Answer Key Self-test questions and tasks
A2 Law for AQA – answer key for self-test questions
1 | Page
Chapter 1 Task It could be argued in Miller that the dropping of the cigarette was a continuing act so that when he did nothing about the fire he had both actus reus and mens rea. Self-test questions 1 The ‘3 Cs’ which may be included in the actus reus of a crime are conduct circumstances consequences
2 The court found liability on the basis that it was a ‘continuing act’. 3 Two examples of when an omission can result in criminal liability are when there is a contractual duty when D created a dangerous situation
4 The thin skull rule is that D takes the victim as he or she finds them. 5 The quote at the beginning of the Chapter came from Pittwood. Chapter 2 Self-test questions 1 The quote at the beginning of this Chapter came from Woollin. 2 The two types of intent are direct and indirect. 3 The Nedrick test for oblique intent is was death or serious bodily harm a virtual certainty? did the defendant appreciate that such was the case?
4 Recklessness is now a subjective test as decided in Gemmell & Richards. 5 The principle in Latimer is that malice (mens rea) can be transferred. Chapter 3 Task The murder charge failed in both Nedrick and Woollin because the jury found that D did not appreciate that death was a virtual certainty. Self-test questions 1
The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the queen’s peace. The mens rea has been interpreted as malice aforethought, meaning an intent to kill or seriously injure.
© Sally Russell 2013
A2 Law for AQA – answer key for self-test questions
2 | Page
2 A result crime is one where a particular consequence is required as part of the actus reus. Causation will therefore be important when proving actus reus, as D’s actions must be the factual and legal cause of the result. 3 The answer depends on which cases you chose; an example would be Nedrick. The victim would not have died ‘but for’ his actions and it was foreseeable that someone could be seriously injured in an arson attack. (So he caused the death, but he was not guilty of murder because he did not have mens rea.) 4 The ‘virtual certainty’ test for mens rea was established in Nedrick 1986 and confirmed by the HL in Woollin 1998. 5 I hope you have achieved the aims not only of this Chapter, but of the Chapters on actus reus (causation) and mens rea (intent) too. Chapter 4 Self-test questions 1 The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 applies to murder 2 The three things which need to be proved for s 54 are that D lost self-control the loss of self-control was triggered by something specified in s 55 a normal person of D’s sex and age would have reacted in the same way in D’s circumstances
3 The qualifying triggers are D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person; or a thing or things done or said (or both) which – (a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and (b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged or a combination of both of these
4 Two ‘characteristics’ which are not attributable to the reasonable man are jealousy and obsession. 5 The Act specifically excludes sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger. Chapter 5 Self-test questions 1 2 3 4 5
I hope so you have achieved the aims set out at the beginning of the Chapter. The opening quote came from Byrne 1960. Medical evidence will be required for an s 2 defence. The defendant has the burden of proving the defence. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 amended the Homicide Act s 2 on the defence of diminished responsibility.
© Sally Russell 2013
A2 Law for AQA – answer key for self-test questions
3 | Page
Summary 1 Task I have added the principles to the cases, for the facts refer to the relevant chapter Case
Principle
Fagan
An act may be seen as continuing
Stone and Dobinson
Liability for an omission arises if there is a duty of responsibility for someone
Roberts
A foreseeable act will not break the chain of causation
Cheshire
D must make a significant contribution to the result
Blaue
D must take V as found
DPP v Smith
The mens rea for murder is intent to kill or seriously injure
Task The appropriate cases are added following the principles 1 That sexual infidelity may be relevant to the circumstances of D, even though excluded by s 55 – Clinton 2012. 2 That an ‘abnormality of mind’ (now mental functioning) for diminished responsibility is one that reasonable people would term abnormal – Byrne 1960. 3 An abnormality caused by alcoholism may be accepted as diminished responsibility – Tandy 1989. 4 Impairment of responsibility need not be total but must be more than trivial – Lloyd 1967. 5 Where there is evidence of intoxication as well as another cause of ‘abnormality’ the jury should ignore the intoxication – Dietschmann 2003. Chapter 6 Task A duty of responsibility was seen in Stone and Dobinson, and was breached by not taking sufficient care of a relative. A contractual duty was seen in Pittwood, breached by not doing his job, which was closing the gate. Task (this answer is in the book but repeated here) The unlawful act is different for each case and added below, for causation in fact and in law it must be shown that ‘but for’ D’s conduct the victim would not have died (causation in fact) D made a significant contribution nothing broke the chain of causation (causation in law)
© Sally Russell 2013
A2 Law for AQA – answer key for self-test questions
4 | Page
These are applied below. Hancock and Shankland (1986) Throwing the stone is criminal damage. The driver would not have died ‘but for’ D throwing the stone and throwing the stone made a significant contribution to the death. Pagett (1983) Shooting at the police is assault; ‘but for’ D shooting at the police the girl would not have died. Shooting at the police made a significant contribution to the death and the police firing back was foreseeable so did not break the chain of causation. Nedrick (1986) Setting the fire is arson, a type of criminal damage; ‘but for’ the fire the victim would not have died and the fire made a significant contribution to the death. Self-test questions 1 The elements required to prove gross negligence manslaughter are a risk of death a duty of care breach of that duty gross negligence as regards that breach, which must be sufficient to justify criminal liability
2 It is possible to commit gross negligence manslaughter by omission if there is a duty to act, but not unlawful act manslaughter – Khan. 3 The opening quote came from Willoughby 2004. 4 In Church, D knocked a woman unconscious and then, wrongly believing her to be dead, threw her in the river to dispose of the ‘body’. The principle was that if reasonable people would see the risk of harm, this will be enough to show it was ‘dangerous’. 5 The difference between Cato and Dalby is that in Cato, D was guilty of unlawful act manslaughter by helping administer the drug; in Dalby, the chain of causation was broken by the victim’s own act. 6 In Kennedy 2007, the HL decided that in the case of a fully informed adult selfadministering the drug, it would never be appropriate to find the supplier guilty of manslaughter.
© Sally Russell 2013
A2 Law for AQA – answer key for self-test questions
5 | Page
Chapter 7 Task Applying the rules on intent and recklessness to battery, the prosecution must prove the following for direct intent, that it was D’s aim or purpose to apply unlawful force. for indirect intent, that the application of force was a virtual certainty and D appreciated this. for recklessness, that D recognises a risk that unlawful force will be applied and goes ahead and takes that risk.
Self-test questions 1 The current definition of assault is to cause someone to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. 2 Words alone can constitute an assault as shown in Wilson. 3 The mens rea for assault is intention or recklessness (to cause someone to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence). 4 A battery does not have to be hostile as seen in Thomas. 5 Consent and self-defence may make a battery lawful. Chapter 8 Task In Roberts, the action by the victim did not break the chain of causation because it was foreseeable. The type of action which might do so is ‘something daft’, as was decided by the CA in Williams & Davis. Self-test questions 1 The quote at the beginning of this Chapter came from Ireland. 2 The three parts to the actus reus are conduct circumstances consequences
3 Mens rea is needed for the conduct. 4 According to Roberts, something unforeseeable or daft could break the chain of causation. 5 The HL finally confirmed that the principle in Roberts was correct in Savage and Parmenter.
© Sally Russell 2013
A2 Law for AQA – answer key for self-test questions
6 | Page
Chapter 9 Self-test questions 1 ‘Wound’ has been interpreted as any puncture of the skin. 2 ‘Grievous bodily harm’ has been interpreted as serious harm. 3 The cases which support the answers to the above two questions are C v Eisenhower and Saunders. 4 The difference in the mens rea between s 20 and s 18 is that for s 20 it is intent or subjective recklessness as to some harm and for s 18, it is intent (only) as to serious harm. 5 The maximum sentences for s 20 and s 18 respectively are 5 years and life. Summary 3 Task The principles match the cases as follows Principle
Case
Silence may be enough for an assault
Ireland 1996
Grievous means really serious harm
Smith1961
Words may be enough for an assault
Wilson 1955
A battery can be via another person
Haystead 2000
Actual bodily harm is anything that causes personal Miller 1954 discomfort Mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic are not Chan-Fook 1994 enough for actual bodily harm Wound means an open cut
C v Eisenhower1984
Chapter 10 Task The court decided the host of a TV show was not guilty in Madeley, because he merely forgot to pay so had no mens rea (intention). Task Insanity, automatism or intoxication apply as follows Lipman 1970: This is intoxication. It was not insanity, as that must be caused by an internal disease. Automatism fails because any loss of control was self-induced. Intoxication can succeed for murder (a specific intent crime) if it negates mens rea and the effect is that it reduces it to manslaughter
© Sally Russell 2013
A2 Law for AQA – answer key for self-test questions
7 | Page
Bailey 1983: Again, it cannot be insanity, as any defect of reason must be caused by an internal disease and insulin is an external factor. Automatism is likely to fail because his loss of control was self-induced (although the court indicated it could be a possibility in similar circumstances). Intoxication can succeed for GBH only if charged under s 18, (a specific intent crime) if it negates mens rea. He would still be guilty of the related basic intent crime under s 20. Hardie 1984: Here automatism can succeed, as the taking of a drug meant to calm you is different to taking an unpredictable drug and not seen as self-induced. Intoxication could also succeed, as it would not be seen as voluntarily taking an unpredictable drug as he thought it would calm him. Hennessy 1989: This is insanity because his defect of reason was caused by the disease itself, an internal factor. His failure to take his insulin had no effect on this. It is only when taking insulin is followed by something like not eating that it is an external factor (because the insulin not the disease caused the defect) and so automatism. Self-test questions 1 The insanity rules come from M’Naghten’s case. 2 The quote opening this Chapter came from Windle. 3 The defence of automatism applies when the cause is external. 4 The defence of insanity applies when the cause is internal. 5 A case example for each of these defences to show this difference could be Quick where the insulin was external so automatism applied and Sullivan where epilepsy was held to be a disease of the mind and so insanity applied. Chapter 11 Task (this is in the book but repeated here) A possible defence in Lipman is insanity. He clearly had a ‘defect of reason’ and he did not know ‘the nature and quality’ of his act. He thought he was fighting snakes not strangling his girlfriend. However, the defect was not caused by a ‘disease of the mind’ but by the LSD. This is an external factor so consider automatism. The defence of automatism fails because the loss of control was self-induced (taking LSD). It was voluntary. The defence of intoxication can be argued. The effect of the drug meant he did not have the required mens rea. He had no intent to kill or seriously injure so was not guilty of the specific intent crime (murder), but as the intoxication was voluntary, he was guilty of the related basic intent crime (manslaughter). Task Insanity, automatism or intoxication apply as follows
© Sally Russell 2013
A2 Law for AQA – answer key for self-test questions
8 | Page
Lipman 1970: This is intoxication. It was not insanity, as that must be caused by an internal disease. Automatism fails because any loss of control was self-induced. Intoxication can succeed for murder (a specific intent crime) if it negates mens rea and reduces it to manslaughter Bailey 1983: Again, it cannot be insanity, as any defect of reason must be caused by an internal disease and insulin is an external factor. Automatism is likely to fail because his loss of control was self-induced (although the court indicated it was a possibility). Intoxication can succeed for GBH only if charged under s 18, (a specific intent crime) if it negates mens rea. He would still be guilty of the related basic intent crime under s 20. Hardie 1984: Here automatism can succeed, as the taking of a drug meant to calm you is different to taking an unpredictable drug and not seen as self-induced. Intoxication could also succeed as it would not be seen as voluntarily taking an unpredictable drug as he thought it would calm him.
Self-test questions 1 The difference between specific and basic intent is that the first does not include recklessness. 2 A crime for each type is murder, which is a specific intent crime and assault, which is a basic intent crime. 3 ‘Dutch courage’ is where D drinks to summon up courage to commit a crime and it is no defence because D has mens rea (intent to commit the crime once intoxicated). 4 If D successfully pleads intoxication to a specific intent crime such as murder the result is a conviction for a basic intent crime e.g., manslaughter. 5 The quote at the beginning of this Chapter came from Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher.
© Sally Russell 2013
A2 Law for AQA – answer key for self-test questions
9 | Page
Chapter 12 Task The case matches the comment as follows Case
Comment
Leach 1969
a man asked to be crucified on Hampstead Heath
A.G.’s Reference (No 6 of 1980) 1981
the CA gave a list of circumstances which would be lawful even if harm occurred consenting homosexuals engaged in sadomasochistic behaviour
Brown 1994 Billingshurst 1978
the injury suffered during a game of rugby was serious
Richardson 1999
a dentist who had been suspended carried out treatment on several people
Wilson 1996
a husband branded his initials on his wife’s buttocks
Self-test questions 1 The point made in Brown regarding consent to intentional grievous bodily harm was that it was not a defence. 2 Two of the activities where consent is implied as stated in AG’s Reference would be any two of the following properly conducted games and sports lawful chastisement or correction reasonable surgical interference dangerous exhibitions
3 A case involving ‘rough horseplay’ where the defence was allowed could be Jones or Aitken. 4 The conviction was quashed in Barnes (2004) because the conduct was not sufficiently grave. 5 The quote at the beginning of this Chapter came from AG’s Reference (No 6 of 1980). Chapter 13 Task I have repeated the scenarios in the task here for clarity. Discuss what defence(s) Amy should use in the following situations, using a case to support this and explaining whether it is likely to be successful and, if so, the effect it will have. 1 Amy is walking down the street one dark and rainy night when a young man steps out of a doorway right in front of her. Being a paranoid sort of person, she © Sally Russell 2013
A2 Law for AQA – answer key for self-test questions
10 | Page
thinks she is being attacked and strikes out in alarm, cutting his cheek. In fact, he was just coming from his own house. Answer: Amy can use self-defence based on her mistake. Her mistake need not be reasonable as long as it is genuine (Williams (Gladstone). This was confirmed in Martin and by S 76 Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008. Her defence should succeed, resulting in an acquittal. 2 Walking home from the pub in a drunken haze, Amy sees what she thinks is a man with a weapon coming towards her. She picks up a brick and hits him over the head, causing severe concussion and a nasty cut. It turns out he is from the local radio and is interviewing people on the streets for their views on violence at closing time. Answer: Amy cannot use the defence of self-defence based on a mistaken belief that she was being attacked. According to O’Grady and confirmed by S 76, it is not possible to rely on a mistaken belief caused by voluntary intoxication. Her defence will fail. 3 Amy is walking down the street when she sees someone whom she believes is assaulting a young man. She intervenes and attacks him but he promptly arrests her. It turns out he is a policeman in plain clothes. Answer: Amy can use self-defence. Even though she is not personally under attack, defence of another is covered by the defence. Also, as explained above, it is her belief that is important (Williams (Gladstone) / Martin / S 76). Her defence should succeed, resulting in an acquittal. Self-test questions 1 The two main questions for the jury are Did D honestly believe the action was justified? Was the degree of force reasonable in the circumstances?
2 Self-defence was rejected by the jury in Martin because the force used was excessive and unreasonable. 3 Yes, according to Williams, and confirmed in Martin and by S 76 Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 you can rely on a mistaken belief to justify using force. 4 It was decided in Hatton, and confirmed by s 76, that D cannot rely on a mistaken belief caused by voluntary intoxication. 5 The result of a successful plea of self-defence is an acquittal. Task I have only added the principle here. For the facts, refer to the relevant cases. The principle of the cases is as follows Case AG’s Reference (No. 6 of 1980) 1981
Principle that consent could be implied in certain activities
© Sally Russell 2013
A2 Law for AQA – answer key for self-test questions
11 | Page
Brown
that consent was no defence to GBH
Dica
that consent was no defence to intentional GBH
Kingston
the defence of insanity is appropriate where the defect is caused by an internal factor (and epilepsy is a disease of the mind, internal) if D is able to exercise some control then automatism is not available as a defence a drunken intent is still an intent
Majewski
intoxication is no defence to a basic intent crime
Williams (Gladstone)
D is judged on the facts as they appear to be
Sullivan Broome v Perkins
© Sally Russell 2013
