Starter: Do you know your exam paper? Using the paper you have been given, and your own knowledge…Complete the grid outlining the demands and the mark break down for criminal law
What would you answer? Look at the paper.1. Decide which three questions you would answer2. Now go through all of them. Identify the areas that you would need to include in your response to that question.3. RAG each question
Hint: Be careful what you say yes to!Dominoes of Pain!You know the drill… put them in the correct order to relieve the pain with a lollipop! If you are stuck… Then you may use your notes or a textbook to help, and still be rewarded with a lovely sticker. If it’s all too quick and easy… Use the information to help you complete the AO1 for your essay plan
“practical solutions” “sound moral principles” Palpably wrong medical treatmentUnreasonable actions of 3P Thin skull rule/ Life Support Challenge: Could you expand the causation discussion into mens rea?
Complete the AO2 Using your understanding and the sample essay, complete the rest of your AO2 for the Causation Essay. Look at the student’s overall marks. What general advice would you give them to improve their responses?
What does A* look like? Comment: This is a full marks A* grade essay. It has used a wide-range of cases demonstrating accurate and detailed confident knowledge of this area of the law and developed the AO2, identifying relevant points of criticism and showing good understanding of the current debates, with a logical and well informed conclusion. Tasks: Read through this essay and pick out as many strengths of the essay as you can, explaining why in the margin next to it. What do you notice about the way the author has used the cases? What can you learn about the structure of an essay from this example?
HALT & CHALLENGECan you write an A grade passage?
What’s the topic?Despite the development of the Discuss whether thedefence of automatism, a common law governing thementally disordered defendant is offence of murder isnot always dealt with justly under satisfactory or is in need ofEnglish law reform by Parliament.“Law should encourage citizens Mens Rea requires fault onin their civic duty to do „the right the part of the defendant.thing‟ in a moral sense and not The current law on intentionto turn a blind eye or fail to act and recklessness isto help someone who is in need.‟” uncertain and unjust.“Insane and non-insane Despite recent reforms, theautomatism are similar defences law relating to loss ofinvolving mental abnormality. It control as a special andis vital that the distinction partial defence to murderbetween them is fully understood remains muddled andsince they produce very different occasionally unjust.consequences for a defendantwho relies on one or other ofthem
Intoxication is/ is not a true defence. D iseither arguing that he does not have theactus reus/ mens rea because he was sointoxicated or that because of it, he made amistake/ cake.Generally speaking involuntary/ voluntaryintoxication is no defence as D intended/was reckless as to whether or not theytook the intoxicant to begin with. Publicpolicy does/ does not play a strong part inthe limitation of intoxication as an excuse incourt.
Now can you complete this using only your memory? Hint: the cases are at the bottom of the page!
“The defence of intoxication represents a satisfactory compromise between justicefor an individual defendant and the demands of public policy.”Assess the accuracy of this statement.Stage One: Outline plan.... What are you supposed to cover?IntroMainConclusion What does this mean for this essay?
“The defence of intoxication represents a satisfactory compromise between justicefor an individual defendant and the demands of public policy.”Assess the accuracy of this statement. Introduction: Means: Comes from: Main issues:
AO1 Plans and Coverage: Rules: Cases (AO1)Voluntary • can negate MR neededIntoxication: • works as partial defence to most of these offences • Dutch courage is no defence.Specific • drunken intent is nevertheless an intent.Voluntary • reckless comes from the drinkingIntoxication: • needs some accompanying action to demonstrate • no defenceBasicInvoluntary • if successful can be complete defenceIntoxication: • different effect • not if D has mens rea before • Perhaps not if strict liability offence.Mistake: General • judged by ‘honest standards’and Fact • if mistake one would have made if sober, then may have a defence. • some statutory exceptions.Mistake: • not applied to manslaughter, murder or other crimesExcessive Force • confirmed in statute.Reforms • Clarify need for knowledge as if sober • Mistake would apply to SL crimes •Diabetics would be included in mistake • Butler Committee – alternative ‘dangerous intoxication’
AO2: It’s all about the debate and discussion! Public policy is an issue as intoxication is linked to a large amount of criminal conduct Does D really have a mens Does the approach to rea and set out to commit a MR here fit in with the crime if drunk? general rules? Need to balance personal Why is an offence of responsibility and protect dangerous those are vulnerable and Problem of the fall back intoxication rejected? offence... may be the victims of crime ... More effective with certain crimes e.g. theft. Should D have a defence where they have no choice over intoxication? Arbitary nature of Should voluntary intoxication distinctions between be a defence to all crimes specific and basic intent Is it just a risk of ‘doing (Australia; Law Com 1995) something stupid’? “Candidates are unlikely to achieve level 5 AO2 without a discussion that focuses both on intoxication and its problems. This can be demonstrated by candidates whose discussion also identified with role of judges,Parliament, the Law Commission potential avenues for reform and the influence of policy in decision making.”
Do you understand how to answer Simply naming cases essay style questions? No sense of time or logical order Reach a conclusion related to the title Recounting all the facts of a case Prefer law to facts Show a wide range of knowledge Forgetting to comment or analyse Detailed knowledge of the law and reforms Repeating the command word from the question Leave all comment to the end Forgetting the introduction or conclusion Analyse and comment throughout Conclude and be consistent
Section B A whole other problem... It’s all about knowledge and application to the question! At least eight cases, well applied and considered (although I’d say 10-14 is a more realistic aim!) Let’s start with what not to do...James would be guilty of murder As James has stabbed Louis in the chest, he has clearly caused him to die and so has fulfilled the actus reus of murder, according to Lordbecause he stabbed Louis in the Coke. In addition, by stabbing him, it is clear he has a clear desire tochest. bring about the consequence, which is the definition of specific intent under Mohan and so has the mens rea for at least GBH, which is sufficient for liabilty for murder following the case of Cunningham.Sean is insane because he issleepwalking.Graham is depressed and thismeans that he has a defence ofdiminished responsibility to themurder of his wife.Sam is like T and can rely onautomatismBecause Jane was drunk she canrely on intoxication as a defenceto assault.
Let’s apply this lovely new found knowledge... Corinne has been in a steady relationship with David for over ten years. They have always had arguments during which David has often hit Corinne. He has also threatened her that if she ever tries to leave him he will track her down and “sort her out”. This has made Corinne feel depressed and trapped in the situation. She has been to her doctor who has placed her on medication to treat her depression. One evening, Corinne and David argue again and, in the course of the dispute, David insults her calling her “pathetic and useless”. Corinne starts to cry so David slaps her face and tells her to “grow up”. David then goes to bed. Corinne sits and watches television for two hours before going to the bedroom. When she sees David asleep she is suddenly overcome with anger and picks up the bedside lamp which she smashes over David‟s head, killing him instantly. Corinne has now been charged with David‟s murder. Discuss Corinne’s potential liability for the murder of David, including any partial defences available to her
Discuss Corinne’s potential liability for the murder of David, including anypartial defences available to herStage One: Outline plan.... What are you supposed to cover?IntroMain O C D What does this meanConclusion for this essay?
Modelling Section One: Liability for MurderPoint Cases/Statutes/Definitions etc. Application (What does this mean for Corrine’s liability and why?)Liability for Common law offence – Lord Coke Unlawful killing of human being Smashed on head – actus reusMurder Malice aforethought causation of death. •Specific intent ‘true desire’ Mohan Clearly at least intends to cause •Oblique intent ‘virtual certainty’ as GBH (Cunningham) through evidence Woollin violence of action. Sample Answer: The offence committed by Corinne is murder – a common law offence. She has to commit both the actus reus and the mens rea. She has committed the actus reus which is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen‟s peace. Murder is a specific intent crime and the prosecution would be likely to find beyond reasonable doubt that she has an intention to kill or cause GBH because by picking up the lamp and smashing it, she is clearly causing his death.
Now complete the AO2 for the first partial defence: loss of controlPoint Cases/Statutes/Definitions etc. Application (What does this mean for Corrine’s liability and why?)Loss of Control Loss of Control s.54-5 Coroners not sudden and temporary (Duffy) and Justice Act must exist (Cocker) 2009 Cooling off (Thornton) Cumulative (Humphreys) Qualifying Trigger s.55 threat of serious violence to D or another (Ahluwalia; Thornton No.2) Circumstances of extremely grave character, causing justifiable sense of being seriously wronged Person of D’s age and Gender in those circumstances. (Camplin) not characteristics (Smith) cumulative (Humphreys) This is your challenge! Can you apply it to Corrine and conclude on liability.
Now complete both columns... There’s some information below to help... Brown State of mind so different as to be abnormal Recognised medical condition Gittens Abnormality of mental functioning Ahluwalia Not so trivial as to be minimal s.2 Homicide Act (as amended) Byrne Provide an explanation for the Substantially impaired killing Thornton No 2 Seers Interfere with the defendant‟s ability to exercise control, understand what they are doing or form a rational judgement
Conclusion...Use your discussion to determine the likelyliability of Corinne and explain why.
Starter Can you name the case and ratio?All of you should be able to identify the facts or name of the case depicted.Most of you should be able to match it to the relevant ratio.Some of you will be able to divide the cases into AO1 and AO2, and explain how the courts‟interpretation of this area links to the concept of public policy.
Introduction:Can you use the skills and understanding we practised in the last topic, to highlight and annotate this problem? Mike, a drug dealer, meets Shirley, Rita and Zara in his house where he sells them heroin. Mike sees that Shirley is suffering from withdrawal symptoms and sympathetically suggests that he inject her there and then with a shot of heroin from a syringe which he prepares. Mike injects the heroin into Shirleys arm. He then helps Rita to prepare her arm so that she may inject herself with some heroin. Rita injects the heroin herself. Shirley, Rita and Zara then leave. Next day Shirley and Rita die from the effects of the heroin. Zara is so overcome with grief that she injects herself with heroin and dies as a result. Medical evidence states that they have all died as a result of overdosing on the drug. Discuss the liability of Mike for the manslaughter of Shirley, Rita and Zara.
Plenary Which of these sentences sums up your status on writing at the end of the lesson? Essay Writing Application Question Section A Section B I can discuss a wide range of pointsI can identify a wide range of points in a scenario and reach a well and support them with detailed informed conclusion. description and citation. I can apply the law to a scenarioI can identify a range of points, and and reach a logical conclusion add some detail to some of them. I can apply some points of law to a I can explain at least one point scenario, but struggle to reach a fully, and illustrate it with an conclusion example. I can identify at least one relevant I can identify a range of relevant point in a scenario points.
Starter: What’s wrong? Jordan held that the actions of thedoctor broke the chain of causationbecause by dropping V, they reduced V‟schances of survival by over 70%.. Lamb confirms that a civil crime isnot sufficient for D to be liable for theconstructive manslaughter of V.Under the doctrine of transferredmalice, Larkin was liable for his assaultwith a belt on the victim.
Introduction:Can you use the skills and understanding we practised in the last topic, to highlight and annotate this problem? Raul and Christiano are standing in a queue at a bus stop when they begin arguing with one another. Raul pushes Christiano who staggers backwards and collides with Margaret, an 83 year old lady. Margaret falls backwards onto the pavement. She is injured and in pain. Margaret is taken to hospital where x-rays reveal that she has broken her hip. Doctors agree that the injury is made worse partly because she suffers from osteoporosis (a disease which makes her bones unusually brittle). Although Margaret is elderly, Doctor Smith decides to operate in order to allow Margaret any chance of being able to walk in future. A few days later, Margaret is recovering slowly from the operation when she develops a secondary infection. Doctor Smith prescribes Margaret penicillin but she is allergic to the drug and dies. Discuss the potential criminal liability of both Raul and Doctor Smith for the death of Margaret
An example essay: What do you think of this?Now, write the next stage on causation for Raul’s liability Tips for improvement? Technique to follow?
Task One:Write the introduction! What do you do?
Starting with the AO1 then... Area Definitions, terms, cases etc. MurderRaul Involuntary Act Manslaughter Gross Negligence Reckless Act Causation Other issues
Now, you complete Dr Smith’s AO1! Area Definitions, terms, cases etc. Gross NegligenceDrSmith
AO2 points to consider... Margaret‟s injuries are far more Is it „dangerous‟? Would Apply the principle of serious than could have V suffer some harm in transferred malice and reasonably been foreseen... Is the eyes of a jury? apply to Margaret‟s injury he still liable? Has the medical negligence Discuss and apply the principle of broken the chain of causation? transferred malice Arguable – discuss and Has it made a factual and apply Jordan; Smith; Cheshire to a more than minimal reasoned conclusion contribution to Margaret‟s Is a duty of care owed to death? Christiano (and Margaret)? The act must be criminal/a push, though trivial, is a Is there a risk of death? (This isHas the duty of care been battery debateable) There was clearly abroken? very small risk of death and Is Raul’s conduct so far below Margaret has eventually died but that to be expected of a would a jury think it existed when Did Raul foresee a risk reasonable person in those Raul pushed Christiano? of death or serious circumstances as to amount to a crime? harm to Christiano?N.B. Candidates who do not discuss every potential type of manslaughter offence may nevertheless attain a Level 5 answer if they discuss only one or two provided the causation/transferred malice elements are addressed.
Intro:What does theexaminer think? Read through the report you have been given and identify two things you will focus on to help you attain your aspirational grade
Section C: The Last Step Term Means Origin M’Naughten Murder MohanSpecific intent s.54-55 Coroners Diminished and Justice ActResponsibility 2009 Automatism s.2 Homicide Act 1957Loss of control Bratty Insanity Coke
Erica has been in a steady relationship with Bob for several months. He has often hit her and Erica feels trapped anddepressed. Her doctor has been giving her medication to treat her depression. One day during an argument, Bobcalls her a „useless pathetic item‟. Bob falls asleep in his chair. Erica goes to her bedroom where she drinks severalglasses of whisky in an hour. She goes back downstairs and when she sees Bob asleep she suddenly picks up a heavyashtray and smashes it over Bobs head, killing him instantly.Statement A: Erica can be charged with murderStatement B: Erica may successfully plead intoxication as a defence.Statement C: Erica cannot plead loss of control as a defence.Statement D: Erica will be successful if she pleads the defence of diminished responsibility.
Rashid suffers from diabetes. He has previously suffered blackouts due to hyperglycaemia and been placed on medicationwhich he normally takes three times per day. He fails to take his insulin for a whole day and during the evening, whiledriving, he suffers from a blackout. He loses control of his car and crashes into a pedestrian, Larissa, who is on thepavement. Larissa dies instantly.Evaluate the accuracy of each of the four statements A, B, C, and D individually, as they apply to the facts in theabove scenario.Statement A: Rashid may be charged with the manslaughter of Larissa because the condition was self-induced.Statement B: Rashid may plead the defence of automatismStatement C: Rashid may be found not guilty by reason of insanity.Statement D: Rashid may be hospitalised in a secure institution for the mentally disordered if found not guilty by reasonof insanity 
Homework Prepare and annotate your mock in preparation for completing it in our next double lessons. Remember: No sentences You cannot answer the involuntary manslaughter essay question If you choose to complete qu4, you cannot complete qu7. Highlighters are ok.