Comprehensive first class Criminal Law PQ notes from University College London (2018/2019). Notes include concise case summaries, key reasonings to reconcile conflicting case law and detailed answer outlines to problem questions
*OAPA/Defences [2018]
Ehsan and Farah are first year economics students at the prestigious Regal College of London. Ehsan
suffers from diabetes and has to take insulin after meals. Farah swaps Ehsan’s insulin for saline
solution, to make him do badly in their Macroeconomics final exam. During the exam, Ehsan goes
into diabetic shock and attacks Grace, breaking her cheekbone, before he loses consciousness and
collapses.
The invigilator Helen, who is diabetic herself, recognises the symptoms of diabetic shock, and
attempts to inject Ehsan with her own insulin. In her panic though, it takes her several attempts to
find a vein and she causes extensive bruising on Ehsan’s forearm. When Ehsan recovers from the
diabetic shock, he remembers only taking his seat in the examination hall, and then blacking out.
Advise Ehsan, Farah and Helen on their respective criminal liability for non-fatal non-sexual offences
against the person.
F is potentially liable to E for inflicting GBH with intent, contrary to s.18 OAPA
Actus Reus
DPP v Smith: GBH defined as really serious harm
o E suffered diabetic shock, which can potentially be life threatening
o GBH can be a serious illness (R v Dica)
Factual causation
o If F had not swapped out E’s insulin, E would not have suffered from diabetic shock
Legal causation
o F’s conduct is more than a minimal cause (required in R v Hughes) for E’s inability to
access his insulin
o F’s conduct constitutes a salient cause as well – is not too remote or intervened
No third party intervention
Hence, F satisfies the actus reus of the offence
Mens Rea
R v Bryson: F must have intent to do some grievous bodily harm to E
o While F’s aim was simply to make E do badly in their exam, F sees E suffering from a
diabetic shock as a necessary means to achieve his aim F has direct intention
o Affirmed in R v Mohan – does not matter if you desire the consequence of your act,
as long as it is your intention
o However, court may find that F did not necessarily see E’s diabetic shock as a
necessary means, but just E’s discomfort (as a result of not having insulin) during the
exam as a necessary means to make E do badly in the exam. If so, court will find that
F did not intent to do ‘grievous’ bodily harm but just ‘some harm’ and thus
convict F under s.20 OAPA instead (which requires that F is intentional or reckless to
cause some harm, R v Parmenter)
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 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 firstclasslawnotes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £19.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
