Law criminal law aqa a level
A cut is merely enough case - ANS-Moriaty v Brookes
ABH (S47) Actus reus - ANS-Assault or battery that reasons harm
Abnormality of mental functioning case - ANS-R V Bryne
Act must be risky - ANS-R v Church, "sober and affordable man or woman could see that there
has been a hazard of a few damage"
Actus reas of attack - ANS-Apprehension of immediate unlawful violence
Defined in Fagan v MPC
Actus reas of battery - ANS-Unlawful application of force
-R v Ireland
Actus reus for GBH s18 - ANS-Unlawfully wound or cause GBH on any individual
-R v Burstow
Actus reus of GBH s20 - ANS-Unlawfully wound or inflict harm on another
-DPP v Smith (clearly serious damage)
Assumption of responsibility case - ANS-R v Stone & Dobinson
Automatism - ANS-1. There must exist an involuntary action arising from external supply or
reflex movement
2. The motion should be absolutely involuntary
three. The automatism must now not be self-brought on
Belonging to any other that means and case - ANS-"ought to have own or manage of assets or
any proprietary interest". R v Woodman, it's miles viable for someone to be in possession of
property with out knowing it's miles there.
Capacity defences - ANS-
Contractual responsibility case - ANS-If someone owes a contractual obligation to act, then a
failure to meet this contractual obligation may bring about crook liability: R v Pittwood
Criminal tries: Actus reus and statute - ANS-Under s1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the
actus reus of an try is "an act extra than merely preparatory of the total offence" - Tosh
Did the defendant act moderately? - ANS-Must recollect a degree test:
Was the defendant compelled to act as he or she did because he had properly reason to worry
extreme injury or death?
If the first check is glad, would a sober person of affordable firmness have spoke back the equal
way?
R v Bowen, Low IQ become inappropriate in deciding whether D discovered it hard to resist any
threats.
Did the defendant lay him open to the threats? - ANS-Cannot use defence if open to threats. -R
v Sharpe Court of appeal: "Where someone has voluntarily, and with understanding of its
nature, joined a crook employer or gang which he knew would possibly carry pressure on him to
dedicate an offence and become an lively member whilst he turned into placed below stress, he
can not avail himself of the defence of duress".
, Dishonesty detail and case - ANS-Theft Act gives three situations when a D is not dishonest
beneath Section 2 (1).
Section 2 (1) (a)-Honest belief they'd a prison right to deprive the owner of it.
Section 2 (1) (b)-Honest belief that the alternative would have consented.
Section 2(1) c)- Honest belief that the character whom the assets belongs to cannot be found
after taking reasonable steps.
Duress by way of circumstance - ANS-All offences except:
-Murder
-Attempted homicide
Duress via danger - ANS-Lord Bingham set out the take a look at in R v Hasan:
1. There must be a chance to cause death or severe damage.
2. The danger must be directed in opposition to the defendant or his family.
Three. Whether the defendant acted fairly in this light of the threats could be judged objectively
four. The threats relate immediately to the crime committed by the defendant.
5. There was no evasive action the defendant ought to have taken.
6. The defendant can not use the defence if she or he has voluntarily laid him or herself open to
the threats.
Duty imposed by means of law case - ANS-Creating a risky situation and failing to position it
right:
R v Miller
Established in what statute? - ANS-s3 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967
Exercise self control - ANS-R v Bryne
Explanation for D acts case - ANS-R v Tandy
Force or danger of pressure case - ANS-R v Clouden, does not should be directed at one
individual.
Geddes criminal precept - ANS-making plans or education to implementation or execution
Guellefer criminal principle - ANS-Did no longer embark at the crime proper- Guellefer
How to balance proportionality? - ANS-It invitations attention of a balance between the threat of
harm to the defendant and the danger of harm to the sufferer however considering that:
- A individual acting for a legitimate cause may not be capable of weigh
- Evidence of a individuals having simplest achieved what the individual truely idea became
essential.
Immediately earlier than or at the time of stealing - ANS-R v Hale, can be persevering with act
Imminent of threat - ANS-The chance want not be on the spot but it should be impending
-R v Hudson and Taylor
Insanity - ANS-Established in the case of M'Naghten. It must be hooked up that on the time of
the offence the defendant became tormented by:
i). A defect of purpose
ii). The disorder of motive must be due to a sickness of the thoughts
iii). The defect of motive must be such that the defendant did now not know what he become
doing or, if he did understand, he did now not realize the act become incorrect.
Intoxication 2 sorts - ANS-Involuntary intoxication
Voluntary intoxication
A cut is merely enough case - ANS-Moriaty v Brookes
ABH (S47) Actus reus - ANS-Assault or battery that reasons harm
Abnormality of mental functioning case - ANS-R V Bryne
Act must be risky - ANS-R v Church, "sober and affordable man or woman could see that there
has been a hazard of a few damage"
Actus reas of attack - ANS-Apprehension of immediate unlawful violence
Defined in Fagan v MPC
Actus reas of battery - ANS-Unlawful application of force
-R v Ireland
Actus reus for GBH s18 - ANS-Unlawfully wound or cause GBH on any individual
-R v Burstow
Actus reus of GBH s20 - ANS-Unlawfully wound or inflict harm on another
-DPP v Smith (clearly serious damage)
Assumption of responsibility case - ANS-R v Stone & Dobinson
Automatism - ANS-1. There must exist an involuntary action arising from external supply or
reflex movement
2. The motion should be absolutely involuntary
three. The automatism must now not be self-brought on
Belonging to any other that means and case - ANS-"ought to have own or manage of assets or
any proprietary interest". R v Woodman, it's miles viable for someone to be in possession of
property with out knowing it's miles there.
Capacity defences - ANS-
Contractual responsibility case - ANS-If someone owes a contractual obligation to act, then a
failure to meet this contractual obligation may bring about crook liability: R v Pittwood
Criminal tries: Actus reus and statute - ANS-Under s1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the
actus reus of an try is "an act extra than merely preparatory of the total offence" - Tosh
Did the defendant act moderately? - ANS-Must recollect a degree test:
Was the defendant compelled to act as he or she did because he had properly reason to worry
extreme injury or death?
If the first check is glad, would a sober person of affordable firmness have spoke back the equal
way?
R v Bowen, Low IQ become inappropriate in deciding whether D discovered it hard to resist any
threats.
Did the defendant lay him open to the threats? - ANS-Cannot use defence if open to threats. -R
v Sharpe Court of appeal: "Where someone has voluntarily, and with understanding of its
nature, joined a crook employer or gang which he knew would possibly carry pressure on him to
dedicate an offence and become an lively member whilst he turned into placed below stress, he
can not avail himself of the defence of duress".
, Dishonesty detail and case - ANS-Theft Act gives three situations when a D is not dishonest
beneath Section 2 (1).
Section 2 (1) (a)-Honest belief they'd a prison right to deprive the owner of it.
Section 2 (1) (b)-Honest belief that the alternative would have consented.
Section 2(1) c)- Honest belief that the character whom the assets belongs to cannot be found
after taking reasonable steps.
Duress by way of circumstance - ANS-All offences except:
-Murder
-Attempted homicide
Duress via danger - ANS-Lord Bingham set out the take a look at in R v Hasan:
1. There must be a chance to cause death or severe damage.
2. The danger must be directed in opposition to the defendant or his family.
Three. Whether the defendant acted fairly in this light of the threats could be judged objectively
four. The threats relate immediately to the crime committed by the defendant.
5. There was no evasive action the defendant ought to have taken.
6. The defendant can not use the defence if she or he has voluntarily laid him or herself open to
the threats.
Duty imposed by means of law case - ANS-Creating a risky situation and failing to position it
right:
R v Miller
Established in what statute? - ANS-s3 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967
Exercise self control - ANS-R v Bryne
Explanation for D acts case - ANS-R v Tandy
Force or danger of pressure case - ANS-R v Clouden, does not should be directed at one
individual.
Geddes criminal precept - ANS-making plans or education to implementation or execution
Guellefer criminal principle - ANS-Did no longer embark at the crime proper- Guellefer
How to balance proportionality? - ANS-It invitations attention of a balance between the threat of
harm to the defendant and the danger of harm to the sufferer however considering that:
- A individual acting for a legitimate cause may not be capable of weigh
- Evidence of a individuals having simplest achieved what the individual truely idea became
essential.
Immediately earlier than or at the time of stealing - ANS-R v Hale, can be persevering with act
Imminent of threat - ANS-The chance want not be on the spot but it should be impending
-R v Hudson and Taylor
Insanity - ANS-Established in the case of M'Naghten. It must be hooked up that on the time of
the offence the defendant became tormented by:
i). A defect of purpose
ii). The disorder of motive must be due to a sickness of the thoughts
iii). The defect of motive must be such that the defendant did now not know what he become
doing or, if he did understand, he did now not realize the act become incorrect.
Intoxication 2 sorts - ANS-Involuntary intoxication
Voluntary intoxication
