Murder Theft Rape – Sexual Offences Act 2003

Vickers (1957) – MR for murder is intention to kill or inflict GBH Hilton (1997) & Briggs (2004): Theft requires a positive act, cannot be done by omission. Cogan (1976) – Rape can only be committed by a man
Nicklinson (2014) - Consent not a defence for Crim liability, rejection of euthanasia / Chan Man Sin v AG Hong Kong: does not require actual loss as it deals with property Kaitamaki (1985) – If consent ceases during the Act, the man must withdraw or be liable.
dueling. rights. Allen- Vagina includes the Vulva, slight penetration is all that is required.
Woollin (1999)-Indirect Intent, death/GBH must be virtually certain & D must appreciate Atakpu (1994): Appropriation is a continuing act, but Theft is a finite one. Ismail (2005) – Courts hold no distinction as to the type of penetration, all equally serious
this. Morris (1983): App occurs even if D assumes 1 right of ownership as opposed to all. AG’s Ref No.1 of 1992: No need to prove penetration, enough to show Ds acts were MTMP.
DPP v Smith (1961) / Suanders : Serious Harm = GBH Gomez (1993): D can assume rights even when act done with consent of original owner. Bree (2007): Where V drinks but is able to choose to have sex, it would not be rape. But
Gibbins & Proctor: Killing can be done through omission Hinks (2000): Appro can occur even when rights of the property were properly Coates (2008): (i) If V is so drunk that they don’t have capacity to agree, then it would be
transferred. rape. (ii) if V is asleep or unconscious, thru drink or drugs, then intercourse would be rape.
Loss of Control – Reduces Murder to Voluntary Manslaughter
Smith (2011): Property = money, things in action, intangible property & real/personal J. Assange v Swedish PA & R(F) v DPP 2013: Rape If an expressed condition of sex is violated
Ahluwalia (1992) – loss of control does not have to be immediate, also Dawes (2013)
items J. McNally v R (2013): Deception as to gender wrong, deception as to wealth not wrong Lol.
Duffy (1949): Devlin J defines provocation: “loss of self-control = not master of his own
Concoran v Whent: Property must belong to another at the time of appropriation. Tabassum: Decption as to Nature and Quality of Act will vitiate consent.
mind”.
Davidge v Bunnett & Wain (1994): It is theft if D treats with property contrary to its Sharif(2004): Threat to expose woman’s sexual history to family will negate consent.
Clinton, Parker & Evans (2012) – Sexually infidelity is not a qualifying trigger
purpose R v Devonald (2008): Deception as to essential cornerstone of the act will negate consent.
Asmelash (2013) Intoxication irrelevant to determining loss of control
Shadrokh-Cigari (1988): When property received by mistake, subseq appro will be theft. Jheeta (2007): Where the V doesn’t have freedom to exercise free choice or consent = Rape.
Holley / Wilcocks (2016): Objective test only (reasonable person), mental illness not used.
Robinson (1997): Not dishonest if D believes he has a right to deprive the other of it. RvB(2007): Not Rape if V consents to sex with D & D knew but did not disclose HIV+ status.
Bowyer (2013): Sense of being wrong must be justified.
Ivey v Genting (2017): Test- Was what was done dishonest according to the stds of RHM? White (2010): To find absence of consent, jury must find (i) D did the act, (ii) A Section 76(2)
Diminished Responsibility – Reduces Murder to Voluntary Manslaughter Burglary circumstance existed and (iii) D knew that they existed.
Bryne (1960): AMF means state of mind so different from ordinary, TRM calls it abnormal.
Golds (2016): Need for AMF to substantially effect his ability to understand/control himself. Offence Against The Person – Governed under OAPA Act 1861 Inchoate Offences
Brennan (2014): For the AMF to be recognized medical condition, expert evidence is S18 - Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent - Robinson (1915): Distinction betwn preparation & attempts - concept of proximity. Old law
Coutts (2006) & Mandair (1994): s.18 charges include charges for S.20 & S.47 Campbell (1991), Gullefer 1990: Acts must go beyond what is more than merely preparatory
Involuntary Manslaughter – Lacks the MR for Murder Morrison (1989): Test for recklessness in all OAP is subjective, need for proof of intent. Geddes (1996): Did the D try to start to commit the crime – more than merely preparatory
Hancock and Shankland (1985) > probability of consequence the more likely it was foreseen Re Knights Appeal (1968): Recklessness is not enough, need to prove ulterior intent. Pearman (1984): Must prove D acted with intent to commit particular crime. Direct/Oblique
& if it was foreseen, the > probability it was intended. Taylor (2009): intent to wound insufficient, must be intent to cause GBH. Whybrow (1951): Attempted murder requires no less than intent to kill
Gross Negligence Manslaughter S.20 - Grievous Bodily Harm- Khan : If recklessness as to circumstances is enough for full offense -> enough for attempts
Adomako (1994): Obj Test for GNM = Breach of DOC + Caused Death + Breach is grossly Neg Moriarty v Brooks: A wound is a break in continuity of the whole skin (top 2 layers) AG Ref No. 3 (1992): D is guilty of attempt to commit criminal offense if he is in one of the
Wacker (2002) Willoughby (2004): DOC can exist in a criminal enterprise, tho not a civil one. C v Eisenhower (1984): Internal injury/blood vessel rupture is not a wound. states of mind required for full offense & does his best to supply what is missing.
Evans (2009): If person caused dangerous situation, DOC would be imposed to save life. Ireland (1998): Severe psychiatric harm would suffice as GBH. AG ref No 1&2: conditional intent can form basis of attempt if indictment worded properly
Bawa-Garba (2016): Must show that what D did was “truly exceptionally bad”. Bollom (2004): Characteristics of D should be taken to account i.e. harm for adult v child.
Rose (2016): Risk of death must be obvious & serious at time of the breach of duty Dica (2004): Transmitting fatal/serious diseases qualifies as GBH i.e. AIDS, HIV+
Constructive / Unlawful Act manslaughter Brady (2006): D either intended or was reckless (foresaw) to cause wound/GB
Accessorial Liability
Lamb (1967): Base crime must be proved in full for D to be liable (AR+MR-D). Mowatt (1968): Enough D intended or foresaw some harm rather than wound/GBH.
Jogee/Ruddock (2016): 1. Did the D assist/encourage the commission of a crime? 2. Did
Lowe (1973): The Unlawful act must be positive, an omission is insufficient. S.47 – Actual Bodily Harm –
the D intend to assist/encourage the P? Must do more than foresee commission of crime.
DPP v Newbury (1977): Salmon L– Test is “Would Reasonable ppl recognize the Act’s Roberts (1971): Could the RM foresee V’s act, if not then a NAI would break the CoC.
Bellman (1989): If 1 of 2 D’s commit a crime & impossible to know which, must acquit both
danger?” Williams & Davies: Refined the test, Need to consider V’s mental state & rel qualities.
Maclin & Murphy (1838): if several ppl act together with common intent, every act done by
M(J) 2013: Type of harm need not be foreseeable, only that TRM would foresee some harm. DPP v Santana Bermudez (2004): Assault can be committed by a willful omission.
each of them in furtherance of intent is done by all.
DJ (2007): Burden of proving D’s unlawful act led to death must be discharged Miller (1954) “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health & comfort of V,
Stringer (2011): aiding requires actual assistance but not consensus or causation. Luffman
Blaue (1975): Thin Skull Rule. provided it is more than transient & trifling” Chan-Fook (1994) includes psychiatric harm
Calhaem (1985): no need for causation in counselling but P must be aware of D’s support
Kennedy (2007): If V self-injects drugs, then NAI applies and D will not be liable for death. T v DPP (2003): temporary loss of senses and consciousness.
National Coal Board v Gamble: Motive irrelevant but must prove D knew his acts would (or
CPS Charging Stds: extensive bruising, broken nose, minor fractures, cuts needing
even might) assist or encourage P to commit the offense.
Assault stitching, broken teeth.
R v Bryce (2004): Enough D aided + contemplated ‘real possibility’ of commission of offense
Logdon v DPP (1976): Threatening Acts/Gestures can cause the V to apprehend violence.
Johnson v Youden: MR = Knowledge (foresight) + Essential characteristics of the offense
Constanza (1997): Words alone or Ireland (1998): silent telephone calls. Lord Steyn “Thing Defences
said is a thing done”. Hasan (2005): L. Bingham - Elements of Duress: Threat of death/injury, made to D or
Read v Coker (1853): Conditional threats are also assaults. someone close, no evasive action possible, cannot be used for threats D opens himself to Joint Enterprise Liability -
Lamb (1967): V must only anticipate/expect to be subjected to force. No need to feel fear. Martin (1989): Def only available if D was acting reasonably & proportionately to save life Jogee (2016): overruled Chan Win Su (1985): MR of Joint Ent is not = foresight of P’s crime.
Smith v Chief Super of Woking: Harm must be imminent/impending not necessarily instant. Re A (2000): Brooke LJ 3 conditions 1) Act is needed to avoid irreparable evil 2) No more Foresight is merely evidence by which intent could be evidenced.
R v Savage & Parmenter (1992): MR is Intention or Cunningham subjective recklessness. should be done than is necessary 3) Evil inflicted cannot be greater than evil avoided. R v Mendez & Thompson: i) JE do not have to be pre planned & can be spontaneous ii) For
Battery – Palmer v R (1971): Man attacked may defend himself but only do what is rea necessary. an act to be beyond what was foreseen/intended it would have to be much more dangerous
Fagan v MPC (1969): Requires a positive act, a willful omission could be sufficient AR. Insanity Cases: Clarke (1972), Sullivan (1984), Codere (1916), Johnson (2007). Toulson K: Type of weapon does not matter, only the degree of injury it is likely to cause.
DPP v K (1990) – Application of Force need not be directly applied & Haystead v DPP (2000) Bratty vs AG N. Ireland: Denning LJ “No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily”. Escaping JE Liability
DPP v Santana Bermudez (2004): recklessly failing to act when D caused danger is enough DPP v Majewski: D’s voluntary intox gives MR i.e. recklessness (basic intent crimes only). Yemoh (2009): P’s act being fundamentally different from D’s foresight is a question of fact.
Collins v Wilcock (1984): Consent is a defence to battery. “Most physical contacts are not Kingston (1994): Only when D’s shows lack of MR due to involuntary intox can he escape Rook (1993): Failing to turn up is insufficient to escapr JE liability.
actionable because of implied consent necessary to move around in everyday life” Goff LJ liability. If intox only removed inhibitions, then MR is still present & D is liable. Mitchell & King (1998): Communication of withdrawal not necessary when violence is
Faulkner v Talbot (1981): Battery need not be hostile, rude or aggressive, Only unwelcome. Tolson (1889): Honest & reasonable mistake = absence of reasoning faculty. No MR spontaneous but more required to show withdrawal - walking away or dropping weapons.
Dungey (1864): A kiss, Smith (1866): Spitting, Thomas (1985): Touching only clothing R & G (2003): D did not foresee consequences & is thus not reckless. (Subjective test)
Murder AR: The unlawful killing of a human being with MR: the intent to kill (expressed Theft – Theft Act (1968) S1. Dishonestly Appropriates Property Belonging to another with Rape – governed under Sexual Offences Act 2003 – S1
malice) or cause grievous bodily harm (implied malice). D must view death as a virtual the Intent of permanently depriving the other of it. A person commits an offence if (1) He intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of
certainty of their actions. Liable on indictment for a mandatory life sentence. another person with his penis, (2) V does not consent to the penetration, and (3) he does not
Burglary – S9.1 (Trespassing is a prerequisite for Burglary, otherwise the offense is Theft).
reasonably believe that Victim consents.
Defences – can reduce the charge of Murder to Voluntary Manslaughter. Must be sufficient A) D must enter a building (or part of building) as a trespasser & have intent to commit a
Only penetration with a penis is rape, otherwise it is Sexual Assault by Penetration – S2
evidence to raise defence (borne by D) & the State must disprove beyond reasonable doubt. S.9.2 offence – inchoate crime with no need to prove commission of substantial offence.
Loss of Control – S.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009. There must be a genuine loss of self- B) Having entered any building (or part of it as a trespasser) D steals (or attempts to steal) Because absence of consent is difficult to prove, S75 & 76 of the SOA (evidential and
control (evidence needed), caused by a qualifying trigger (such fear of serious violence) anything in the building or inflicts (or attempts to inflict) on any person inside any conclusive presumptions) were created to presume intent.
where a normal, reasonable person of the same age and sex would have reacted in a similar grievous bodily harm – complete crime requiring proof of commission. S.76 – D deceives Victim as to (a) nature of his act or (b) identity of his person
way (Objective Test). The Qualifying Trigger can also be a thing said or done which a) S.75 – 1) Use of Violence or Fear of Violence on V 2) on another 3) V was detained & D was
Aggravated Burglary – S.10(1) D commits any burglary and at the time has with him any
constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and/or caused D to have a not 4) V was asleep 5) V was disabled & could not communicate consent 6) drugged the V to
firearm, imitation firearm, explosive or weapon of offence.
justifiable sense of ‘being SERIOUSLY wronged’. D must not incite as excuse to use violence. subdue and overpower them.
Making off without payment S.3 Theft Act 1978: D must know payment is required or
Diminished Responsibility – S.2 Homicide Act 1957 amended by s.52 Coroners and Justice
expected, dishonestly make off without paying, have the intent to avoid payment. MR - Whether a D’s belief is reasonable or not, is assessed objectively. It does not matters
Act 2009. There must be an Abnormality of Mental Functioning (AMF), caused by a
that the defendant thought his belief was reasonable.
recognised medical condition (Use DSM-v or ICD-10), which substantially impaired D’s ability Criminal Damage S1. Criminal Damage Act 1971: D (without lawful excuse) Destroys or
to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational judgement and exercise self-control damages Property belonging to another Intending to destroy or damage or Being reckless
and AMF must be a cause or a significant factor in D’s killing. AMF cannot be caused by as to whether any such property would be damaged or destroyed.
intoxicants. Burden of proving this defence rests on the D. Medical evidence not always
Inchoate Offences – governed under – S1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981
needed, must demonstrate that the state of mind so different from ordinary that a
reasonable person would term it abnormal.
AR- perform an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of an offence.
Attempts and Mere preparations are distinguished by the proximity test. Did the D try to
Involuntary Manslaughter (lacks the MR of murder) requires proof of fault but the nature of
Start to commit the offence? Goes past Point of no return?
that fault varies according to the type of manslaughter charged. Reckless manslaughter
MR - intent to commit an offence, very specific intent. Even in crimes of strict liability.
requires foresight of death or serious injury. Rarely charged as hard to prove foresight and
Something less than specific intent may be sufficient in some circumstances like recklessness
most similar crimes are charged as constructive manslaughter.
as to lack of consent in rape cases.
Gross negligence manslaughter requires no foresight, but a very high degree of Negligence
(horrendous) to cause the risk of death. There must exist Breach of a duty of Care + Gross Ds can be convicted of attempt despite having committed the full offence - S6(4) Criminal
Negligence + Cause Death. Can be done by act or omission. Must be a serious + obvious risk Law Act 1967. *Need for Reform of law of attempts* Law Comm 2007
of death, not just harm. Standard of care is that of a reasonable man in their position.
Constructive / Unlawful Act manslaughter requires neither foresight nor negligence as to
the risk of death or serious injury. It requires simply the commission of a criminal act
(MR+AR-D) + which was dangerous (likely to cause harm/death) + caused the death of the Accessorial Liability – Governed under S8. Accessories & Abettors Act 1861 - Whosoever
victim. Omissions are not enough. Sober and reasonable people must recognise the danger. shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence shall be liable to
Prosecution bears burden of proving D’s unlawful act caused the death of the victim. be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.

Devlin J - aiding and abetting is a crime that requires proof of mens rea, which is intention to
Non Fatal Assaults – Criminal Justice Act 1988
aid [or encourage] as well as of knowledge of the circumstances. Recklessness / Negligence
Assault (Psychic Attack) - D intentionally or recklessly leads V to apprehend (expectation of Defences can lead to acquittal or to a mitigation of liability. Prosecution continues to bear is not enough, D must have knowledge P’s intent is criminal and type of crime intended. D
harm) the application to his body of immediate unlawful force (battery). Recklessness the burden of proving all allegations and disproving any defences raised (unless otherwise must also know the essential characteristics of the crime (conduct elements, consequences,
requires D to have been aware of the risk. reversed). D must still discharge an evidential burden regarding any defences pleaded. P’s mens rea).
Battery - D, intentionally or recklessly, inflicts unlawful (non -consensual) force on V. Affirmative Defences - blocks criminal liability although D has performed the actus reus
of the offence with mens rea – Justifies / Excuses D’s conduct
 Duress by threat: D reasonably believes he is being threatened with Death/Serious
injury Joint Enterprise Liability - Used where 2 or more persons share intent to commit a
Non Fatal Assaults – Governed under Offence Against Persons Act 1861 (OAPA) particular crime. No need to prove active participation for all as liability stems from shared
 Duress by Circumstances: Acts from fear of Death/Serious Injury, reasonable person
S.47 – Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm - Assault / battery which causes ABH. MR is test intent for execution of a common purpose. Parties may be both Principals or Secondaries
strictly liable. ABH – any hurt of injury which interferes with health of victim. Use CPS  Necessity: Needed to avoid an evil, not excessive, not disproportionate to evil avoided. (accomplices).
Standards. Must prove the full elements of the Assault. MR of ABH is MR of Assault.  Self Defense: use of force for a specific purpose, which necessary and reasonable. Post Jogee (2016): Foresight of consequences is only evidence of intention, but NOT
S.20 - Grievous Bodily Harm- unlawfully and maliciously wounds or inflicts GBH upon any Failure of Proof Defences – Denies Actus Reus / Mens Rea elements of the crime intention itself. A jury now has the room to consider, instead of being bound as in Chan Win
other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument. Basic Intent Crime but  Automatism – Complete loss of control + external cause + not self-induced = defence. Su (1985).
Mowatt lowers threshold – D intends / foresees SOME harm. Wound – separation of 2 layers  Insanity – A defect of reason caused by a disease of mind making it so that D did not
of skin with blood. know the nature and quality of his act or that his act was wrong. M’Naughten Rules – Escaping JE Liability – Ds can escape JE liability if L
S18 - Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent - unlawfully and maliciously (intent/recklessness) by All are sane til proven otherwise, evidential burden is on the D.  Crime committed completely different from what was agreed upon, acting beyond what
any means, wound or cause GBH to any person, with intent to do or with the intent or  Voluntary intoxication -must be VERY drunk to avoid liability for specific intent crimes is foreseen/intend i.e. “In a different league”.
ulterior intent (resist or prevent arrest). No Mowatt Gloss. but will in turn be liable for any basic intent crimes. Drunk = Recklessness.  Withdrawal – possible before the crime is discharged or while it is being committed.
 Involuntary intoxication - Did D form the MR for the offence charged despite the drug?