Law A2 January retake

NON FATAL OFFENCES

Essay plan for the exam

Opening paragraph : Identify the offence , burden of proof , standard of proof What is the sentence , which court is it dealt with , what kind of offence is it Possible defenses The Actus Reus of Assault : Assault is a summary offence 6 month imprisonment or a fine Magistrate court It was confirmed in DPP v Little The defendant must cause the victim to apprehend Immediate and unlawful force. Immediate refers to the notion that a threat to use force in the future is not an assault and cannot be one. The court has sometimes taken a generous view of immediacy This was seen in Smith v working where the defendant instilled to the victim, an apprehension of what he might do next. In Ireland and Constanza the immediacy test was expended In both of those cases the defendant made silent phone calls, stalking, which significantly scared the victim as they did not know what they might do in the instant or near future. Extra cases: Read v Coker = D threatened to break a persons neck R v Wilson = D was arrested cos he shouted get the guns out R v Lamb = D pointed the gun at V , but no assault because V did not fear threat Lodgon v DPP= revolver Tuberville v Savage = Sword The Mens rea of Assault : Intention or recklessness R v Mohan Persons aim or desire to commit the wrongful act The foresight of consequences must also be considered as part of the mens rea R v Maloney evidence of Intension Recklessness is when D knows there is a risk of harm but carries on regardless Cunningham , R v Nedrick , R v Woolin Battery

Battery is a Summary offence six month imprisonment or a fine The Actus Reus of Battery is an application of unlawful force to a person In DPP v Little and Collins v Wilcock it was said that the slightest touch could amount to battery Martin Cinema Battery as well Fagan v Metropolitan police commissioner Continuing act Would not remove the car off his foot R v Thomas No need to physically touch them , touching their clothes is like touching them R v Venna Men s rea of battery came from this case Intention or recklessness R v Latimer Belt Transferred malice R v Pembliton malice could not be transferred to a object ( window)

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm : Statutory offences , triable either way sentence up to 5 years , defined in S 47 of the OAPA act 1981 The actus reus must be Assault or battery In R v miller It was defined as any injury that interfered with the comfort or health of the victim Chan- Fook Stated that the injury should not be so trivial as to wholly insignificant R v Roberts V jumped out the car cos D told her to undress her self ( grabbed her as well ) R v Burrows A women hit a boy on the head with a slipper leaving him bruises convicted DPP v Smith cut off his partners pony tail charged with ABH Grievous Bodily harm: In DPP v Smith it was said that it was No less or no more than serious harm E.G permanent loss , visual disfigurement , broken limbs , fractured bones ect R v Medland D set on fire V for not paying him 25 pound R v Ismail Threw nitric acid into the face of his GF R v Burstow Harass her , she developed clinical depression R v Bullom - Convicted of GBH and appeal , said that age shouldnt be taken in count GBH can be caused directly or indirectly R v Halliday scared a women so much that she jumped out the window Two version of GBH Section 20 OAPA 1861- 5 years imprisonment triable offence basic offence

The actus reus of s.20 offence is unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily
harm.

The mens rea of s.20 GBH is described by the word maliciously. In R v Cunningham (1957), it was
stated that for the purposes of the 1861 Act, maliciously meant intentionally or recklessly. Section 18 OAPA 1861- Life imprisonment triable offence- specific offence The actus reus for s.18 is similar to that for s.20 and requires proof of either GBH or wounding. The actus reus of wounding and the actus reus of GBH have the same meaning as under s.20. To satisfy the mens rea, the prosecution must prove intention to cause GBH or intention to avoid arrest. The crucial difference between s.20 and s.18 GBH is in the mens rea; while recklessness can be sufficient for s.20, intention is always required for s.18. Wounding = There should be a break in the continuity of the whole skin. Eisenhower purely internal bleeding will not be sufficient Directly or indirectly R v Dume he directed his dog to bite someone Flack v Hunt D Fired a shot in the bushes , V was hit Other cases R v Belfon D slashed a man with a razor R v Bryson D Drove his car at 3 man R v Stubbs Stabbed V in a drunken state R v Ramswell Ds dog bite a police officer as he was trying to arrest her

Defences:
Intoxication :
Intoxication refers to both excessive drinking and drug taking or both; if the defendant can plead successful to intoxication he/she will be acquitted. There is voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication DPP v Beard D lacked the mental element of a particular charge Voluntary intoxication is a defence to a crime of specific Intent ( Beard , Lipman )

 But its never a defence to a crime of basic offence ( Mejewski )

Involuntary Intoxication Defence to Specific and Basic crime because lack the specific MR Kingston attraction to young boys colleagues laced drink intoxicated intent is still an intent Situation in which D will be treated as involuntary intoxicated Taken under medical Prescription Bailey, hardie Taken by D outside his knowledge Taken under duress

Insanity:
Disease of mind (brain, covers any physical disease) If successful the defendant will get a special verdict M Naughton 1843 Cases for insanity D must suffered from a disease of the mind Kemp - The defendant during a blackout Defect of reason From disease of the mind attacked his wife with a hammer causing Not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing her grievous bodily harm. Did not know that what he was doing was wrong Sullivan - The defendant kicked and injured a man during a minor epileptic fit Clarke- The defendant, a diabetic, was charged with theft of items in a supermarket.

Murder essay plan

Opening prarahrah: Identify offence ( Murder , Sir Edward coke ) Identify possible defences ( Provocation , Diminished responsibility , Suicide pact ) Burden of Proof lies with the Prosecution Standard of proof Beyond reasonable doubt Sentencing : Murder = Mandatory life sentence Manslaughter = To the discretion of the judge Coincidence of AR and MR R Thabo Meli = Through V off the cliff , continuous act R v White = V dies of heart attack but it wasnt because of Ds attempt murder Main body: Actus reus of murder Define R v cokes definition Unlawful killing of a Human being , with malice aforethought Review actus reus Positive voluntary conduct ( R v Sullivan heart attack while driving ) Causation = factual causation , BUT FOR test - R v Cheshire , other cases R v Jordan , R v Smith Legal causation operative and substantial cause of death Cato Reasonably foreseeable = R v Robert , R v Pagget Murder by omission R v Pittwood , R v stone Dobinson Mens Rea of Murder Intention to kill or to cause GBH R v Maloney Intention R v Mohan , subjectively assessed , Nedrick guidelines Purpose direct intent Virtually certain consequence ( oblique intent ) R v Woolin = Change two words in the Nedrick guideline Appreciate into know Infer into finds

Possible Defences

Diminished responsibility:

This partial defence comes from S2 of the Homicide act 1957 where it was stated that it was an
Abnormality of mind arising from certain specified causes which substantially impairs mental responsibility. An abnormality of mind is a mind so different from the one of a ordinary human being that a reasonable man would term it abnormal Under S2(2) states that the burden of proving the defence rest upon the defendant and that the standard of proof which the defendant has to achieve is the balance of probability . Battered wives syndrome : Hobson Cumulative effect of battered wives could lead to an abnormality of mind R v Alhuwalia Arrange marriage , she was badly treated , set him on fire while asleep R v Ali and R v Jordan Premeditated doesnt destroy a plead to DR Different cases: R v Byrne Violent perverted sexual desire which over came him at the time reduce to involuntary manslaughter R v Reynolds Battered his mum with a Hammer because he had depression Jealousy cases Smith and Miller Intoxication can only be used as an abnormality of the mind if the brain has been damaged by intoxicants. ( Egan )

Provocation

This is a Specific defence which is only available to a charge of murder; if successful the defendants
charges will be reduce from murder to manslaughter. This defence comes from the S3 of the Homicide act 1957 and it is stated that it is things said or done or both Objective test Would a reasonable man have lost his self control in the same circumstances A reasonable man is a man both physically and mentally ; this test came from Bedder and was then developed in Camplin There is a two part test = same characteristic R v Holley, it was said that more characteristics such as age and sex should be included. Davies Defence denied even though provoked by his wifes lover into shooting him Pearson D was provoked by his father abusive treatment Subjective test Was the defendant proved enough to lose his self control , Duffy test lapse of time Was it a sudden loss of temporary self control Thorton Failed because there was a short time lapse between Provocation and killing Ahluwalia Cumulative provocation