Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
I got a grade A for A level law (2014) so I highly recommend using this thread and the techniques I used
THESE ANSWERS ARE GUARANTEED TO GET YOU A SOUND WITH SUFFICIENT APPLICATION
MURDER

Murdahhh

Definition first "Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought" - Sir Edward Coke then say x may be convicted of the murder of y

Then actus reus which is the unlawful killing " x's action of stabbing y resulted in the death of y and as murder is result crime it must be proven the death caused was both factual and legal. "but for x stabbing y, y would not have died - white" and the act of stabbing is both operative and a significant contribution" - Smith, cheshire

Mens rea is intention to kill (expressed) or inflict GBH (implied) and must be done with 'malice aforethought' - Vickers. In regards to intention, Matthews V Alleyne rules intention is a rule of evidence for the jury to decide. It can be both direct through the D's decision to bring about the consequence of death or gbh -Maloney or indirect where death is virtually certain and the D appreciated this.- Nedrick,Woollin . X had the expressed mens rea as he had intent to kill (maloney) through the actions of stabbing y.

Both elements of murder are satisfied
2
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#2
LOSS OF CONTROL
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#4
GROSS NEGLIGENCE

GROSSS NEGLIGENCEEEEEEE
X may be charged with gross negligence manslaughter which occurs when the death results from a negligent act. We must prove there was a duty of care, breach of duty, a risk of death, the d's act was substantial,and the mens rea of gnm

Duty of care - Donoghue v stevenson neighbour principle (WACKER)

Breach of duty. The d is tested against what an ordinary individual would have done. - (Becker) Bateman rules "The jury must consider whether the breach goes beyond a matter of mere compensation and shows such disregard for the life and safety of others to amount to a criminal conviction"

Breach must carry a risk of death. (Misra, Rv singh)

GN must be the substantial cause of death (Finley, Edwards)

Lastly the mens rea it the d's grossly negligent behaviour. Adamako highlighted four states of mind

  • Actual foresight of risk
  • inattention or failure to address a serious risk
  • appreciation of the risk with an intention to avoid it
  • indifference to an obvious risk

0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#5
UNLAWFUL ACT MANSLAUGHTER


INVOLUNTARYYYYY

Unlawful act manslaughter is also known as constructive manslaughter and these is liability for death from an "Unlawful" and "Dangerous" act. This act cannot be a tort or contract - Rv Franklin and the D can be convicted even if the death was not contemplated.

There must be an unlawful act. It cannot be an omission. Lamb had no criminal offence so no conviction for manslaughter. X's act was clearly unlawful as....

This unlawful act must have been dangerous. The test is in Church "would a reasonable an sober person realise the act would risk causing some harm". X's act is in no doubt dangerous as...... and this risk is over and above "fear" - Dawson

The death must have been caused by the unlawful act (Goodfellow). x's act must have caused death factually "but for x's acts y would not have died" and legally as established in smith and cheshire. x's act were both operative and substantial and more than significant contribution

Lastly, in order to prove UAM there must be a positive act and this must be accompanied by the mens rea to commit that act. x has the mens rea of
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#6
MURDER CRITICISMS ANDREFORMS
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#7
NON-FATAL CRITICISM AND REFORMS
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
Insanity
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#9
Automatism
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#10
Self Defence
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#11
Causation
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#12
Consent
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#13
Intoxication
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#14
Bumpity bump
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#15
:bump:
0
reply
neal95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
PRSOM thanks mate these are really helpful!
0
reply
King Leonidas
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
Wish you were around when I studied A-Level Law
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by neal95)
PRSOM thanks mate these are really helpful!
Glad to have helped

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#19
BUMP
0
reply
Dilsz
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#20
bumpy
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

If you're planning on going to uni this year, would any of these financial reasons stop you?

Not being able to work now to save up for uni (92)
13.88%
Reduced household income due to coronavirus means I can't afford to go (55)
8.3%
Lack of part-time jobs to support me while I'm at uni (85)
12.82%
Lack of graduate job prospects when I finish uni (80)
12.07%
Other reasons are stopping me going (84)
12.67%
Nothing is stopping me going (267)
40.27%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed