Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Actus Reus (AR) and Mens Rea (MR) = Murder (Definition (100% defense…
Actus Reus (AR) and Mens Rea (MR) = Murder
Definition
AR is the physical element of an unlawful crime (conduct(Causation of a Crime)) vary from offence to offence-Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's Peace with the malice of aforethought (MR - intention to kill or cause GBH or recklessness)
Not under QP = War
Criminal Law = Crime Against the State
Conduct = The action you've taken part of (e.g. drinking someone else's drink - not your property)
Civil law = Dispute between 2 people/group
Circumstances = the state/condition of the situation (e.g. stab a pregnant woman - and caused the unborn child to die then it is not murder as that baby was not born yet)
Consequence = (if its murder then the consequence is death or manslaughter)
Guilty of theft id when you appropriate
Battery is applying unlawful force to another
100% defense starts in the Magistrate Court (MC) and 96% stays in this court and 4% moves to the Crown Court (CC) because it is too serious for the MC to decide
MC - not allowed phones + need to be QUIET (CRIMINAL CASE) and the member of MC are not experts, they are unpaid volunteers (bench of 3 - UVs)
CC - 4% comes here and only 1% would go through Jury as the rest would plea guilty - CC includes Jury and Judge
Common law offence - this is where the judge decides if the D is guilty or not
Within Verdict (guilty or not guilty) there are 12 on Jury. The sentencing is depended on 1 Judge
Types of offence (3)
Summary offences (least serious harm) e.g. battery thus stays in the MC
Includes : Assault + Battery / Maximum custocial sentence for both offences = 6 months imprisonment
Triable either way offence - Review England and Wales. E.g. Theft, ABH. It is the D's choice in which court they want to be tried
Includes : Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) contrary to S.47 OAPA 1861 / Wounding or GBH to s.20 OAPA 1861 / Theft contrary to s.1 Theft Act 1968 are TEW Offences. Maximum custodial sentence = ABH (S.47) & Wounding and GBH (S.20) = 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT but of D stays in MC then max can give 6 months sentence (limit of magistrate's jurisdiction)
Indictable offences - serious harm. E.g. murder, rape. Goes to CC
Include : Manslaughter, murder / Wouding , GBH (S.18) oapa 1861 / Robbery Contrary to s.8 / Theft Act 1968 and Burglary contrary to s.9 (1a) and s.9 (1b) / Theft Act 1968
AR require proof of conduct (action or omission (Gibbins and proctor)consequence (with murder the V must die) and circumstance (with murder the killing must be under the Queens Peace, not in war)
Action can either be direct (punching, hitting - having some sort of contact). Can also be indirect e.g.putting iron bar next to door causing stampeded and peaople trip over iron bar as seen in case R v Martin
D must be in control (done it voluntarily) to become repsonsible of murder and if not then s/he wont be liable for murder (Hill v Baxter)
The prosecution must prove that there is a causal connection between the D's conduct and the V's death. D must be both the factual cause (white) and the legal cause (Kimsey) cause of V's death
D must be acting voluntaily in order to be liable for murder or manslaughter (Hill v Baxter)
Not voluntary act may include : being pushed / slipping / hypnotised thus can raise defence of not being in control
MR
Defintion
MR is the blamesworthy state of mind (malice aforthought in murder)
Main forms of MR are direct - intention to kill or at least cause GBH (Mohan) or Oblique intent (Nedrick and Woollin Direction - if D has foresaw death or GBH as a virtually certain consequence this is an evidential rule (Matthews and Alleyne). Recklessness is a subject to test (Cunningham)-D rrealises the risk but still goes ahead and does it anyways
❖ Recklessness — which applies to those who act while realising that there is a possibility that their action could cause the illegal outcome
❖ Gross negligence — which covers those situations where the defendant did not foresee causing any harm, but should have realised the risks involved. An example is R v Adomako (1994), where an anaesthetist failed to recognise and deal with the problems that arose when the breathing tube slipped out of a patient’s mouth. As a result, the patient died during the operation.
❖ Intention — where the offender has made a decision to break the law.