100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na je betaling Lees online óf als PDF Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten
logo-home
Eerder door jou gezocht
Eerder door jou gezocht
logo
Criminal Law application Structures $3.98
In winkelwagen
Snel navigeren naar
Voorbeeld
  2.  
  3. OCR
  4.  
  5. Law
  6.  
  7. A2 Unit G153 - Criminal Law

Essay

Criminal Law application Structures

 1 keer verkocht
  • Vak
  • A2 Unit G153 - Criminal Law
  • Instelling
  • OCR

Outlines on how to structure application questions for OCR criminal law. Murder, Diminshed Responsibility, Loss of control, Unlawful Act manslaughter, Gross negligence manslaughter, assault, battery, s.47, s.20, s.18, theft, robbery, burglary, self-defence, consent, intoxication, duress, automatism...

[Meer zien]

Voorbeeld 2 van de 12  pagina's

Document informatie

  • 9 juli 2023
  • 12
  • 2022/2023
  • Essay
  • Onbekend
  • A+

Onderwerpen

  • ocr
  • law
  • criminal
  • essay
  • application

Geschreven voor

  • A/AS Level
  • OCR
  • Law
  • A2 Unit G153 - Criminal Law
Alle documenten voor dit vak (149)

Verkoper

avatar-seller
jackedwards1

Voorbeeld van de inhoud

Murder Structure
Definition: Murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being and under the kings or
queens peace with malice aforethought express or implied
Actus Reus:
Has The defendant killed?
- The victim must be killed by an act or omission. Cannot be guilty unless the act causes the
death
- Factual causation, ‘But for’ (Pagett)
- Legal causation, De minimus rule, ‘more than a slight or trifling link’ (Kimsey)
- Thin Skull rule, (Blaue)
- Novus Actus Interveniens, Medical negligence- ‘so independent of the accused acts and such
a powerful cause of death in itself that the contribution made by D’s conduct was
insignificant’ (Cheshire)(Jordan), Victims own acts –‘reasonably foreseeable’(Roberts)
‘daft/unreasonable’(Williams and Davies)
Was the victim a reasonable creature in being?
- Human Being
- If a foetus dies before birth it isn’t a RCIB but harm suffered after baby is born can rise to
liability(AG Ref(No3 of 1994) 1997)
Was it under the Kings peace?
- Enemy in a war is not murder but killing a prisoner of war is
Was the killing unlawful?
- Self defence, defence of another or in the prevention of a crime (reasonable force)
Mens Rea:
Malice aforethought express- Intention to kill
Malice aforethought implied- Intention to cause GBH (Cunningham 1981)
Direct intention – Aim, purpose or desire/(Mohan) decision by D to bring about the consequences
Indirect intention- (Woolin) 1. Was death or serious injury a virtual certainty? 2.Did D realise
death/serious injury was a virtual certainty

Diminished Responsibility Structure
Define murder first and then apply briefly. Factual, legal and novus actus intervienes
___ might have the partial defence of DR (s.2 Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s52 Coroners and
Justice Act 2009) Burden of proof is on ____ to show that it was more than likely than not that they
were suffering from DR when they killed. (balance of probabilities)

____ must be suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning. Abnormality of mind was
previously explained as a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary man that any
reasonable man would term it abnormal (Byrne). It is assumed abnormality of mental functioning
will be defined in a similar way. Evidence of abnormality of mental functioning…

s.52(1)a must of arose from a recognised medical condition:
 Mental deficiency (Speake)
 Pre-menstrual Tension (Smith)
 Battered Woman syndrome (Ahluwalia)
 Depressed grief reaction (Dietschmann)
 Aspergers (Jama)
 Chronic depression (Seers)

If relevant also apply rules on intoxication
Dowd- Being drunk with no other abnormality of mental functioning results in a failed defence as
being drunk is not a recognised medical condition.

, Dietschmann- Disregard the intoxication and just consider the AMF. Did the AMF itself substantially
impair D’s mental responsibility and provide an explanation for their acts
Wood- Alchohol dependency consider Was D’s craving irresistible ? How serious was the illness?
Was the consumption voluntary ?
Explain symptoms then explain the disorder… and then explain rules on intoxication if relevant

s.52(1)b must substantially impair ability to:
 s.52(1A)a Understand the nature of their conduct,
 s.52(1A)b Form rational judgements or
 s.52(1A)c Exercise self-control
In Golds the court said the impairment is substantial if it ‘significantly and appreciably impairs ability’
Explain which impairment it is and then say if it is substantial

s.52(1)c the abnormality must provide an explanation for the defendants acts/omissions in the
killing. Must be a casual connection between the defendants abnormality of mental functioning and
the killing. The abnormality need not be the only factor in causing the killing but a significant
contributory factor s.2(1B) HA 1957.
Explain if it provides an explanation using the criteria, provocation suggest not an explanation

___ was or was not suffering from DR when they killed so will be convicted of a lesser sentence of
manslaughter or will be convicted of murder.

Loss of Control structure
Define murder the apply first briefly. Factual, legal and novus actus intervienes.
___ might have the partial defence of loss of control created by s54 & 55 Coroners and Justice Act
2009 which if successful ____ will be convicted of voluntary manslaughter and the judge will have
discretion when sentencing. It is a special defence as it is only available for murder. Once ___
provides evidence to support the defence the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt
there was no loss of control (LOC) which is then a matter for the jury (R v Barnsdale-Quean)

S.54(1) where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, the defendant is not to be
convicted of murder if:
S.54(1)a D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from the defendants
loss of self control. In Jewell LOC is loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgement
or a loss in the normal powers of reasoning. ____ did what to suggest LOC. Dawes shows that this
can be the cumulative impact of earlier events, explain if there is multiple things that has happened
or the same thing over and over again. S.54(2) states that this need not be sudden, explain if there is
a time gap that LOC is still applicable. However S.54(4) if there is evidence that shows ___ killed out
of a considered act of revenge there will be no defence. If there is a ‘time lapse’ between the trigger
for the killing and the killing it does not necessarily mean there was no LOC and it was revenge.
Explain that a time gap is not necessarily revenge, it is in these circumstances or there is other
evidence to show that it was revenge. But, the greater the level of deliberation the less likely it will
be that the killing followed a true loss of control (Clinton). Explain if the defendant has
planned/decided to kill or any other form of harm.

S.54(1)b the loss of control had a qualifying trigger. S.55(3) the defendants feared serious violence
from the victims against himself or another identified person. D killed V who had attacked their
brother (Ward). D killed V after V attacked him with a baseball bat (Lodge). Explain if there is fear
and why, use the cases if relevant. AND/OR S.55(4) a thing or things said or done or both which
constitutes circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant to have a
justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. S.55(6) Sexual infidelity can never be an anger trigger

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper jackedwards1. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor $3.98. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 65040 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Begin nu gratis

Laatst bekeken door jou

Tentamen (uitwerkingen) ·

(0)

GIZMOS Balancing Chemical Equations

Tentamen (uitwerkingen) ·

(0)

BIO 181 (Capco ASU) Exam 3 (Final Exam)

Samenvatting ·

(0)

AFP samenvatting leerpakket 5

Samenvatting ·

(0)

Intensieve Zorgen - Karel Traen

Voordeelbundel ·

(0)

Bundle For ATI TEAS 7 Exams

Samenvatting ·

(0)

Samenvatting - Communicatiewetenschap

Tentamen (uitwerkingen) ·

(0)

NURS 4465 Module 4: Review/Quiz

Interview ·

(0)

IB History Authoritarian states (ENG)

Tentamen (uitwerkingen) ·

(0)

PMP Practice Test: Project RISK Mgmt

$3.98  1x  verkocht
  • (0)
In winkelwagen
Toegevoegd