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:
Post a Comment