Provides notes for all Aot's of the OCR Law course and all relevant Ao's needed for the evaluation question. Been compiling as a revision document over my studies and I have recently finished my A-levels but don't want to see it go to waste.
Theft
Theft, outlined in the theft act 1968 states a person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly
appropriate property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive. The actus
reus comprises of three elements from the statute which is, appropriation, property and
belonging to another. Appropriation is the assumption of the rights of the owner, seen in
Morris and Burnside. The appropriation happens at a point, Atakpu and Abrahams, and V
can consent to D taking the property; however if it is done dishonestly, D is guilty of theft,
established in Lawrence. Property is classed as money and all other property, real or
personal, including things in action and other intangible property. D can have an obligation to
use property for a certain purpose, established in Davidge and Bunnet. If D is given more
than deserved, such as more change than needed after a shop transaction, D has an
‘obligation to restore’, established in A-G’s reference 1985. The test for dishonesty is an
objective test which was established in Ivey and if D genuinely believed they are entitled to
the property, they are not dishonest and not guilty, established in Robinson. D does not have
to keep the property to intend to permanently deprive, established in Warner.
Burglary
Burglary , outlined in the theft act 1968, has two types. A 9.1(A) burglary is if D trespasses
with intent to commit theft, GBH. D does not have to commit these offences to be guilty of
burglary, having intent is enough. A 9.1(B) offence is if D trespasses and does not enter with
intent to commit theft or GBH however ,while in the building, gains this intent and attempts to
or succeeds in committing theft or GBH. D must have entered the building and the entry he
made must have been ‘effective’. An effective entry is classed as an entry that aids D in
committing the offence he is attempting, established in Brown and Ryan. Trespass means D
enters the building without express or implied intent. Expressed intent is an invitation such
as inviting someone into your home, established in Collins, and implied intent is shared
knowledge you are allowed in a building, such as a supermarket. D must acknowledge they
are a trespasser however does not need intent for mens rea, only recklessness. You may
have implied intent however you can ‘exceed your permission’, established in Jones and
Smith. Burglary of a dwelling is more serious than any other building. Any building on the
grounds of a house is still a domestic burglary, established in Rodmell. Any inhabited object,
such as a boat or caravan, is viewed as a building. Any uninhabited structure must have a
level of permanency to be seen as a building, established in B and S Leathley.
Robbery
Robbery is an indictable offence, meaning it can only be tried in crown court. Section 8 of the
theft act 1968 outlines the law on Robbery. Robbery is committed if D uses force or
threatens to use force in order to or at the time of the robbery. A robbery conviction can
result in life imprisonment. A conviction of theft must be established before a robbery
conviction can be obtained. If D honestly believed they owned the property and had the right
to it, D is not guilty, established in Robinson. There still has to be intention to permanently
deprive, established in waters. Attempted robbery is still a robbery and can be convicted,
established in Anderton. Very little force is required to meet a robbery conviction, established
in Dawson and Clouden. D does not have to apply the force, they can still be convicted of a
,robbery even when threatening force, established in B and R v DPP. The force used has to
be immediately before, at the time or during the robbery, established in Hale and Lockley.
Appropriation is a continuing act during robbery whereas in theft it happens at a point,
conflicting with the decision in Atakpu and Abrahams. The force or threat of force must be
used to steal. D must have dishonesty, an intent to deprive and intention to use or threaten
force.
Constructive manslaughter
No mens rea required for the killing but mens rea of recklessness needed for the prior act
Does not have to be directed at a person, can be directed at an object (Goodfellow)
The danger of the act is determined through an objective test similar to the reasonable
person test (R v Larkin)
Involuntary manslaughter does not have the intention to kill or cause serious harm unlike
murder and voluntary manslaughter
There can be no intervening act (pagget) that breaks the chain (white)
There HAS to be an unlawful act (Arobieke)
Transferred malice can apply to the scenario (Mitchell)
Can D understand his actions may cause physical harm due to the frailty of V (Watson)
The supplying of drugs is not an unlawful act which can lead to unlawful act manslaughter IF
the buyer is of sound mind (R v Kennedy)
Gross negligence manslaughter
The three rules of negligence, established in Donoghue and stevenson are:
Duty of care
Breach of duty that causes death
Risk of death
A test for GNM was established in Bateman and later approved in andrews v DPP
Leading case is Adomako
The test says the prosecution have to prove:
1. A owed a duty of care to B
2. The duty was not discharged correctly
3. The failure to discharge the duty caused the death of B
4. A’s negligence was so bad as to amount to a crime
This test was most recently approved in Broughton
The basic rules of causation apply to GNM (Pagget and Kimsey)
GNM can happen through omission (Gibbins and proctor)
D still owes a duty of care even if the situation is unusual or illegal (Wacker)(Willoughby)
Diminished responsibility
Any recognised medical condition that causes an abnormality of mental functioning-
depression(Gittens), alcohol dependency syndrome (Tandy), Battered spouse
syndrome(Aluhwalia).
The 3 key points of diminished responsibility ask whether the issue led to D being unable to-
1. Understand the conduct of their actions - do not see the severity of their actions
2. To form a rational judgement - unable to properly think through their actions
3. To exercise self control -unable to stop themselves
,The burden of proof lies with prosecution however the defence have to prove D’s medical
conditions via a professional. This is done on the balance of probability
Abnormality of mental functioning is classed as where the average person would have such
a different thought process to D that it is termed as abnormal. This was seen in Byrne.
Medical conditions do not have to be recognised however it has to be proved by a licensed
medical expert that the issue affects the state of mental functioning of D. Abnormality of
mental functioning has to be a significant factor in D carrying out the criminal conduct and
there has to be a link, even if small, between the crime and D’s abnormality of mental
functioning. Being drunk is not a defence as your first drink was voluntary however if there
are other factors such as D also being depressed and drunk while the crime is committed,
the use of alcohol can be factored in, alcohol can be a factor but not the sole factor, seen in
dietschmann. Alcohol dependence syndrome is classified when the first drink the D
consumes is involuntary and an act of giving into a craving so strong it is irresistible, due to
either withdrawal symptoms or a lack of sound judgement to fight said craving, established in
Tandy. Wording of substantially impaired is undefined and up to the jury to decide
Loss of control
Loss of control, established in section 54 of the coroners and justice act, has to have a
qualifying trigger outlined in section 55 of the coroners and justice act 2009. The act asks
whether someone of D’s age, sex and ethnicity would do the same in that same situation
and whether they reacted in a similar way to everyone else (the reasonable person test)
A qualifying trigger can be one of three things:
1. D feared violence against themselves or another person from said V
2. D reacted in a proportionate way and had a justifiable sense of being wrong
3. A mixture of the two above
Fear of violence cannot be used by D if they provoked V in the first place.
Triggers are classified into two types - the fear trigger (R v Ward) and the anger trigger
Loss of control is seen as a loss of sound mind, established in r v mcgory
Sexual infidelity is not a qualifying trigger however it can be factored in when it is not a sole
factor, seen in R v Clinton.
The reasonable person test is used when discussing anger as the trigger asking whether a
person of the same age and sex would feel as seriously wronged as the D.
Actus Reus
Actus reus is needed, along with mens rea, to convict someone of a crime, unless the
offence is one of absolute strict liability. There must be a completed actus reus (guilty act),
with a mens rea that coincides, this is known as the rule of contemporaneity. Actus reus is
made of two parts, factual causation and legal causation. This is ,in simple terms, asking if
there is an unbroken chain of causation (D must do the action that leads to the prohibited
consequence (White)). The act must be voluntary and cannot be an omission unless under a
certain circumstance. Factual causation asks if D’s actions caused the consequence using
the but for rule, established in Pagget, which asks but for D’s actions would V have suffered
the consequence. Legal causation asks if there is more than a trifling link between D’s
actions and the consequences, established in Kimsey. This was revisited in Hughes in which
it was stated that an act must be significant or substantial cause of the consequence
, Three things can break the chain of causation. Actions of a third party, a natural or
unpredictable event (white) and the victims own act (williams). The actions of a third party
rule includes medical intervention. Medical intervention will only break the chain if the
treatment is sufficiently independent from the original act and if the treatment was so bad it
was ‘palpably wrong’, established in Jordan. The thin skull rule also applies to the chain of
causation, established in Blau.
[omissions]
Certain circumstances and actions which allow an omission - a failure to do something -
such as failing to provide a breath test or failing to report an accident.
There is another type of omission that can constitute the actus reus is where one of the five
acknowledged duties apply. These duties are:
Contractual duty (pittwood)
Duty by relationship (gibbins and Proctor)
A duty voluntarily undertaken (stone and dobinson)
Duty from official position (dytham)
Duty from chain of events D set in motion (miller)
Mens rea
To be criminally liable for an offence (bar absolute liability) there must be a completed actus
reus (guilty act) and a mens era (guilty mind) which coincides (Fagan). The prosecution must
first prove the acts reus through factual and legal causation before establishing the mens
rea. Intention is the highest level of mens era and can be direct or oblique. Intention was
defined in the case of Mohan as if ‘the design was to bring about the prohibited
consequence whether D desired the consequence or not’. This means that D’s motive is
irrelevant in the case of intent. Proving direct intent is simple however proving oblique is
harder as if D did an act in which the consequence was virtually certain and D could forsee
the consequence, then in law they have intention even if they did not intend for the
consequence of their actions, established in Woollen. Both types of intent provide the mens
rea for specific intent crimes such as murder or GBH S.18.
The lower level of mens rea is recklessness and this must be subjective, established in
Cunningham and held in R v G and another, which defined recklessness as D being aware
of the risk of a prohibited consequence and taking the risk anyway. Recklessness is
sufficient mens rea for basic intent crimes such as constructive manslaughter, assault and
GBH S.20.
The lowest level of mens rea is negligence which is only relevant, in criminal law, to the
offence of gross negligence manslaughter. Negligence hinges on if a duty of care exists and
if the breach of that duty is so bad it can be classed as criminal. The leading case of gross
negligence manslaughter is Adomako and most recently seen in Broughton.
The principle of transferred malice states intent to harm someone but hurting someone else
in the process is still intent, established in gnango. However, mens rea cannot be transferred
onto a different offence, established in Pembilton.
Murder
Murder is a common law, meaning there is no statute for it, however Coke’s simplified
definition of the crime states ‘murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with expressed
or implied intent’. Murder is a result crime meaning there has to be a direct consequence
from D’s actions. The only full defence to murder is self defence, the only other defences are
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller jmaddocks576. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.54. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
