Queen Mary University of London
(QMUL)
LAW5005 Criminal Law (2nd Year LLB
Law)
Problem Question Schemas per Topic
, Content
Homicide 1 (Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter)……………………..……….………3
Homicide 2 (Involuntary Manslaughter)……………….……….……….…...………...…9
Theft………………………………….……….……………………………..…….………..13
Fraud……………………………………………….………………………..….………..…19
Non-Fatal Offences………………..……….………………………………...….……..…24
Public Order Offences………….……………..…………………………………….….…31
Sexual Offences……………………………..……….………………………….…..…....39
Strict Liability Offences………………..………….……………………….…………...…47
Defences…………………………...……………….……………………….….…........…49
Complicity…………………..……………….……………………………….…..…......…58
Criminal Attempts……………..…………………………………….…………........……62
Hate Crime…………………….…………………………………….………….…....……66
, HOMICIDE 1: murder & involuntary manslaughter
ELEMENT PRINCIPLES CASELAW + STATUTE
1. Identify D and V. State the offence to be analysed (start with the most serious:
Defendant murder). One sentence on why it's relevant → death resulted from D's conduct.
"Because [D]'s conduct appears to have caused [V]'s death, [D] may be charged
with murder, a common law offence defined as the unlawful killing of any person
under the King's peace with malice aforethought (Coke; Moloney)."
2. Offence Murder is a common law offence carrying a mandatory
life sentence.
Sir Edward Coke: The unlawful killing of a human The Institutes of the Laws
being under the [King]'s peace with malice of England [17th century]
aforethought.
- Modern formulation: intention to kill or cause
GBH. R v Moloney
- Confirmed GBH intent (implied malice) is
sufficient MR, even without intent to kill. R v Vickers
s.1 Murder (Abolition of
o Mandatory life sentence Death Penalty) Act 1965
o Whole life orders for highest seriousness
s.321(3) Sentencing Act
2020. 21
3. AR 1. A killing: act or omission
(conduct + = AR requires a positive act or an omission in breach R v Gibbins & Proctor
result + of duty.
causation)
If D acts → uncontentious.
If D omits → must identify which duty category applies.
No general duty to act (bad Samaritan principle).
Duty categories: Pittwood;
- contract (Pittwood); Stone & Dobinson;
- special relationship (Stone & Dobinson); Ruffell;
- assumption of responsibility (Ruffell); Miller/Evans
- D created danger (Miller/Evans).
2. Of any person (human being)
= V must be a human being (life begins at birth; ends Poulton+ Malcherek; Steel
at cessation of brain activity).
- Foetus cannot be murdered;
- Acts done to foetus that cause death after live AG's Reference (No. 3 of
birth = capable of being murder; 1994 ;
R v Senior;
- Withdrawing life support = omission → doctor Airedale NHS Trust v
not liable (policy decision). Bland
, Uncontentious unless a foetus or life-support machine!
3. Causation (!)
= D's act/omission must be both the factual AND legal
cause of death.
Factual causation
But for test: But for D's act, would V have died R v White
anyway?
Legal causation
- D need not be the sole cause → significant
contribution sufficient; R v Pagett
- More than minimal cause of the prohibited
consequence; R v Cato
- Operating and substantial cause at time of
death; R v Smith
- Must be significant and substantial AND
R v Hughes / R v Wallace
blameworthy (not merely unlawful).
Novus Actus Interveniens
Third party medical intervention:
Negligent medical treatment rarely breaks the chain:
- only if so independent and potent it renders D's
act insignificant; R v Cheshire
- Palpably wrong treatment → Break; R v Jordan
- Chaotic battlefield conditions… R v Smith
Third party omission:
An omission cannot break the chain of causation: if
someone fails to help, D's act remains operative. R v Cheshire
Unless D’s act has become insignificant!
Victim’s own act (fright/flight):
- V's response must be within the range of
foreseeable responses; R v Roberts
- Objective test: was V's response reasonably R v Williams & Davis
foreseeable?
Victim’s refusal of treatment / thin skull:
R v Blaue
Thin skull rule: D must take V as he finds them.
4. Unlawfully / Under the [King]’s peace
= The killing must be unlawful, justified killings (self-
defence, necessity) negate this element.
- Necessity can in rare circumstances justify a
killing (Brooke LJ); Re A (Conjoined Twins);
- Mercy killing is no defence (consent of V R v Nicklinson
irrelevant)!
(QMUL)
LAW5005 Criminal Law (2nd Year LLB
Law)
Problem Question Schemas per Topic
, Content
Homicide 1 (Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter)……………………..……….………3
Homicide 2 (Involuntary Manslaughter)……………….……….……….…...………...…9
Theft………………………………….……….……………………………..…….………..13
Fraud……………………………………………….………………………..….………..…19
Non-Fatal Offences………………..……….………………………………...….……..…24
Public Order Offences………….……………..…………………………………….….…31
Sexual Offences……………………………..……….………………………….…..…....39
Strict Liability Offences………………..………….……………………….…………...…47
Defences…………………………...……………….……………………….….…........…49
Complicity…………………..……………….……………………………….…..…......…58
Criminal Attempts……………..…………………………………….…………........……62
Hate Crime…………………….…………………………………….………….…....……66
, HOMICIDE 1: murder & involuntary manslaughter
ELEMENT PRINCIPLES CASELAW + STATUTE
1. Identify D and V. State the offence to be analysed (start with the most serious:
Defendant murder). One sentence on why it's relevant → death resulted from D's conduct.
"Because [D]'s conduct appears to have caused [V]'s death, [D] may be charged
with murder, a common law offence defined as the unlawful killing of any person
under the King's peace with malice aforethought (Coke; Moloney)."
2. Offence Murder is a common law offence carrying a mandatory
life sentence.
Sir Edward Coke: The unlawful killing of a human The Institutes of the Laws
being under the [King]'s peace with malice of England [17th century]
aforethought.
- Modern formulation: intention to kill or cause
GBH. R v Moloney
- Confirmed GBH intent (implied malice) is
sufficient MR, even without intent to kill. R v Vickers
s.1 Murder (Abolition of
o Mandatory life sentence Death Penalty) Act 1965
o Whole life orders for highest seriousness
s.321(3) Sentencing Act
2020. 21
3. AR 1. A killing: act or omission
(conduct + = AR requires a positive act or an omission in breach R v Gibbins & Proctor
result + of duty.
causation)
If D acts → uncontentious.
If D omits → must identify which duty category applies.
No general duty to act (bad Samaritan principle).
Duty categories: Pittwood;
- contract (Pittwood); Stone & Dobinson;
- special relationship (Stone & Dobinson); Ruffell;
- assumption of responsibility (Ruffell); Miller/Evans
- D created danger (Miller/Evans).
2. Of any person (human being)
= V must be a human being (life begins at birth; ends Poulton+ Malcherek; Steel
at cessation of brain activity).
- Foetus cannot be murdered;
- Acts done to foetus that cause death after live AG's Reference (No. 3 of
birth = capable of being murder; 1994 ;
R v Senior;
- Withdrawing life support = omission → doctor Airedale NHS Trust v
not liable (policy decision). Bland
, Uncontentious unless a foetus or life-support machine!
3. Causation (!)
= D's act/omission must be both the factual AND legal
cause of death.
Factual causation
But for test: But for D's act, would V have died R v White
anyway?
Legal causation
- D need not be the sole cause → significant
contribution sufficient; R v Pagett
- More than minimal cause of the prohibited
consequence; R v Cato
- Operating and substantial cause at time of
death; R v Smith
- Must be significant and substantial AND
R v Hughes / R v Wallace
blameworthy (not merely unlawful).
Novus Actus Interveniens
Third party medical intervention:
Negligent medical treatment rarely breaks the chain:
- only if so independent and potent it renders D's
act insignificant; R v Cheshire
- Palpably wrong treatment → Break; R v Jordan
- Chaotic battlefield conditions… R v Smith
Third party omission:
An omission cannot break the chain of causation: if
someone fails to help, D's act remains operative. R v Cheshire
Unless D’s act has become insignificant!
Victim’s own act (fright/flight):
- V's response must be within the range of
foreseeable responses; R v Roberts
- Objective test: was V's response reasonably R v Williams & Davis
foreseeable?
Victim’s refusal of treatment / thin skull:
R v Blaue
Thin skull rule: D must take V as he finds them.
4. Unlawfully / Under the [King]’s peace
= The killing must be unlawful, justified killings (self-
defence, necessity) negate this element.
- Necessity can in rare circumstances justify a
killing (Brooke LJ); Re A (Conjoined Twins);
- Mercy killing is no defence (consent of V R v Nicklinson
irrelevant)!
