This document contains revision questions on various legal topics including:
1. Strict liability and absolute liability
2. Actus reus and causation tests
3. Insanity and automatism defences
4. Non-fatal offences against the person
5. Theft and dishonesty
6. Intoxication as a defence
7. Self-defence and mistake
It provides definitions, legal principles, cases and questions to test understanding of these key areas of criminal law.
Here are the key points regarding the courts' approach to the intoxicated use of force:
- The courts take a strict approach and are reluctant to accept intoxicated mistake as to force as a defence.
- In R v O'Grady, the court held that drunkenness cannot be relied on to show an honest belief in the need to use force.
- Similarly, in R v Hutton, the court rejected the argument that intoxication could lead to an honest belief in the need to use force.
- However, in Jaggard v Dickinson, the court suggested intoxication could in some cases lead to an honest belief, if it distorted the defendant's perception sufficiently.
- Section 5 of
This summary reviews key cases related to manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act and gross negligence manslaughter. It discusses the requirements for an unlawful act to constitute manslaughter, such as it posing an obvious risk of harm. It also examines gross negligence manslaughter and the need to show disregard for life amounting to a crime. The summary touches on several cases that confirm, clarify or extend the definitions and scope of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter.
This document is a complaint for declaratory relief filed by MGM Resorts International and related entities (MGM Parties) regarding lawsuits and threatened lawsuits against them related to the October 1, 2017 mass shooting at a music festival in Las Vegas, Nevada by Stephen Paddock. The complaint argues that under the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (SAFETY Act), federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over such claims since security services at the event provided by Contemporary Services Corporation were certified by the Department of Homeland Security under the SAFETY Act. The complaint seeks a declaration that the SAFETY Act governs all actions and claims related to Paddock's attack.
The document discusses various non-fatal offences under criminal law, including common assault, battery, ABH, GBH, and malicious wounding. It presents scenarios for students to determine which offences are present and explores key cases that have shaped the legal definitions and thresholds for these offenses. The document also assigns group work for students to research and present on specific non-fatal offenses.
The New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act holds parties strictly liable for natural resource damage assessment costs. The Act defines cleanup and removal costs broadly to include costs associated with investigating and assessing damage to natural resources from hazardous discharges. Courts have interpreted this definition expansively, finding the Act aims to fully compensate the state for pollution impacts. As such, the costs of assessing natural resource damage are considered cleanup costs under the Act, for which responsible parties are jointly and severally liable.
This document defines and explains the legal definitions of assault and battery in UK law. Assault is defined as intentionally or recklessly causing another to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. Battery is defined as the unlawful application of force to another. Both assault and battery require intent or recklessness, and do not require hostile conduct as long as the force or threat of force was unlawful.
This document provides information about offences of grievous bodily harm (GBH) and GBH with intent under sections 20 and 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It defines the actus reus and mens rea requirements for each offence, and explains that section 18 requires a specific intent to cause GBH or resist arrest, while section 20 only requires recklessness as to harm. Several cases are discussed that illustrate the level of injury required for GBH and how intent versus recklessness is assessed. Scenarios are presented to demonstrate how to determine the appropriate offence based on the injury caused and the defendant's state of mind.
Here are the key points regarding the courts' approach to the intoxicated use of force:
- The courts take a strict approach and are reluctant to accept intoxicated mistake as to force as a defence.
- In R v O'Grady, the court held that drunkenness cannot be relied on to show an honest belief in the need to use force.
- Similarly, in R v Hutton, the court rejected the argument that intoxication could lead to an honest belief in the need to use force.
- However, in Jaggard v Dickinson, the court suggested intoxication could in some cases lead to an honest belief, if it distorted the defendant's perception sufficiently.
- Section 5 of
This summary reviews key cases related to manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act and gross negligence manslaughter. It discusses the requirements for an unlawful act to constitute manslaughter, such as it posing an obvious risk of harm. It also examines gross negligence manslaughter and the need to show disregard for life amounting to a crime. The summary touches on several cases that confirm, clarify or extend the definitions and scope of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter.
This document is a complaint for declaratory relief filed by MGM Resorts International and related entities (MGM Parties) regarding lawsuits and threatened lawsuits against them related to the October 1, 2017 mass shooting at a music festival in Las Vegas, Nevada by Stephen Paddock. The complaint argues that under the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (SAFETY Act), federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over such claims since security services at the event provided by Contemporary Services Corporation were certified by the Department of Homeland Security under the SAFETY Act. The complaint seeks a declaration that the SAFETY Act governs all actions and claims related to Paddock's attack.
The document discusses various non-fatal offences under criminal law, including common assault, battery, ABH, GBH, and malicious wounding. It presents scenarios for students to determine which offences are present and explores key cases that have shaped the legal definitions and thresholds for these offenses. The document also assigns group work for students to research and present on specific non-fatal offenses.
The New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act holds parties strictly liable for natural resource damage assessment costs. The Act defines cleanup and removal costs broadly to include costs associated with investigating and assessing damage to natural resources from hazardous discharges. Courts have interpreted this definition expansively, finding the Act aims to fully compensate the state for pollution impacts. As such, the costs of assessing natural resource damage are considered cleanup costs under the Act, for which responsible parties are jointly and severally liable.
This document defines and explains the legal definitions of assault and battery in UK law. Assault is defined as intentionally or recklessly causing another to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. Battery is defined as the unlawful application of force to another. Both assault and battery require intent or recklessness, and do not require hostile conduct as long as the force or threat of force was unlawful.
This document provides information about offences of grievous bodily harm (GBH) and GBH with intent under sections 20 and 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It defines the actus reus and mens rea requirements for each offence, and explains that section 18 requires a specific intent to cause GBH or resist arrest, while section 20 only requires recklessness as to harm. Several cases are discussed that illustrate the level of injury required for GBH and how intent versus recklessness is assessed. Scenarios are presented to demonstrate how to determine the appropriate offence based on the injury caused and the defendant's state of mind.
1. Bateman 1925 represented important judicial development in defining "gross" negligence required for manslaughter. It established that negligence must go beyond mere compensation and demonstrate disregard for life/safety amounting to a criminal act deserving of punishment.
2. Andrews 1937 agreed with Bateman, establishing that simple negligence is insufficient and a high degree of negligence must be proven for gross negligence manslaughter.
3. Adomako 1995 approved tests from Bateman and Andrews, returning to gross negligence manslaughter principles after a gap, and clarified that gross negligence requires a risk of death.
This document discusses the law of negligence and occupier's liability in tort law. It begins with identifying information for a student assignment and then includes an acknowledgements section, tables of cases and statutes cited, an abstract, and an introduction. The main points are:
1) The document examines the elements of negligence - duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. It analyzes the Caparo Industries case to demonstrate duty of care.
2) Occupier's liability refers to the duty owed by landowners to those who enter their land. Both negligence and occupier's liability require a duty of care and breach of duty for damages to arise.
3) The introduction provides background on the
This document summarizes several important criminal case laws related to causation, intent, diminished responsibility, provocation, gross negligence manslaughter, and unlawful act manslaughter. Some key cases discussed include R v Malcherek and Steel on brain death, R v White on causation in fact, R v Adomako on the test for gross negligence manslaughter, and R v Goodfellow which found a defendant guilty of both unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter.
Mens rea refers to the mental state required for a crime, meaning an intention to commit a prohibited act. For a crime to occur, there must be both an act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea) coinciding. Mens rea can be established by proving intention, recklessness, or negligence. Intention requires desire or foreseeability of the consequences. Recklessness involves disregarding an obvious risk. Negligence means failing to meet the standard of a reasonable person. The doctrine of transferred malice holds that liability can be established even if the victim differs from the one intended, if the actus reus and mens rea were present. Several cases help define these
1. The document discusses the role of intoxication as a defense in criminal cases. Intoxication is not a true defense but is sometimes argued to negate intent.
2. It notes that over 1 million violent crimes in the UK in 2006-2007 involved an intoxicated defendant or victim. The cost of alcohol-related crime is estimated at £7.3 billion.
3. The document examines cases related to whether intoxication can negate intent for specific intent crimes versus basic intent crimes. It also considers involuntary intoxication and intoxicated mistakes in judgments of fact.
This document provides information about strict liability crimes from a law class. It discusses key concepts like mens rea and actus reus. It analyzes cases related to strict liability for various offenses like traffic violations, food safety laws, and environmental regulations. The document examines how courts determine if a statute establishes strict liability or requires mens rea. It also explores issues around age and sex offenses, and whether a reasonable belief in consent can be a defense.
The document summarizes the key elements of the tort of negligence in English law. It is divided into three sections: [1] duty of care, [2] breach of duty, and [3] damage caused by the breach. For each section, it outlines the legal tests and principles used to determine if there is negligence. It provides numerous examples of English court cases that have helped develop the legal standards for establishing negligence. The summary concisely covers the essential information about this topic.
E DIGEST U/S 279, 337, 338,304 A, 304 II of India penal codesArjunRandhir2
E DIGEST ONU/S 279, 337, 338304 A, 304 II OFINDIAN PENAL CODE&OFFENCES RELATING TOM. V. ACT 1988.(SPECIALLY FOCUS ON ACCIDENTAL CASES)
Liabilities on civil as well criminal case
Here are the key points regarding the courts' approach to the intoxicated use of force:
- The courts take a strict approach and are reluctant to accept intoxicated mistake as to force as a defence.
- In R v O'Grady, the court held that drunkenness could not reduce murder to manslaughter by negating intent if the force used was disproportionate and unreasonable.
- Similarly, in R v Hutton, the court rejected intoxicated mistake as to force as a defence to murder, holding that a drunken intent was still an intent.
- However, in Jaggard v Dickinson, the court accepted that intoxication could in principle negate the intent required for criminal damage if it caused the defendant
Supreme Court & Practice Statement (2012)Miss Hart
Here is a possible response using the sources and other cases:
Source A is the Practice Statement itself issued by the House of Lords in 1966. It recognises that too rigid adherence to precedent can lead to injustice, so it allows the House of Lords to depart from its own previous decisions when it appears right to do so. However, it notes there is an 'especial need for certainty' in criminal law.
Source B is an example of the Practice Statement being used in a criminal case, R v R and G. The court overruled the previous decision of Caldwell from 1981 to consult a Law Commission report when interpreting the meaning of 'reckless' in the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This developed the law to reflect a changed
1) The document discusses the defense of diminished responsibility and examines several cases related to its application. It addresses the elements that must be proven for diminished responsibility, including abnormality of mental functioning, recognized medical condition, and substantial impairment.
2) Intoxication is discussed as it relates to diminished responsibility, with cases examining when intoxication alone or combined with an unrelated abnormality of mind can meet the criteria.
3) Reform of the defense is also addressed, with suggestions for alternative approaches beyond the current legislation.
4) Students are tasked with analyzing statements related to applying diminished responsibility in hypothetical scenarios and identifying the accurate and inaccurate aspects of reform proposals
1) The document discusses the defense of diminished responsibility and provides examples of cases where it was raised. It examines the elements that must be proven for the defense, including an abnormality of mental functioning caused by a recognized medical condition that substantially impaired the defendant.
2) It notes debates around issues like whether intoxication alone can be considered a medical condition for the defense. It also discusses reforms to the defense in the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009.
3) The document provides hypothetical scenarios and asks students to determine if defendants could argue diminished responsibility based on the facts and legal requirements of the defense. It engages critical thinking around limitations and potential improvements to
The document provides an overview of the key concepts and principles of negligence law in the UK civil legal system. It discusses three main points:
1. Negligence exists within civil law and allows compensation if a claimant can prove another has acted negligently according to the rules.
2. It outlines the three main elements to prove negligence: that a duty of care existed, this duty was breached, and the breach caused damage.
3. It examines these elements in more depth, explaining concepts like the duty of care, reasonable person standard, breach of duty through failure to meet the standard of care, and causation through the "but for" test and foreseeability of damage.
This document discusses criminal liability for omissions in the UK legal system. It provides an overview of key legal principles and cases related to when a failure to act can result in criminal responsibility. Generally, mere omissions are not criminal unless there is a legal duty to act. Such duties can arise in specific relationships, from contractual obligations, public offices, or voluntary assumption of responsibility. The document examines cases that have established or developed duties and discusses debates around when duties are reasonably applied versus being too broad.
This document discusses involuntary manslaughter under English criminal law. It begins by outlining the key elements students should understand regarding gross negligence manslaughter and constructive manslaughter. It then analyzes several cases involving gross negligence manslaughter and discusses the mental element required. The document concludes by considering proposals to reform the law on involuntary manslaughter offenses in England.
The document discusses the key elements of involuntary manslaughter, including gross negligence and constructive act manslaughter. It provides examples of cases and asks questions to test the reader's understanding of distinguishing between constructive acts, gross negligence, duties of care, breaches that cause death, and what constitutes grossly negligent actions. It aims to consolidate knowledge of this area of criminal law.
This document provides an overview of the concept of mens rea in criminal law. It discusses the different types of intent required for different crimes, including direct intent, oblique intent, recklessness, and the tests used to determine whether a consequence was foreseen, beginning with DPP v Smith and culminating in R v Woollin. It also examines cases such as R v Cunningham, R v Caldwell, and Elliot v C that helped develop the definition of recklessness. The document provides examples and prompts critical thinking questions to aid understanding of these complex concepts in criminal intent and liability.
This document provides an introduction to criminal law, outlining key concepts such as the elements of a crime, levels of intent, and the burden and standard of proof. It defines a crime as an unlawful act that renders a person liable to legal punishment. The two main elements of a crime are the actus reus, or guilty act, and the mens rea, or guilty mind. Mens rea can include specific intent, recklessness, or strict liability where no intent needs to be proven. The prosecution bears the burden of proving a defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Defenses may reverse this burden to require proving something on the balance of possibilities. The reading and case list are assigned in preparation for the next seminar
The document provides an overview of tort law including intentional torts like assault, negligence, privacy law, and discusses issues that can result in business liability. It also reviews cases, definitions of key concepts, and how reasonable duty of care is determined in tort cases. The document is a guide for understanding different types of civil wrongs and liability between private individuals or businesses.
Involuntary manslaughter can occur through three means: unlawful act manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, or reckless manslaughter. Unlawful act manslaughter involves an unlawful act by the defendant that causes death, even if they did not intend or foresee death. The unlawful act must be dangerous and pose a risk of harm based on an objective standard. Gross negligence manslaughter involves breaching a duty of care owed to the victim in a very negligent way that causes their death. Reckless manslaughter continues to be an offense despite being thought to no longer exist after Adamako, though it is difficult to see why it is necessary separate from gross negligence manslaughter.
This document provides the marking scheme for the January 2011 GCE LAW examination in England and Wales. It includes marking criteria and guidelines for 6 different law options that were assessed. For each question, it identifies the assessment objectives being tested, such as knowledge of the law (AO1) and skills in legal argument and reasoning (AO2). Sample answers are also provided to illustrate how different levels of response would be marked. The marking scheme aims to ensure examiners apply criteria consistently across all student scripts.
The document discusses the law around involuntary manslaughter in England and assesses if the law is muddled and unjust. It outlines the different types of involuntary manslaughter including gross negligence, unlawful act manslaughter, and subjective reckless manslaughter. It analyzes cases that illustrate inconsistencies and unjust outcomes. While the law commission proposed reforms, the conclusion is that the current law is adequate and changing it further may only add more confusion.
1. Bateman 1925 represented important judicial development in defining "gross" negligence required for manslaughter. It established that negligence must go beyond mere compensation and demonstrate disregard for life/safety amounting to a criminal act deserving of punishment.
2. Andrews 1937 agreed with Bateman, establishing that simple negligence is insufficient and a high degree of negligence must be proven for gross negligence manslaughter.
3. Adomako 1995 approved tests from Bateman and Andrews, returning to gross negligence manslaughter principles after a gap, and clarified that gross negligence requires a risk of death.
This document discusses the law of negligence and occupier's liability in tort law. It begins with identifying information for a student assignment and then includes an acknowledgements section, tables of cases and statutes cited, an abstract, and an introduction. The main points are:
1) The document examines the elements of negligence - duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. It analyzes the Caparo Industries case to demonstrate duty of care.
2) Occupier's liability refers to the duty owed by landowners to those who enter their land. Both negligence and occupier's liability require a duty of care and breach of duty for damages to arise.
3) The introduction provides background on the
This document summarizes several important criminal case laws related to causation, intent, diminished responsibility, provocation, gross negligence manslaughter, and unlawful act manslaughter. Some key cases discussed include R v Malcherek and Steel on brain death, R v White on causation in fact, R v Adomako on the test for gross negligence manslaughter, and R v Goodfellow which found a defendant guilty of both unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter.
Mens rea refers to the mental state required for a crime, meaning an intention to commit a prohibited act. For a crime to occur, there must be both an act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea) coinciding. Mens rea can be established by proving intention, recklessness, or negligence. Intention requires desire or foreseeability of the consequences. Recklessness involves disregarding an obvious risk. Negligence means failing to meet the standard of a reasonable person. The doctrine of transferred malice holds that liability can be established even if the victim differs from the one intended, if the actus reus and mens rea were present. Several cases help define these
1. The document discusses the role of intoxication as a defense in criminal cases. Intoxication is not a true defense but is sometimes argued to negate intent.
2. It notes that over 1 million violent crimes in the UK in 2006-2007 involved an intoxicated defendant or victim. The cost of alcohol-related crime is estimated at £7.3 billion.
3. The document examines cases related to whether intoxication can negate intent for specific intent crimes versus basic intent crimes. It also considers involuntary intoxication and intoxicated mistakes in judgments of fact.
This document provides information about strict liability crimes from a law class. It discusses key concepts like mens rea and actus reus. It analyzes cases related to strict liability for various offenses like traffic violations, food safety laws, and environmental regulations. The document examines how courts determine if a statute establishes strict liability or requires mens rea. It also explores issues around age and sex offenses, and whether a reasonable belief in consent can be a defense.
The document summarizes the key elements of the tort of negligence in English law. It is divided into three sections: [1] duty of care, [2] breach of duty, and [3] damage caused by the breach. For each section, it outlines the legal tests and principles used to determine if there is negligence. It provides numerous examples of English court cases that have helped develop the legal standards for establishing negligence. The summary concisely covers the essential information about this topic.
E DIGEST U/S 279, 337, 338,304 A, 304 II of India penal codesArjunRandhir2
E DIGEST ONU/S 279, 337, 338304 A, 304 II OFINDIAN PENAL CODE&OFFENCES RELATING TOM. V. ACT 1988.(SPECIALLY FOCUS ON ACCIDENTAL CASES)
Liabilities on civil as well criminal case
Here are the key points regarding the courts' approach to the intoxicated use of force:
- The courts take a strict approach and are reluctant to accept intoxicated mistake as to force as a defence.
- In R v O'Grady, the court held that drunkenness could not reduce murder to manslaughter by negating intent if the force used was disproportionate and unreasonable.
- Similarly, in R v Hutton, the court rejected intoxicated mistake as to force as a defence to murder, holding that a drunken intent was still an intent.
- However, in Jaggard v Dickinson, the court accepted that intoxication could in principle negate the intent required for criminal damage if it caused the defendant
Supreme Court & Practice Statement (2012)Miss Hart
Here is a possible response using the sources and other cases:
Source A is the Practice Statement itself issued by the House of Lords in 1966. It recognises that too rigid adherence to precedent can lead to injustice, so it allows the House of Lords to depart from its own previous decisions when it appears right to do so. However, it notes there is an 'especial need for certainty' in criminal law.
Source B is an example of the Practice Statement being used in a criminal case, R v R and G. The court overruled the previous decision of Caldwell from 1981 to consult a Law Commission report when interpreting the meaning of 'reckless' in the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This developed the law to reflect a changed
1) The document discusses the defense of diminished responsibility and examines several cases related to its application. It addresses the elements that must be proven for diminished responsibility, including abnormality of mental functioning, recognized medical condition, and substantial impairment.
2) Intoxication is discussed as it relates to diminished responsibility, with cases examining when intoxication alone or combined with an unrelated abnormality of mind can meet the criteria.
3) Reform of the defense is also addressed, with suggestions for alternative approaches beyond the current legislation.
4) Students are tasked with analyzing statements related to applying diminished responsibility in hypothetical scenarios and identifying the accurate and inaccurate aspects of reform proposals
1) The document discusses the defense of diminished responsibility and provides examples of cases where it was raised. It examines the elements that must be proven for the defense, including an abnormality of mental functioning caused by a recognized medical condition that substantially impaired the defendant.
2) It notes debates around issues like whether intoxication alone can be considered a medical condition for the defense. It also discusses reforms to the defense in the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009.
3) The document provides hypothetical scenarios and asks students to determine if defendants could argue diminished responsibility based on the facts and legal requirements of the defense. It engages critical thinking around limitations and potential improvements to
The document provides an overview of the key concepts and principles of negligence law in the UK civil legal system. It discusses three main points:
1. Negligence exists within civil law and allows compensation if a claimant can prove another has acted negligently according to the rules.
2. It outlines the three main elements to prove negligence: that a duty of care existed, this duty was breached, and the breach caused damage.
3. It examines these elements in more depth, explaining concepts like the duty of care, reasonable person standard, breach of duty through failure to meet the standard of care, and causation through the "but for" test and foreseeability of damage.
This document discusses criminal liability for omissions in the UK legal system. It provides an overview of key legal principles and cases related to when a failure to act can result in criminal responsibility. Generally, mere omissions are not criminal unless there is a legal duty to act. Such duties can arise in specific relationships, from contractual obligations, public offices, or voluntary assumption of responsibility. The document examines cases that have established or developed duties and discusses debates around when duties are reasonably applied versus being too broad.
This document discusses involuntary manslaughter under English criminal law. It begins by outlining the key elements students should understand regarding gross negligence manslaughter and constructive manslaughter. It then analyzes several cases involving gross negligence manslaughter and discusses the mental element required. The document concludes by considering proposals to reform the law on involuntary manslaughter offenses in England.
The document discusses the key elements of involuntary manslaughter, including gross negligence and constructive act manslaughter. It provides examples of cases and asks questions to test the reader's understanding of distinguishing between constructive acts, gross negligence, duties of care, breaches that cause death, and what constitutes grossly negligent actions. It aims to consolidate knowledge of this area of criminal law.
This document provides an overview of the concept of mens rea in criminal law. It discusses the different types of intent required for different crimes, including direct intent, oblique intent, recklessness, and the tests used to determine whether a consequence was foreseen, beginning with DPP v Smith and culminating in R v Woollin. It also examines cases such as R v Cunningham, R v Caldwell, and Elliot v C that helped develop the definition of recklessness. The document provides examples and prompts critical thinking questions to aid understanding of these complex concepts in criminal intent and liability.
This document provides an introduction to criminal law, outlining key concepts such as the elements of a crime, levels of intent, and the burden and standard of proof. It defines a crime as an unlawful act that renders a person liable to legal punishment. The two main elements of a crime are the actus reus, or guilty act, and the mens rea, or guilty mind. Mens rea can include specific intent, recklessness, or strict liability where no intent needs to be proven. The prosecution bears the burden of proving a defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Defenses may reverse this burden to require proving something on the balance of possibilities. The reading and case list are assigned in preparation for the next seminar
The document provides an overview of tort law including intentional torts like assault, negligence, privacy law, and discusses issues that can result in business liability. It also reviews cases, definitions of key concepts, and how reasonable duty of care is determined in tort cases. The document is a guide for understanding different types of civil wrongs and liability between private individuals or businesses.
Involuntary manslaughter can occur through three means: unlawful act manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, or reckless manslaughter. Unlawful act manslaughter involves an unlawful act by the defendant that causes death, even if they did not intend or foresee death. The unlawful act must be dangerous and pose a risk of harm based on an objective standard. Gross negligence manslaughter involves breaching a duty of care owed to the victim in a very negligent way that causes their death. Reckless manslaughter continues to be an offense despite being thought to no longer exist after Adamako, though it is difficult to see why it is necessary separate from gross negligence manslaughter.
Similar to Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource (20)
This document provides the marking scheme for the January 2011 GCE LAW examination in England and Wales. It includes marking criteria and guidelines for 6 different law options that were assessed. For each question, it identifies the assessment objectives being tested, such as knowledge of the law (AO1) and skills in legal argument and reasoning (AO2). Sample answers are also provided to illustrate how different levels of response would be marked. The marking scheme aims to ensure examiners apply criteria consistently across all student scripts.
The document discusses the law around involuntary manslaughter in England and assesses if the law is muddled and unjust. It outlines the different types of involuntary manslaughter including gross negligence, unlawful act manslaughter, and subjective reckless manslaughter. It analyzes cases that illustrate inconsistencies and unjust outcomes. While the law commission proposed reforms, the conclusion is that the current law is adequate and changing it further may only add more confusion.
The document discusses the aims of sentencing in the UK criminal justice system. When judges pass sentences, they must decide on the appropriate sentence and what they hope to achieve with it. The main aims of sentencing are punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, protection of the public, reparation, and denunciation. The document provides examples of cases involving a teenager stealing during riots, iPhone robbers convicted of murder, and a rugby star sentenced for grievous bodily harm to illustrate how judges determine sentences based on the aims.
This document outlines the qualifications and training required to become a solicitor or barrister in the UK legal system. It discusses the academic and vocational stages of training, including obtaining a law degree, completing the Legal Practice Course for solicitors or Bar Professional Training Course for barristers, and undertaking a training contract or pupillage. The duties of solicitors, who work in private practice, and barristers, who work as advocates in courts, are also summarized. Finally, the document questions whether the legal profession achieves equality, as women and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented.
The document discusses various influences on law reform in the UK, including the Law Commission, Royal Commissions, public inquiries, the media, pressure groups, manifesto promises, and European Union law. It provides details on the role and purpose of the Law Commission and Royal Commissions in examining existing laws and advocating for legal changes. Examples are given of public inquiries that led to reforms, such as the Taylor Report after Hillsborough and the Cullen Report after Dunblane.
This document provides instructions for a "Legal Aid Bingo" game where players choose 9 of 15 legal terms to write in a bingo card. The game leader will then randomly select definitions for those terms, with the goal of players getting a full bingo line or full house by matching definitions to their chosen terms. Some of the legal terms listed include things like income based job seekers allowance, legal services commission, access to justice act 1999, and courts and legal services act 1990.
This document discusses the exceptions to the general principle in criminal law that an omission (failure to act) does not constitute an actus reus. It outlines six exceptions where an omission can be considered a criminal offense: 1) statutory duty, 2) contractual duty, 3) voluntary assumption of responsibility, 4) avert a danger of your own making, 5) public duty, and 6) special relationship. It provides examples of cases that fall under each exception and discusses potential confusions between some of the exceptions, such as contractual versus public duty, and voluntary assumption versus special relationship. It also addresses issues that can arise in medical cases regarding omissions.
The document discusses the small claims procedure in the UK legal system. It was introduced in 1973 to provide a quick, simple and cheap way to make a claim in court for amounts under £5000. Key aspects of the small claims procedure include individuals bringing their own cases to reduce costs, the use of lay representatives or district judges who are trained to handle such cases, and the lack of awarding legal costs to the winner which discourages lawyers. The document outlines advantages like low costs and speed, as well as disadvantages such as potential unfairness if one party has a lawyer and difficulties collecting awarded money.
The county courts are located in major towns across England and Wales, with around 230 total. They have jurisdiction over a variety of civil cases involving contracts, torts, recovery of land, partnerships, trusts, inheritance, divorce, bankruptcy, and discrimination. Around 2 million new cases are filed in county courts each year, though most are settled out of court without going to trial. Cases are heard by circuit judges or district judges, and in some limited cases may involve a jury.
This document discusses several rules of language that can help judges interpret the intentions of Parliament when analyzing statutory language, including:
- The ejusdem generis rule, which states that if a list is followed by a general term, the general term refers to items of the same type as in the list.
- The expressio rule, which provides that if a list is "closed" with no general term, the statute only applies to the items in the list.
- The noscitur a sociis rule, which means a word is known by the company it keeps, and so surrounding words can provide context to the meaning of a term.
The document outlines the different qualifications, training, and roles of solicitors and barristers in the UK legal system. Solicitors usually deal directly with clients, while barristers specialize in advocacy work and represent clients in court. The training process for both careers involves obtaining a law degree or other qualifications, completing vocational courses, and undertaking practical training periods like the training contract or pupillage.
This document contains 12 multiple choice questions about legal cases related to criminal defenses. Each question includes the answer and a citation to a legal authority or case that provides context and justification for the answer. The cases cover topics like intoxication as a defense, involuntary intoxication, automatism, insanity, self defense, and epilepsy as a defense.
The document provides an overview of the legislative process in the UK Parliament. It explains that a bill first begins as an idea in a green paper before being drafted and introduced in Parliament. It then goes through several stages of debate and amendment in both the House of Commons and House of Lords before receiving royal assent to become law. The advantages of the system include allowing mistakes to be identified and addressed through multiple reviews and edits. However, the process can also become confusing due complex amendments and potential for bias in specialized committees.
This document summarizes the key elements of the offence of criminal damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. It discusses:
1) The three main types of criminal damage offenses - section 1(1) criminal damage, section 1(2) criminal damage with intent to endanger life, and section 1(3) arson.
2) The actus reus and mens rea requirements for a section 1(1) criminal damage offense. It also discusses what constitutes damage and property belonging to another.
3) Available defenses to criminal damage including lawful excuse and the defendant's honest belief. It provides case examples analyzing the defenses.
Jack takes his bike to a garage for repairs and is told to return the next day to collect it. However, Jack returns that night and takes his bike, which would be considered theft as the garage had possession and control of the bike.
The mechanic repairs Jack's bike but cannot understand Jack when he returns to pay due to a language barrier. Jack opens his wallet and the mechanic takes too much money. While the mechanic had a right to be paid for the repairs, taking more money than owed without Jack's consent would constitute appropriation, similar to the Lawrence case.
Magistrates courts handle less serious criminal cases in England and Wales. Magistrates, who can be qualified lawyers or laypeople, oversee summary cases and some either-way offenses. They deal with bail applications, youth cases, and issues related to council tax, protection orders, and child welfare. Magistrates also determine if a case should be sent to the Crown Court for more serious offenses. Their trials involve presenting evidence, witness testimony, and determining guilt or innocence based on the burden of proof.
There are around 90 court centers throughout England and Wales organized into three tiers. The first tier incorporates the High Court and Crown Court and can try all indictment cases. The second tier is Crown Court only and can also try all indictment cases. The third tier only has Circuit Judges and Recorders, so it cannot deal with the most serious cases due to the lack of a High Court judge.
Young offenders between the ages of 10-17 are dealt with in youth court, a branch of Magistrates' court, unless their crime is exceptionally serious like rape, murder or manslaughter, in which case they can be tried in Crown Court. Youth court proceedings are private, involve specially trained magistrates under age 65, and require one male and one female magistrate, with parents present for under 16s. The process is generally less formal than adult criminal court.
The document appears to be a collection of random letters, numbers, and words with no clear meaning or context. It includes references to legal terms like assault, battery, actual bodily harm, wounding, and psychological harm but does not form a coherent summary on its own.
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionTechSoup
Let’s explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
Thinking of getting a dog? Be aware that breeds like Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds can be loyal and dangerous. Proper training and socialization are crucial to preventing aggressive behaviors. Ensure safety by understanding their needs and always supervising interactions. Stay safe, and enjoy your furry friends!
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty,
International FDP on Fundamentals of Research in Social Sciences
at Integral University, Lucknow, 06.06.2024
By Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17Celine George
An import error occurs when a program fails to import a module or library, disrupting its execution. In languages like Python, this issue arises when the specified module cannot be found or accessed, hindering the program's functionality. Resolving import errors is crucial for maintaining smooth software operation and uninterrupted development processes.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
MATATAG CURRICULUM: ASSESSING THE READINESS OF ELEM. PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS I...NelTorrente
In this research, it concludes that while the readiness of teachers in Caloocan City to implement the MATATAG Curriculum is generally positive, targeted efforts in professional development, resource distribution, support networks, and comprehensive preparation can address the existing gaps and ensure successful curriculum implementation.
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Main Java[All of the Base Concepts}.docxadhitya5119
This is part 1 of my Java Learning Journey. This Contains Custom methods, classes, constructors, packages, multithreading , try- catch block, finally block and more.
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.
16. 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
17. 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?
18. 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)
19. 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.