. 1995 R v Ibrams & 13. Gregory 1981 R v Pearson 1992 14. R v Seers (1984) 15. R v Smith [2000] 16.
  • 9. Involuntary Manslaughter - test 1. The offences (7 marks) The offence Definition Unlawful Act Manslaughter (UAM) Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM) True or false 2.Involuntary manslaughter shares the same actus reus as murder but does not have any mens rea. t/f 3. Another term for gross negligence manslaughter is constructive manslaughter. t/f 4. Only GNM can be committed by an omission. t/f 5. For UAM the unlawful act must not be one that would be lawful if it were not for the manner in which it was done t/f 6. For UAM the unlawful act may be a strict liability offence t/f Multiple Choice 7. In drugs cases which of the following are unlawful acts which cause death? a. Self injection b. Assisting in self injection c. Injecting someone else d. Providing someone else drugs for them to inject i) a, b & c ii) b& c iii) a, c & d iv) b, c & d
  • 10. Match the case a) Adomako 1995 b) R v Ball (1989) c) Goodfellow 1986 d) R v Litchfield 1997 e) Watson 1989 8. The unlawful act does not have to be directed at anyone, in fact it can be aimed at property 9. Gross negligence is where having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in (the jury’s) judgment to a criminal act or omission 10. If the sober and reasonable person would be aware of Vs frailty then that would be sufficient to make the unlawful act dangerous. 11 In answering the objective test - a reasonable man would not make a mistake about the amount of danger involved. 12 This case illustrated the absurdity of leaving a question of law to the jury to decide Case table Complete the missing sections: Lamb 1967 13 Mitchell 1983 14 Church 1966 15 DPP v Newberrv and 16 Jones 1977 17 The risk of harm refers to physical harm; fear and apprehension are not sufficient even if they induce a heart attack. 18 You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour …persons who are so closely and directly affected by my actions that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected.” Bateman 1925 19
  • 11. Non fatal Offences Test True/false 1. For an assault, ‘immediate’ has been given a narrow/strict interpretation 2. The mens rea for assault is objective recklessness 3. A battery has to be hostile – this means done with malice 4. S20 may be committed if there is gbh or a very serious wound 5. To satisfy the mens rea for GBH s18/20 there must be intent Definitions 6. Define assault 7. Define actual bodily harm 8. What is a wound? 9. Define grievous bodily harm. 10. Define occasioning Legislation and Cases 11. Which Act which deals with most of the offences against the person? 12. What is the main difference between s18 and s20? 13. A case illustrating that words can negate or cancel out an assault is 14. There will not be an assault if the ‘victim’ was not aware that violence would be inflicted. A case illustrating this is 15. A case illustrating the fact that a battery might be direct or indirect is 16. What legal principle do Roberts 1971 & Marjoram 2000 illustrate? 17. In which case did the CA hold that psychiatric injury could be sufficient for abh provided there was medical evidence? 18. What was the main difference between Ireland and Burstow 1997, the 2 appeals which were heard together in the HL? 19. In what way did the HL clarify the meaning of ‘inflicting’ in s20 in Burstow 1997?
  • 12. 20. Give a case illustrating your answer to question 1 Theft Multiple choice 1. The Theft Act a. 1861 b. 1968 c. 1978 Complete the gaps 2. complete the following sections (key words only required) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 True/False 3. appropriation has to amount to an adverse interference true/false 4. blood and body parts can be ‘property’ True/false 5. picking wild plants and flowers can never be theft true/false 6. A reasonable belief that the owner would have consented to D taking the property would not be theft true/ false
  • 13. case table Appropriation occurs at the time of any assumption of the rights of the owner. (1971) Appropriation can occur with the consent of the owner (1993) Appropriation can occur with the consent of the owner Receiving gifts can amount to appropriation even without any deception or duress R v Turner [1971] If d takes advantage of his employment to make extra money for himself this will not normally be classed as money belonging to his employer. If a person receives money for a particular purpose it will be classed as still belonging to another Part payment of money such as a deposit to a business will not be classed as property belonging to another AGs Ref (no1 of 1983) 1985 Property will not be classed as belonging to another where there is no legal obligation to return it to him There will not be dishonesty where there is an honest belief that property taken has been abandoned R v Ghosh [1982] The test for dishonesty is DPP v Lavender 1994 borrowing property will not amount to an intention to permently deprive unless returned in such a state that all its virtue and goodness is gone
  • 14. Insanity & Automatism Definitions 1. Define Insanity (4marks) 2. Which case does this definition come from? 3. What is ‘The continuing danger theory’? 4. define automatism. True/false 5. Hypoglycaemia – low bsl – caused by taking too much insulin or taking insulin and not eating afterwards true/false 6. A person found guilty of insanity will either be sentenced to detention in a secure centre or one of a variety of other measures T/F 7. Whereas diminished responsibility may be temporary, insanity is a more permanent condition T/F 8. Complete the following table using the diabetes cases to illustrate the external internal factor dichotomy: [3 marks] Case Brief facts Defence R v Hennessy (1989) Quick (1973)
  • 15. Case Table Clarke (1972) Lord Denning said: any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is a ‘disease of the mind’. Windle (1952) A disassociative state caused by a traumatic event could be classed as automatism Arteriosclerosis and other organic problems may be classed as a disease of the mind Sullivan [1984] Sleepwalking may be a disease of the mind In Canada, sleepwalking is classed as automatism The court gave us the hypothetical example of automatism as being attacked by a swarm of bees Attorney- General’s Reference (N0. 2 of 1992). R v Sandie Smith (1982) Sneezing may be classed as automatism
  • 16. Intoxication test 1. Which case gives us the basic/specific intent distinction? 2. What were the facts of Lipman? 3. What principle does it illustrate? 4. Involuntary Intoxication will always be a defence to all crimes true/false? 5. AG for NI v Gallagher [1963] illustrates what principle? 6. In which case was it first stated that if someone was incapable of forming the necessary intent for a crime then a defence of intoxication would be allowed? 7. Which of the following are specific intent crimes (delete basic) Murder, Involuntary Manslaughter, S18 GBH with intent, S20 GBH, S47 abh, criminal damage, S1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 Aggravated Criminal Damage, s1(2) Theft Burglary rape. 8. R v Hardie 1985 – what were the facts? 9. and principle? 10. In which case was it stated that for involuntary intoxication a drugged intent is still intent?
  • 17. Self defence and mistake test Definitions 1. What is public defence? 2. What is private defence? 3. Give a definition of common law self defence Multiple Choice 4. Which Act provides the public defence? a. S3 Criminal Law Act 1967 b. S1 Self Defence Act 1981 c. S2(1) Criminal Justice Act 1976 5. A mistaken belief in the need for self defence may be a valid defence only if a. It is honestly held b. It is reasonably held c. It is honestly and reasonably held Match the case 6 ‘(A) person would not be guilty of an assault unless the force used was excessive, and in judging whether the force used was excessive the jury had to take account of the circumstances as [D] believed them to be.’ 7 A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstance may justify a pre-emptive strike 8 ‘a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action’. 9 ‘It may be that a strong case can be made for an alteration of the law … but that is a matter for legislation and not judicial decision’ a. Attorney-General for Northern Ireland’s Reference (No 1 of 1975) (1977) b. Beckford [1988] c. Owino [1996] d. Palmer (1971)
  • 18. Revill v 10. Newberry1996 AG Ref. (no 2 of 11. 1983) 12. A person is no longer prevented from using the defence by not taking steps to avoid the attack 13 It has recently been argued that psychiatric evidence that caused D to perceive a much greater danger as relevant when a jury was deciding reasonable force. R v Clegg [1995] 14 16 It does not matter if the defendant was mistaken as to the need for force provided that the mistake was honestly believed. 17 if the mistake was induced by intoxication then the mistake has to be ignored in relation to the defence.