Ocr A2 Law (criminal): Offical Thread!

Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100

sonya_p

yeh i guess thats right. never thought of it that way lol

Reply 101

sonya_p

lulu ur on a role girlll!!!!!

Reply 102

*lulu7*

sonya_p

lulu ur on a role girlll!!!!!

haha ino but it helpin m... so all gooooood :P

Reply 103

Multiplexed

Dagnabit LuLu... This was my idea to post notes up, revise at the same time while helping others. Haha. It looks like we're revising the same cases though, some colleges/schools teach different ones.

Reply 104

sonya_p

well u both r my law angels. works out 4 all of us :smile:

Reply 105

zoea85

totally agree with sonya, you two are stars! thanks so much xx

Reply 106

*lulu7*

anyone want nemore revision notes ???? HElps meeeee... lol so just say even if you dnt REALLY need em lol :P

Reply 107

sonya_p

haha bless ya! ermm well iv summarised non fatal offences against the person . let me seee ermmm intoxication or self defence? what suits you?

Reply 108

*lulu7*

sonya_p

haha bless ya! ermm well iv summarised non fatal offences against the person . let me seee ermmm intoxication or self defence? what suits you?

kkk il do both.. itl take me a while.. cus i wana type it out... so that i can see if iv learnt it or not!!! :P xx

Reply 109

sonya_p

alrite...il memorise my notes on non fatal in that time hehe :tongue:

im so proud of myself...iv managed to summarise them hehe

well assaults and battery are short...abh gets bigger and then gbh s20 is still a little long! but it'll do!

Reply 110

*lulu7*

sonya_p

alrite...il memorise my notes on non fatal in that time hehe :tongue:

im so proud of myself...iv managed to summarise them hehe

well assaults and battery are short...abh gets bigger and then gbh s20 is still a little long! but it'll do!

good girly :smile:

.. im a bit shakey on assaults and battery.. anyway you can put your notes for that on here plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz? then i can compare them to mine for assault n bat...cheeras my dears xxxxx

Reply 111

*lulu7*

SELF_DEFENCE + THE PREVENTION OF CRIME!!! (revision notes)yay iv learnt it :biggrin:

!!!!

A person is entitled to use reasonable force, at common law, in defence of themselves or another and under Criminal Law Act 1967, s3 to prevent a crime or an arrest.

R v Clegg 1995

•

A solider fired four shots and killed a car passenger. The fourth shot was fired after the perceived danger had passed.

•

Therefore the use of lethal force was said excessive and unreasonable.

•

One Q. on appeal was whether any distinction could be drawn between excessive force used in self-defence and that used in prevention of crime or to effect arrest.

•

D’s appeal dismissed. It was not practical to distinguish between the defences because of the potential overlap.

•

C.O.A raised Q. whether a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder was available where self-defence failed because the force used was excessive.

•

H.O.L said if defence succeeds leads to acquittal. If fails lead to a finding of guilty as charged. Recommendations for reform, but ultimately the changes made by parliament.

For defensive force to be reasonable it must be necessary to use the force in response to an attack or the fear of an imminent attack.

Attorney-General’s Ref 1984

•

D charged with having made an explosive substance (petrol bombs). He was acquitted on the basis of self-defence.

•

He intended to use the bombs to protect his premises form what he feared to be an imminent attack from rioters.

•

The use of reasonable force was not limited to spontaneous reactions on being attacked; therefore provide a lawful excuse in such cases.

•

It still may be necessary to use force even though D has not retreated or demonstrated a willingness to disengage before resorting to force

McInnes 1971

•

D stabbed and killed V during a fight.

•

He appealed against conviction for murder that self-defence is only available if D has done all reasonably can to retreat before using force.

•

C.O.A dismissed as a failure to retreat is not conclusive.

•

The court approved Julien 1969 which stated there was not duty to retreat, but there was a duty to show unwillingness to fight. However this was held to be too stringent in:

Bird 1985

•

D convicted of wounding. Her evidence was at that time she was being held by V against a wall and struck back at him in self-defence

•

She appealed against the direction and it was necessary she demonstrated and unwillingness to fight before striking.

•

Appeal allowed. Failing to demonstrate willingness to disengage was, like failure to retreat, not conclusive but one of the many factors to take into account.

If D genuinely but mistakenly believed it was necessary to use force, they are entitled to be judged on the facts as they believed them.

Beckford 1988

•

Armed police officer was convicted of murder, having shot and killing V.

•

He appealed against the direction that he could only rely on his mistaken belief that he was acting in self-defence if it was based on reasonable grounds.

Appeal allowed. Following Williams a genuine belief that it was necessary to use force would negate the intent to act unlawfully.

The degree of force used must be proportionate and no more than necessary in the circumstances

Palmer 1971

•

D convicted of murder shot and killed V in what he claimed self-defence.

•

D’s appeal dismissed. The defence only applied where force was reasonably necessary.

•

The jury should bear in mind “ a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action”

The test for the degree of permissible force is objective. This was confirmed in:
Martin 2002

•

D shot two burglars, killing one and wounding the other.

•

He suffered a paranoid personality disorder that caused him to believe he was in extreme peril.

•

C.O.A distinguished Smith 2001 on provocation and held that this disorder was not relevant in assessing the use of reasonable force in self-defence.

•

C.O.A rejected appeal but quashed the murder conviction to manslaughter.

If D makes a mistake about he circumstances in which force is used, they are entitled to be judged on the facts as they believed them in determining objectively the force used, was reasonable.

Scarlett 1993

•

A pub landlord was convicted of constructive manslaughter, based on an act of assault.

•

He appealed on the ground that the act causing death was reasonable force used to eject a trespasser from the pub.

•

Appeal allowed. Even an unreasonable mistaken belief that force was lawful precluded the mens rea of assault.

•

D could only be convicted if degree of force used was excessive in circumstance he honestly believe them to be

Reply 112

*lulu7*

sonya..do you know anyone of your mates or anyone.. who takin the AQA media studies exam on monday??? really need help discussin it??????? if you could tell them to come on here.. it would be much appreciated....

Reply 113

sonya_p

hi

that means il have to type them. itll take me a little while then.
my school doesnt have media studies. i think we do film studies.

ok going to type them now.

Reply 114

sonya_p

Assault

Actus Reus

Assault occurs when the dft. causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence.

The victim need only anticipate anxiety or fear of personal injury:
e.g.
•raising fist
•pointing gun – Lamb 1967-
The victim at whom the gun was pointed did not fear the possible infliction of violence because neither he nor his friend believed that the gun with which they were playing would fire.

However, if an imitation weapon has been used but the victim believed it to be real then an assault would have occurred.

Words alone can constitute an assault:

•conduct causing the victim to believe that harm might be inflicted can amount to an assault.

1)Earlier dicta suggested that it could not –
Maede and Belt 1823- ‘no words or singing are equivalent to an assault’

2)Modern view suggests it can –
Wilson 1985 – ‘get out the knives’

3)Silence can amount to an assault
Ireland 1998 – the dft. Terrorised women with silent telephone calls.

Words might prevent an assault:

•words used which may indicate there will be no violence will not be an assault
Tuberville v Savage- ‘if it were not assize time I would not take such language.

How immediate must be the assault?

•courts have adopted a liberal interpretation of the word ‘immediate’ in order to provide justice to the victim .

Smith v Chief Superintendent- victim in her nightclothes was badly frightened by the accused because he trespassed on her property and was staring at her through throw window. He tried to argue that the accused could not have committed an immediate assault because the windows and doors were locked. The court of Appeal held that she believed she was in danger of having immediate violence inflicted on her. Her fear did not have to be rationalised.

Ramos 2000 – victim’s state of mind rather than the statistical risk of violence should be taken in to account.

Mens Rea:

• intention
• reckless (Cunningham style)

Reply 115

*lulu7*

This should help people with source1 of the synoptic.. u need to know this.. these are the notes the teacher wrote up for us students...

Literal rule

Statutes are taken ‘literally’. The meanings of words are not looked at and this can sometimes lead to absurdities.

Harris

• He was not held to have committed an offence as the statutory offence “unlawfully and maliciously, cut or wound any person”

• The literal words indicated use of an instrument.

R v City London Court
• Should be followed. Even if it had a manifest of absurdity.

ADV
 Encourages precision in drafting

DISADV
 Judges tend to excessively emphasise the literal meaning without giving due weight to their meaning in wider contexts.

 It ignores the limitations of lang

Golden Rule
Meanings and relevance of words. This still focuses on the definitions of the words and not the intention of the statute.

Sigsworth
• Even thought the words in the act would have meant murderous son would be entitled to money being the ‘next of kin’, Parliament would not intend this.

Jones v DPP
R v Allen

This rule was defined by Lord Blackburn 1877

DISADV
Rule provides no clear means to test the existence of the characteristics of absurdity, inconsistency or inconvenience

“The golden rule is less explicit form of the mischief rule” law commission.

Literal rule classed under literal approach, whereas the golden and mischief are known as the purposive approach

Mischief rule

Seeks to find the intention of parliament to est. the purpose of the statute.

The development of this rule was Haydon’s case 1584. The case encouraged judges:

• To look at previous laws
• Explore what was wrong with the law
• Identify how parliament intended to bring improvements.

Lord Denning believes in the purposive approach:

“We should aim to produce decisions that were in the spirit of the law, even if this doesn’t mean following the exact wording”

How judges interpret statutes

• Try to fit into what the purpose of the law is

• Firstly so with the literal rule, if they think this is daft, they use other possibilities

• They will use whatever rule will suit and what they think is right

• Political influence

your choice whether you learn this or not......????

Reply 116

sonya_p

woo this does help!!!

Reply 117

*lulu7*

cool thanx sonya.. :smile:

... reallyyyyyy helpful.. need to add that lot to me notes ...

Reply 118

*lulu7*

have you got anything on involuntary manslaughter???? :s-smilie:

really really strugglin.. im totally fine with the defences and synoptic and murder..... but it just manslaughter!!! ???????????????????????

Reply 119

*lulu7*

Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
D needs to have mens rea:

Taaffe (1983)

 He thought money was in the packages (he thought this was illegal) but there was actually cannabis.

 Therefore he did not have the mens rea, importing currency was not a crime

 Conviction quashed.

D does an act with intent to cause actus reus but then repents.

Jakeman (1983)

 She dispatched suitcases she knew contained cannabis

 Before they arrived, she repented, but was convicted.

D is still guilty of a crime even if the final part of the act is involuntary or accident.

Ryan (1967)

 D process of tying up a petrol station attendant, who he robbed

 The PSA suddenly moved, startling D to pull trigger. Convicted manslaughter.

The continuing act theory

When the actus reus takes place over a long period of time, it is sufficient if D forms the mens rea at some point.

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)

 Man had car on policeman’s foot. This would have been accidental at this point.

 However D said he could wait, when the policeman asked him to remove the car off his foot. At this point D has mens rea

 Convicted of assault.

The transaction theory

Where the actus reau is a series of events, as long as there is the mens rea, at some point in the crime can be proven guilty.

Just because D’s act that he didn’t act that he didn’t expect to happen at that time, there is not defence.

Thabo Meli and Others (1954)

 D had mens rea as it was pre-arranged D took V to hut and plied him with beer.

 D struck him on the head, believing him to be dead they rolled his body down a cliff.

 He was actually still alive, but died from exposure.

This followed the leading case

Church (1965)

 D struck woman, believed she was dead (but she was just unconscious) and threw her in the river,

 She drowned and he was convicted of manslaughter (as it wasn’t pre-arranged)

 C.O.A upheld conviction.

If you try to hide and cover up things can’t get away with this.

Le Brun (1991)

 D punched wife unconscious, attempted to drag body, he accidently dropped her, which caused her to die by hitting head on kirb.

 Convicted of manslaughter

Mens rea is not the same as motive

Mens rea= state of mind that D must have had at the moment of committing actus reus.

Examples:

Murder-D wants inheritance-motive not mens rea

Theft-stealing food because D is hungry, bored etc not mens rea, unless they want to permanently deprive.

Exceptions showing you can have a motive now:

 Assaults (incl. ABH, GBH + wounding)
 Criminal damage
 Public order offences
 Harrassment.

Transferred malice

If D has mens rea and accidently performs actus reus in a different way this is not relevant and would still be guilty.

Attorney General’s Ref. (1997)

 D stabbed pregnant gf, she gave birth prematurely

 The stab wound had penetrated the foetus and the child died.

 D could only be convicted of manslaughter, as when the actus reus was committed the child was 23 weeks, a feoutus, which didn’t count as existing.

Latimer (1886)

 D had quarrel with E, took his belt and swing to hit E but struck F severely wounding her.

 D was convicted of wounding F even though this was accidental.

Mitchell (1983)

 D impatient in P.O, forced his way through, D punched an old man causing him to fall backwards onto a 89 yr old woman who died

 C.O.A upheld D’s manslaughter conviction.

If D has mens rea of one crime but commits the actus reus of another, he can’t be convicted, as they don’t coincide.

Pembilton (1874)

 D involved in a fight, started throwing stones at people, but missed and hit a window.

 D was convicted of malicious damage. C.O.A quashed conviction, as D intended to hit people, not the window.