Friday, March 28, 2008

Revision Notes

Revision Notes

General Principles of Criminal law

Offences
Homicide Offences, Non fatal offences against the person, sexual offences, offences against property, etc
Participation
Principal, Joint Principal, Joint Enterprise, Accomplice
Inchoate Offences
Incitement
Conspiracy
Attempt
Actus Reus
Causation, omissions,
willed conduct, state of affairs
Mens Rea
Intention
Recklessness
Negligence
General Defence
Insanity, Infancy, Intoxication, Mistake, Necessity, Duress, Consent


Analysis of Actus Reus

Circumstances
Consequences
Conduct
The three Cs

Specific Issues in Establishing the actus reus

(4)
State of Affairs
(3)
Willed conduct
(2)
Omission
(1)
Causation


Actus Reus
Causation Chart

Start

But for what the defendant did, would the result still have occurred? (R v White (1910)


Yes


No causation










No












Was the result reasonably foreseeable? (R v Pagett (1983))


Yes


Causation established










No












Did the victims suffer from a ‘thin skull’? (R v Blaue (1975))


Yes


Causation established











Was the treatment ‘palpably’ wrong? (R v Jordan (1958))





No causation










No

Yes



Yes































Were the injuries exacerbated by medical treatments?


No


Causation established (R v Smith (1959))











No












Were the injuries exacerbated by self-neglect? (R v Dear (1996))


Yes


Causation established










No













No causation



















Omission Chart

Start

Has the defendant acted?


Yes


Actus reus established if conduct prohibited by criminal law.



















No
































Is the defendant under a family duty to take care of the victim?


Yes

Failure to act may constitute actus reus (R v Gibbens and Proctor (1918)




















No
































Is the defendant under a statutory duty to act?


Yes

Failure to act may constitute actus reus



















No
































Is the defendant under a contractual duty to act?


Yes

Failure to act may constitute actus reus (R v Pittwood (1902)



















No
































Is the defendant under a duty to limit accidental harm?


Yes

Failure to act may constitute actus reus (R v Miller (1983)




















No
































Has the defendant given the victim an undertaking on which the victim is relying?


Yes

Failure to act may constitute actus reus (R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)




















No
































No actus reus













Willed Conduct

Must be total loss of control
AG’s Ref (No. 2 of 1992 (1993)
If defendant at fault then no defence to crimes of basic intent
R v Lipman(1970; R v Bailey (1983
Total loss of control -specific and basic intent
Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland (1963)

Must be external cause
R v Quick (1973);
R v Sullivan (1984)


Automatism


INCHOATE OFFENCES

Conspiracy
Attempt
Incitement
Race Relations Board v Applin (1973); Invicta Plastics Ltd v Clare (1976) -
Inchoate offence









Incitement at common law








Incitement
(Encouraging the commission of an offence)





Inchoate liability

























Conspiracy
(Agreeing to commit an offence)

























Attempting (Doing acts more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence








































Substantive Liability




Offences
(murder, theft, etc)





































Secondary liability




Accomplices
(helping, encouraging or causing the commission of offence










Conspiracy




Statutory
s.1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977








Conspiracy





















Conspiracy to defraud













Common Law


















Conspiracy to corrupt public morals























Participation – Inchoate offences


Action
Time
Causation Required?
Consensus required?
Aiding i.e. helping
Before or during offence
Yes (1)
No
Abetting i.e. encouraging
During offence
No
Yes
Counselling i.e. encouraging or threatening
Before offence
Yes (2)
Yes
Disposal
Destroying or hiding


Procuring i.e. causing
Before offence
Yes (3)
No
(1) Causation is required in the sense that the defendant must assist the principal to commit the offence earlier, more easily or more safely.
(2) Counselling must have had some effect on the principal mind
(3) Direct causation required.



Assault & Battery Non-Fatal Offences

Assault and Battery
Sexual offence
OAPA 1861
ss. 23, 24

OAPA 1861
s.18

OAPA 1861
s.20

OAPA 1861
s.47
Non-fatal Offences Against the Person
Summary of non-Fatal offences
Start:

Did the victim suffer serious injury?

Did D Intend to cause a serious injury?


D is liable for s.18
Yes
Yes








No



No









Did D either intend to wound or foresee some physical harm?


D is liable for s.20


Yes











No








Did the victim suffer any hurt or injury likely to interfere with heath or comfort?

Did D intend to touch or frighten the victim or foresee the possibility of this occurring?
Yes
D is liable for s.47
Yes



No
D is not liable






No










Was the victim touched of frightened

Did D intend to touch or frighten the victim or foresee the possibility of this occurring?
Yes
D is liable for assault
/battery
Yes



No
D is not liable






No










D is not liable






Murder – Fatal Offence


Homicide









Murder



Manslaughter
























Voluntary
Actus reus and mens rea of murder, but any of the following particular defences reduces liability to manslaughter
1. provocation
2. Diminished
responsibility
3. Suicide pact
4. Infanticide


Involuntary
No intention to kill or cause GBH, but cause death by:
1. An illegal and dangerous act
2. gross negligence
3. motor manslaughter
4. Causing death by dangerous driving


Involuntary manslaughter

(4)
Causing death by dangerous driving
s.1 RTA 1988
(3)
Motor Manslaughter
(2)
Gross negligence
R v Adamako (1994)


(1)
Constructive manslaughter
R v Church (1966)
Forms of involuntary manslaughter




Summary of – Fatal offence
Start:

Did D cause the death of the victim?


No


D is not liable for Homicide










Yes



No







Did D intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm?

Did D intend to do a dangerous criminal act?

D is liable for constructive manslaughter
No
Yes










No










Was D grossly negligent?
Yes
D is liable for manslaughter by gross negligence




No
D is not liable for manslaughter.






Yes










Can D successfully plead provocation, diminished responsibility, suicide pact or infanticide?

Yes
D is liable for voluntary manslaughter
Yes



No
D is liable for murder


Offences Against Property


Theft
Making off without payment
Fraud
Criminal Damage
Burglary
Robbery
Offences against property

Assault & Battery Non-Fatal Offences


Offences of Deception

(a)
Obtaining a property
(e)
Evasion of liability
(d)
Obtaining services
(c )
Obtaining a pecuniary advantage
(b)
obtaining a money transfer
Offences of Deception

Offences of Deception (new)


s.3
Fraud by failing to disclose information
s.4
Fraud by abuse of office
s.11
Obtaining services dishonestly
s.2
Fraud by false presentation
s.1
Offence of fraud

The Fraud Act 2006

Summary of Fraud Offences

Start

Did the defendant have intention to cause gain or loss to the victim?


Yes


D is liable for ss.1-4 offences



















No
































Did the defendant make a statement knowing it to be untrue or misleading?


Yes

D is liable for s.2 offence



















No
































Did the defendant failed to disclose information which he is under a legal duty to disclose?


Yes

D is liable for s.3 offence and possible s.2 false



















No
































Did the defendant by virtue of his privileged position failed to safeguard another’s financial interests or not act against those interests thus abusing his position?


Yes

D is liable for s.4 offence and possible s.2 false



















No
































Did the defendant actually obtained services by deception?


Yes

D is liable for s.11 offence



















No
































Did the defendant intend that payment would not be made or would not be made in full?


Yes

D is liable for s.11 offence






























For all the fraud offence there is no need for the victim’s interests actually to be imperilled. The focus is on D’s behaviour and the gravity of the offence depends upon his dishonest intention. Mens rea: Dishonesty must be proved in order to establish the offence of fraud.






Mode of handling stolen goods

Mode
Action
Benefits another
Omission
Receiving
Taking into possession or control
Not necessary




Action required
Removal
Movement of goods


For another’s benefit
Realisation
Sale or exchange or goods
Disposal
Destroying or hiding
Retention
Keeping not losing
Possible by omission
NB: Arranging to do any of the above in itself is an offence

General Defences

(2)
Infancy
s.50 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933
(3)
Intoxication
DPP v Majewski (1984); R v Bailey (1983); R v Hardie (1984); R v Kingston (1994)


(4)
Mistake
(5)
Necessity
(6)
Duress
(7)
Self-Defence
(8)
Consent
(1)
Insanity
M’Naghten rule
DPP v H (1997) – strict liability


Defences


Defence
Nature
When relevant
Effect on successful plea
Automatism
Body acts without control of the mind
At the time of the offence
Not guilty
Diminished responsibility
An abnormality of mind which substantially impairs mental responsibility
At the time of the offence
Not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter
Insanity
Disease of the mind which renders the defendant incapable of knowing
a) the nature and quality of his actions; or
b) that his actions are legally wrong
At the time of the offence
Not guilty by reason of insanity.
R v Kemp (1967)
R v Windle (1952)
R v Hennessy (1989)
R v Burgess (1991)

Children and criminal liability

Is the defendant under 10 years of age?


Yes


Defendant not liable










No












Can the prosecution prove actus reus and mens rea?


Yes


Defendant liable










No










Defendant not liable







Intoxication – General Rule and Exceptions


Intoxication







General Rule: Intoxication is a defence to crimes of specific intent, but not to those of basic intent (DPP v Majewski (1984)







Exceptions

















Specific Intent
(That is no defence)

Basic Intent
(That is, good defence)






(1) – Dutch courage
(AG for Northern Ireland v Gallgher (1963)


(1) Non-Dangerous Drugs
(R v Hardie (1984)









(2) Involuntary-Intoxication
(R v Kingston (1994)












Provocation – General Rule and Exceptions

Start

Did the defendant loose is his self-control as a result of things said or done or by both altogether which led to the death of the victim and was his would a reasonable man do as he did (to be determined by the jury?


Yes


Defence of provocation is available s.3 of Homicide Act 1957



















No
































Was D loss of temper as a result of unidentified words or action by another?


Yes

Defence of provocation is not available R v Acott (1996)



















No
































Was there sudden and temporary loss of self control?


Yes

Defence of provocation is not available Ibrams (1981) (not temporary); Thornton (1992); Ahluwalia (1992); Pearson (1992); Duffy (1949)



















No
































Could the age of the defendant has any effect on his action?


Yes

Camplin (1978) may be applicable
Bailey (1995) – the judge is not entitled to withdraw the subject question from the jury



















No
































Was D provoked by mistaken belief?


Yes

Defence of provocation is B (A child) and K (1889); Brown (1776))



















No
































Could D psychiatric condition be taken into account in?:


Yes

We need to consider the effect of Attorney General for New Jersey v Holley (2005) PC; and Smith (Morgan) James (2001) HL






























For all the fraud offence there is no need for the victim’s interests actually to be imperilled. The focus is on D’s behaviour and the gravity of the offence depends upon his dishonest intention. Mens rea: Dishonesty must be proved in order to establish the offence of fraud.

Diminished responsibility – General Rule and Exceptions

Start

Was the defendant suffering from abnormality of the mind:


Yes


Defence of Diminished responsibility s.2 of Homicide Act 1957;



















No
































Was there evidence (medical and legal) at the time the offence was committed?


Yes

Defence of provocation is not available Byrne (1960)



















No
































Was the defendant taunted about her psychiatric conditions?


Yes

What is the legal implication of the taunting in the light of Holey (2005) and Smith (Morgan) 2001









Accomplice liability – General Rule and Exceptions

Start

Is the Principal liable for any offence?


Yes


Discuss the principal possible liability for any offences before the that of the accomplice



















Yes
































Is the accomplice liable for any offence the offence committed by the principal?


Yes

Discuss possible liability for any offence under s.8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 as amended by the Criminal Law Act 1977.; and



















Yes
































Did the accomplice has the mens rea for the offence committed by the Principal?


Yes

Consider the cases to determine the mens reas English & Powell (1998)






























Was the Principal liable for murder and other offence?


Yes

The defence of duress will not be available for murder Howe (1987); Graham 1982; Bowen (196); and Hassan (2005) for other offences and Chrastny (1991) for conspiracy









Murder and Manslaughter – General Rule and Exceptions

Start

Did the defendant have intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)?


Yes


The defendant is liable for murder – s.1 of the Homicide Act 1957 Hyam v Dpp (1975) HL; Cunningham (1982) HL



















Yes
































Could the defendant intention be described as oblique or direct?


Yes

Consider liability within the boundary set by Woolin (1999) HL; C & G (2005); Elliot



















Yes
































Did the accomplice has the mens rea for the offence committed by the Principal?


Yes

Consider the cases to determine the mens reas English & Powell (1998)






























Was the Principal liable for murder and other offence?


Yes

The defence of duress will not be available for murder Howe (1987); Graham 1982; Bowen (196); and Hassan (2005) for other offences and Chrastny (1991) for conspiracy




Duty of Care Chart

Does D Commit a positive Act?
Yes
Causation of Fact and law
(No)
Legal duty to Act
Liability if there is no intervening act
Yes
Statutory Duty to Act
(No)
No Liability
Yes
Causation of Fact and law

(No)
No liability





Causation Chart for Murder

Causation
Murder
Transferred Malice
Manslaughter
Construct Malice








Revision Notes

General Principles of Criminal law

Offences
Homicide Offences, Non fatal offences against the person, sexual offences, offences against property, etc
Participation
Principal, Joint Principal, Joint Enterprise, Accomplice
Inchoate Offences
Incitement
Conspiracy
Attempt
Actus Reus
Causation, omissions,
willed conduct, state of affairs
Mens Rea
Intention
Recklessness
Negligence
General Defence
Insanity, Infancy, Intoxication, Mistake, Necessity, Duress, Consent


Analysis of Actus Reus

Circumstances
Consequences
Conduct
The three Cs

Specific Issues in Establishing the actus reus

(4)
State of Affairs
(3)
Willed conduct
(2)
Omission
(1)
Causation


Actus Reus
Causation Chart

Start

But for what the defendant did, would the result still have occurred? (R v White (1910)


Yes


No causation










No












Was the result reasonably foreseeable? (R v Pagett (1983))


Yes


Causation established










No












Did the victims suffer from a ‘thin skull’? (R v Blaue (1975))


Yes


Causation established











Was the treatment ‘palpably’ wrong? (R v Jordan (1958))





No causation










No

Yes



Yes































Were the injuries exacerbated by medical treatments?


No


Causation established (R v Smith (1959))











No












Were the injuries exacerbated by self-neglect? (R v Dear (1996))


Yes


Causation established










No













No causation



















Omission Chart

Start

Has the defendant acted?


Yes


Actus reus established if conduct prohibited by criminal law.



















No
































Is the defendant under a family duty to take care of the victim?


Yes

Failure to act may constitute actus reus (R v Gibbens and Proctor (1918)




















No
































Is the defendant under a statutory duty to act?


Yes

Failure to act may constitute actus reus



















No
































Is the defendant under a contractual duty to act?


Yes

Failure to act may constitute actus reus (R v Pittwood (1902)



















No
































Is the defendant under a duty to limit accidental harm?


Yes

Failure to act may constitute actus reus (R v Miller (1983)




















No
































Has the defendant given the victim an undertaking on which the victim is relying?


Yes

Failure to act may constitute actus reus (R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)




















No
































No actus reus













Willed Conduct

Must be total loss of control
AG’s Ref (No. 2 of 1992 (1993)
If defendant at fault then no defence to crimes of basic intent
R v Lipman(1970; R v Bailey (1983
Total loss of control -specific and basic intent
Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland (1963)

Must be external cause
R v Quick (1973);
R v Sullivan (1984)


Automatism


INCHOATE OFFENCES

Conspiracy
Attempt
Incitement
Race Relations Board v Applin (1973); Invicta Plastics Ltd v Clare (1976) -
Inchoate offence









Incitement at common law








Incitement
(Encouraging the commission of an offence)





Inchoate liability

























Conspiracy
(Agreeing to commit an offence)

























Attempting (Doing acts more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence








































Substantive Liability




Offences
(murder, theft, etc)





































Secondary liability




Accomplices
(helping, encouraging or causing the commission of offence










Conspiracy




Statutory
s.1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977








Conspiracy





















Conspiracy to defraud













Common Law


















Conspiracy to corrupt public morals























Participation – Inchoate offences


Action
Time
Causation Required?
Consensus required?
Aiding i.e. helping
Before or during offence
Yes (1)
No
Abetting i.e. encouraging
During offence
No
Yes
Counselling i.e. encouraging or threatening
Before offence
Yes (2)
Yes
Disposal
Destroying or hiding


Procuring i.e. causing
Before offence
Yes (3)
No
(1) Causation is required in the sense that the defendant must assist the principal to commit the offence earlier, more easily or more safely.
(2) Counselling must have had some effect on the principal mind
(3) Direct causation required.



Assault & Battery Non-Fatal Offences

Assault and Battery
Sexual offence
OAPA 1861
ss. 23, 24

OAPA 1861
s.18

OAPA 1861
s.20

OAPA 1861
s.47
Non-fatal Offences Against the Person
Summary of non-Fatal offences
Start:

Did the victim suffer serious injury?

Did D Intend to cause a serious injury?


D is liable for s.18
Yes
Yes








No



No









Did D either intend to wound or foresee some physical harm?


D is liable for s.20


Yes











No








Did the victim suffer any hurt or injury likely to interfere with heath or comfort?

Did D intend to touch or frighten the victim or foresee the possibility of this occurring?
Yes
D is liable for s.47
Yes



No
D is not liable






No










Was the victim touched of frightened

Did D intend to touch or frighten the victim or foresee the possibility of this occurring?
Yes
D is liable for assault
/battery
Yes



No
D is not liable






No










D is not liable






Murder – Fatal Offence


Homicide









Murder



Manslaughter
























Voluntary
Actus reus and mens rea of murder, but any of the following particular defences reduces liability to manslaughter
1. provocation
2. Diminished
responsibility
3. Suicide pact
4. Infanticide


Involuntary
No intention to kill or cause GBH, but cause death by:
1. An illegal and dangerous act
2. gross negligence
3. motor manslaughter
4. Causing death by dangerous driving


Involuntary manslaughter

(4)
Causing death by dangerous driving
s.1 RTA 1988
(3)
Motor Manslaughter
(2)
Gross negligence
R v Adamako (1994)


(1)
Constructive manslaughter
R v Church (1966)
Forms of involuntary manslaughter




Summary of – Fatal offence
Start:

Did D cause the death of the victim?


No


D is not liable for Homicide










Yes



No







Did D intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm?

Did D intend to do a dangerous criminal act?

D is liable for constructive manslaughter
No
Yes










No










Was D grossly negligent?
Yes
D is liable for manslaughter by gross negligence




No
D is not liable for manslaughter.






Yes










Can D successfully plead provocation, diminished responsibility, suicide pact or infanticide?

Yes
D is liable for voluntary manslaughter
Yes



No
D is liable for murder


Offences Against Property


Theft
Making off without payment
Fraud
Criminal Damage
Burglary
Robbery
Offences against property

Assault & Battery Non-Fatal Offences


Offences of Deception

(a)
Obtaining a property
(e)
Evasion of liability
(d)
Obtaining services
(c )
Obtaining a pecuniary advantage
(b)
obtaining a money transfer
Offences of Deception

Offences of Deception (new)


s.3
Fraud by failing to disclose information
s.4
Fraud by abuse of office
s.11
Obtaining services dishonestly
s.2
Fraud by false presentation
s.1
Offence of fraud

The Fraud Act 2006

Summary of Fraud Offences

Start

Did the defendant have intention to cause gain or loss to the victim?


Yes


D is liable for ss.1-4 offences



















No
































Did the defendant make a statement knowing it to be untrue or misleading?


Yes

D is liable for s.2 offence



















No
































Did the defendant failed to disclose information which he is under a legal duty to disclose?


Yes

D is liable for s.3 offence and possible s.2 false



















No
































Did the defendant by virtue of his privileged position failed to safeguard another’s financial interests or not act against those interests thus abusing his position?


Yes

D is liable for s.4 offence and possible s.2 false



















No
































Did the defendant actually obtained services by deception?


Yes

D is liable for s.11 offence



















No
































Did the defendant intend that payment would not be made or would not be made in full?


Yes

D is liable for s.11 offence






























For all the fraud offence there is no need for the victim’s interests actually to be imperilled. The focus is on D’s behaviour and the gravity of the offence depends upon his dishonest intention. Mens rea: Dishonesty must be proved in order to establish the offence of fraud.






Mode of handling stolen goods

Mode
Action
Benefits another
Omission
Receiving
Taking into possession or control
Not necessary




Action required
Removal
Movement of goods


For another’s benefit
Realisation
Sale or exchange or goods
Disposal
Destroying or hiding
Retention
Keeping not losing
Possible by omission
NB: Arranging to do any of the above in itself is an offence

General Defences

(2)
Infancy
s.50 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933
(3)
Intoxication
DPP v Majewski (1984); R v Bailey (1983); R v Hardie (1984); R v Kingston (1994)


(4)
Mistake
(5)
Necessity
(6)
Duress
(7)
Self-Defence
(8)
Consent
(1)
Insanity
M’Naghten rule
DPP v H (1997) – strict liability


Defences


Defence
Nature
When relevant
Effect on successful plea
Automatism
Body acts without control of the mind
At the time of the offence
Not guilty
Diminished responsibility
An abnormality of mind which substantially impairs mental responsibility
At the time of the offence
Not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter
Insanity
Disease of the mind which renders the defendant incapable of knowing
a) the nature and quality of his actions; or
b) that his actions are legally wrong
At the time of the offence
Not guilty by reason of insanity.
R v Kemp (1967)
R v Windle (1952)
R v Hennessy (1989)
R v Burgess (1991)

Children and criminal liability

Is the defendant under 10 years of age?


Yes


Defendant not liable










No












Can the prosecution prove actus reus and mens rea?


Yes


Defendant liable










No










Defendant not liable







Intoxication – General Rule and Exceptions


Intoxication







General Rule: Intoxication is a defence to crimes of specific intent, but not to those of basic intent (DPP v Majewski (1984)







Exceptions

















Specific Intent
(That is no defence)

Basic Intent
(That is, good defence)






(1) – Dutch courage
(AG for Northern Ireland v Gallgher (1963)


(1) Non-Dangerous Drugs
(R v Hardie (1984)









(2) Involuntary-Intoxication
(R v Kingston (1994)












Provocation – General Rule and Exceptions

Start

Did the defendant loose is his self-control as a result of things said or done or by both altogether which led to the death of the victim and was his would a reasonable man do as he did (to be determined by the jury?


Yes


Defence of provocation is available s.3 of Homicide Act 1957



















No
































Was D loss of temper as a result of unidentified words or action by another?


Yes

Defence of provocation is not available R v Acott (1996)



















No
































Was there sudden and temporary loss of self control?


Yes

Defence of provocation is not available Ibrams (1981) (not temporary); Thornton (1992); Ahluwalia (1992); Pearson (1992); Duffy (1949)



















No
































Could the age of the defendant has any effect on his action?


Yes

Camplin (1978) may be applicable
Bailey (1995) – the judge is not entitled to withdraw the subject question from the jury



















No
































Was D provoked by mistaken belief?


Yes

Defence of provocation is B (A child) and K (1889); Brown (1776))



















No
































Could D psychiatric condition be taken into account in?:


Yes

We need to consider the effect of Attorney General for New Jersey v Holley (2005) PC; and Smith (Morgan) James (2001) HL






























For all the fraud offence there is no need for the victim’s interests actually to be imperilled. The focus is on D’s behaviour and the gravity of the offence depends upon his dishonest intention. Mens rea: Dishonesty must be proved in order to establish the offence of fraud.

Diminished responsibility – General Rule and Exceptions

Start

Was the defendant suffering from abnormality of the mind:


Yes


Defence of Diminished responsibility s.2 of Homicide Act 1957;



















No
































Was there evidence (medical and legal) at the time the offence was committed?


Yes

Defence of provocation is not available Byrne (1960)



















No
































Was the defendant taunted about her psychiatric conditions?


Yes

What is the legal implication of the taunting in the light of Holey (2005) and Smith (Morgan) 2001









Accomplice liability – General Rule and Exceptions

Start

Is the Principal liable for any offence?


Yes


Discuss the principal possible liability for any offences before the that of the accomplice



















Yes
































Is the accomplice liable for any offence the offence committed by the principal?


Yes

Discuss possible liability for any offence under s.8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 as amended by the Criminal Law Act 1977.; and



















Yes
































Did the accomplice has the mens rea for the offence committed by the Principal?


Yes

Consider the cases to determine the mens reas English & Powell (1998)






























Was the Principal liable for murder and other offence?


Yes

The defence of duress will not be available for murder Howe (1987); Graham 1982; Bowen (196); and Hassan (2005) for other offences and Chrastny (1991) for conspiracy









Murder and Manslaughter – General Rule and Exceptions

Start

Did the defendant have intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)?


Yes


The defendant is liable for murder – s.1 of the Homicide Act 1957 Hyam v Dpp (1975) HL; Cunningham (1982) HL



















Yes
































Could the defendant intention be described as oblique or direct?


Yes

Consider liability within the boundary set by Woolin (1999) HL; C & G (2005); Elliot



















Yes
































Did the accomplice has the mens rea for the offence committed by the Principal?


Yes

Consider the cases to determine the mens reas English & Powell (1998)






























Was the Principal liable for murder and other offence?


Yes

The defence of duress will not be available for murder Howe (1987); Graham 1982; Bowen (196); and Hassan (2005) for other offences and Chrastny (1991) for conspiracy




Duty of Care Chart

Does D Commit a positive Act?
Yes
Causation of Fact and law
(No)
Legal duty to Act
Liability if there is no intervening act
Yes
Statutory Duty to Act
(No)
No Liability
Yes
Causation of Fact and law

(No)
No liability





Causation Chart for Murder

Causation
Murder
Transferred Malice
Manslaughter
Construct Malice

No comments: