GENERAL REVISION TERM 1

HOMICIDE:

Actus reus of murder/manslaughter

Several types of homicide - murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter.  Actus Reus of murder and manslaughter is the same - an unlawful killing of a person in being under the queen's peace.

Mens rea of murder

The Mens Rea of murder differs. For murder the defendant must have malice aforethought - specific or oblique intent. Specific intent means that the defendant desires the outcome - s/he desires death or serious harm (death resulting).  Oblique intent requires that the defendant appreciated that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) NEDRICK - re-affirmed in WOOLIN (HL).

Voluntary manslaughter

On a chargeof murder a defendant's criminal responsiblity differs where provocation or diminished  responsiblity is established.   On a successful plea the defendant does not face a compulsory life sentence. 

For a s.2 Homicide Act 1957 the defendant must prove on the balance of probabilities that s/he was suffering from an abnormality of mind which substantilly impaired his or her mental responsiblity for acts or omissions.   The main case is BYRNE.

For a s.3 Homicide Act 1957 the defendant need only submit some evidence of provocation.  The prosecution must establish that the defendant was not provoked beyond a reasonable doubt. There must be evidence of provocation (Doughty) and the defendant must have been provoked to lose self control - sudden and temporary - (Duffy).   Then consider whether a reasonable person would have lost self control (Camplin) and do as the defendant did (Brown, Phillips).

Involuntary Manslaughter

There are essentially two areas to look at here.   Constructive manslaughter and Gross negligence manslaughter.  Remember that the actus reus of is the unlawful killing of a person in  being under the Queen's peace.

Constructive manslaughter requires an unlawful and dangerous act.  For an act to be unlawful it must be more than a tort Franklin/ Andrews.  The mens rea and the actus reus must be proved - Lamb. Thus if some one were to push an elderly lady and she was to fall over and die of her injuries the prosecution would have to establish the actus reus and mens rea of assault. If the defendant had pushed her to avoid a brick dropping on her head then s/he would not have the mens rea of assault.

The act must also be dangerous 'such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise it as an act which must subject the other person to , at least the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm.' Church.

For Gross negligence manslaughter the defendant must owe a duty of care to the deceased. There must be a breach of the duty of care and the breach caused the death. Further the standard of care must have been so bad as to be criminal, ie., grossly negligent ADOMAKO.

nb when looking at omission manslaughter the courts use the test established in ADOMAKO see KHAN AND KHAN.

Causation

Where there is a question as to the causal link between the conduct of the defendant and the death of the victim then the question of causation has to be addressed.  The test is as follows:

Factual causation - 'but for' test is a necessary but insufficient test of causation 

+

Legal causation - who should be held responsible/morally responsible.  Depends on a number of test devised by the courts

=

Concurrence

Requires that the Prosecution prove that the defendant had the mens rea and the actus reus for the offence charged.  Where the mens rea and actus reus are seperate the courts treat these as a series of transactions CHURCH, THABO MELI.

OMISSIONS:

General rule of English Common law is that there is no duty to act.  Duty to act may be prescribed by statute or judicial decisions.   The following judicial decisions have created duty to act at common law

duty of office  DYTHAM

duty of contrat (implied) PITWOOD

voluntary assumption of care STONE, LOWE, GIBBINS

creation of danger  MILLER

duty to control  DU CROSS

ASSAULTS

These range from common assault to s.18 OAPA 1861.   In addition harassment and racially aggravated crimes.

Common assault = (sometimes known as techincal assault) actus reus requires that victim apprehend  immediate unalwful personal violence. Mens rea is an intention to cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful or taking the risk ensuing with foresight that it might happen SPRATT  (CUNNINGHAM RECKLESS)

Battery =  actus reus requires infliction of unlawful personal violence. Mens rea is intention or subjective recklessness SPRATT/VENNA.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS

S.47 OAPA- assault ocassioning actual bodily harm. Actus reus is satisfied where there is a technical assault or battery which has caused actual bodily harm.  Mens rea is that the defendant intends a technical assault or battery or is reckless in the Cunningham sense.   In addition there is no need to prove that the defendant intended to cause actual bodily harm provided "it was a natural result of what the alleged assailant said and did, in the sense that it was something that could reasonably have been foreseen as a natural of what he was saying or doing." ROBERTS.

S. 20 OAPA-actus reus consists of unlawful wounding or unlawful infliction of grievous bodily harm. Unlawful means using unreasonable force in self defence or preventing a crime or arrest of offendor, or D engaged in unlawful correction.  Wound means the continuity of the skin mus t be broken. Grievous bodily harm means 'really serious harm' and includes psychiatric injury (Burstow).  

Mens rea requires to wound or inflict maliciously - this means with intention or recklessness in the Cunningham sense. 

S. 18 OAPA- wound and GBH have same meaning as for section 20.  Cause satisfied if D's act a substantial cause of V's injury.  GBH m ay be caused where D deliberately omits to act where s/he has a legal duty to act.

Mens rea 'maliciously'wound or cause gbh with ulterior intent to cause grievous bodily harm or to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of another person.

See lecture notes for

HARASSMENT -

A)PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997

B)CYBER CRIME

RACIALLY MOTIVATED CRIMES

POST REVISION

Criminal Law teaching will be reorganised. There will not be any lectures or tutorials. You will be taught in weekly one-hour classes from week 11.

A list with your name and tutor, room number and time will be given to you at a later date.

You will be expected to take your class notes and questions from the CLINT 2000 home page.  Information regarding this will be available shortly.  Make sure that you read this information and follow it.

Fernne Brennan

Course Director

email:joash