For Paper 1 Section B Criminal Law you need to know and apply the law in relation to all of the
offences and defences outlined below.
Remember as well that you need to demonstrate knowledge of and apply any of the other general
principles of criminal law such as transferred malice and coincidence of AR and MR and any
omissions where they are relevant to the scenario you are discussing.
For each 25 mark application question you get 10 marks for demonstrating knowledge of the law
and then 15 marks for your application of the law to the scenario.
Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person





Assault
Battery
S.47 Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
S.20 grievous bodily harm/wounding with intent to cause some harm
S.18 grievous bodily harm/wounding with intent to cause serious harm
Assault – sentencing outlined in s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 6 months imprisonment/£5000 fine
Intentionally or recklessly cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence
Element of Offence
Law
Case
Act
Cannot be an omission
Constanza – letters - words are
sufficient for an assault either written
You must show the examiner
or verbal
what the positive act D did.
Ireland – silent phone calls
(sent a text message, shouted)
constituted an assault
Apprehend Immediate
Personal Violence
V must apprehend – so if V is
unaware there is no assault. Did
V faint or duck or worry etc?
Logdon – pointed replica gun at V – V
didn’t know it was a replica and so
apprehended imm unlawful personal
violence
If it is obvious that there can be
no force due to the
circumstances then there is no
assault
Lamb – D and V playing with revolver
didn’t believe it could fire – pointed
gun at V and fired. V didn’t
apprehend force as didn’t think it
could fire
Words indicating there will be
no violence will cancel out V’s
apprehension
Turberville v Savage – hand on sword
‘if it were not assize day’ – words
negated the threat
Force must be immediate –
doesn’t mean instantly but
‘imminent’ and ‘not excluding
the near future’
Smith – D broke into Vs garden and
was looking through the window. V
was terrified and though D was about
to break in – basis of fear was that V
didn’t know what D was about to do
Ireland – silent phone calls – V could
fear D was about to arrive at her
home
Unlawful
Causation
Apprehension of lawful force
will not amount to an assault
D’s positive act must have
caused V to apprehend imm
unlawful personal force
Factual Causation – ‘but for’
White – poisoned drink – ‘but for’ D’s
actions would have died anyway – so
not the FC of V’s death
Pagett – human shield - ‘but for’ D’s
actions the V would not have died so was the FC of V’s death
Legal Causation – the chain of
causation must remain
unbroken
D’s contribution must be the
operating and substantial cause
of death
Blaue – D stabbed V who needed
blood transfusion, V refused based on
religion, D guilty of murder – you
must take your victim as you find
them – thin skull rule
A novus actus interveniens (new
intervening act) can break the
chain
Medical Treatment 
Jordan – D stabbed V in the stomach,
given wrong injection by hospital –
‘palpably wrong’ medical treatment
broke the chain, D not guilty
Smith – soldiers fighting, V stabbed,
dropped on the way to medical
treatment – ‘thoroughly bad’ medical
treatment didn’t break the chain,
wound still the ‘operating and
substantial’ cause of death
Cheshire – V shot and died from rare
complication in medical procedure –
Medical negligence/poor treatment
CAN break the chain but only where
it is “so independent of D’s acts, and
in itself so potent in causing death,
that…the contribution made by D’s
acts…are insignificant”
Victim’s own act 
Roberts – V jumped from car, alleged
D had made sexual advances – V’s
actions were reasonably foreseeable
and so did not break the chain
Williams – V jumped from car, alleged
Intentionally or
recklessly causing V to
apprehend immediate
unlawful personal
violence
Intends V to apprehend
immediate unlawful violence
Reckless in causing V to
apprehend immediate unlawful
violence
D tried to steal wallet – V’s actions
‘daft’ and so broke the chain
Mohan – was it D’s ‘aim purpose and
desire’ to cause V to apprehend imm
unlawful personal violence?
Cunningham – gas meter – where D is
aware of a risk of a criminal
consequence but goes ahead and
takes that risk anyway
Battery – sentencing outlined in s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 – 6 months imprisonment/£5000 fine
Intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force to another
Element of Offence
Law
Case
Force
Force can be slight – battery is
Collins v Wilcock – police officers
about contact somehow
grabbed arm of V – this was enough
between D and V
to constitute force
Touching is enough
Thomas – D touched V’s skirt – this
amounted to a battery ‘if you touch a
person’s clothes while he is wearing
them that is equivalent to touching
him’
Can be an indirect act (eg a
booby trap or throwing
something at someone)
Martin – D placed iron bar across
door and shouted ‘fire’ – this
amounted to an indirect battery
DPP v K – D stole sulphuric acid from
school and hid it in hand dryer –
sprayed onto V – indirect battery
Haystead – D caused child to fall by
punching mother holding him –
indirect battery to child
If Indirect – add Causation!
Unlawful
Intentionally or
Recklessly applying
unlawful force
If V gives genuine consent then
the force is not unlawful
General consent to ‘everyday
contact’ ie bustling in
corridors/tube etc
Intention to apply unlawful
force
Recklessness as to the infliction
of unlawful force
Mohan – was it D’s ‘aim purpose and
desire’ to apply force to V?
Cunningham – gas meter – where D is
aware of a risk of a criminal
consequence but goes ahead and
takes that risk anyway
s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1864 – 5 year imprisonment
An assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
Element of Offence
Law
Case
Completed assault or
You must have a completed (ie
Ireland – the assault (silent phone
battery
all AR and MR elements) assault calls) caused ABH (psychiatric injury)
or battery – I would STRONGLY
Actual Bodily Harm
suggest you discuss the liability
for this as a separate ISAS first
then go on to discuss the s.47
offence.
Ordinary words
Any injury (bruising, scratches
etc)
Psychiatric injury
Occasioned
Causation
Chan-Fook – injury, hurt or damage.
Actual means “more than trivial”
Miller – “hurt or injury calculated to
interfere with the health and comfort
of the victim”
T v DPP – loss of consciousness, even
momentarily can amount to ABH
DPP v Smith – cut off ponytail –
cutting hair is ABH as it is intrinsic to
the individual
Chan-Fook – does not include ‘mere
emotions such as fear, distress, or
panic’
Burstow – includes psychiatric injury
The assault or battery you have
discussed must have caused the
ABH injuries
Factual Causation – ‘but for’
White – poisoned drink – ‘but for’ D’s
actions would have died anyway – so
not the FC of V’s death
Pagett – human shield - ‘but for’ D’s
actions the V would not have died so was the FC of V’s death
Legal Causation – the chain of
causation must remain
unbroken
A novus actus interveniens (new
intervening act) can break the
chain
Blaue – D stabbed V who needed
blood transfusion, V refused based on
religion, D guilty of murder – you
must take your victim as you find
them – thin skull rule
Medical Treatment 
Jordan – D stabbed V in the stomach,
given wrong injection by hospital –
‘palpably wrong’ medical treatment
broke the chain, D not guilty
Smith – soldiers fighting, V stabbed,
dropped on the way to medical
treatment – ‘thoroughly bad’ medical
treatment didn’t break the chain,
wound still the ‘operating and
substantial’ cause of death
Cheshire – V shot and died from rare
complication in medical procedure –
Medical negligence/poor treatment
CAN break the chain but only where
it is “so independent of D’s acts, and
in itself so potent in causing death,
that…the contribution made by D’s
acts…are insignificant”
Victim’s own act 
MR for the original
assault or battery
There is no extra MR required –
D does not need to intend the
injury or see any risk of it.
Instead he must have intended
or been reckless in relation to
the original assault or battery
Roberts – V jumped from car, alleged
D had made sexual advances – V’s
actions were reasonably foreseeable
and so did not break the chain
Williams – V jumped from car, alleged
D tried to steal wallet – V’s actions
‘daft’ and so broke the chain
Savage – threw beer over V and glass
slipped and cut V – intention to throw
beer = intention to apply unlawful
force (ie the MR for the battery)
which is sufficient for the MR of s.47
GBH without Intent (Malicious Wounding) – s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1864 – 5 years
imprisonment
Unlawful and malicious wounding or infliction of grievous bodily harm without intent/with intent
to cause some harm
Element of Offence
Law
Case
Unlawful
Cannot consent to serious
Brown – cannot consent to injuries of
injuries unless specific
s.47 and above
exceptions for consent defence
(discussed in a later ISAS if
relevant)
GBH/Wounding
Do not need to prove both!
Wound - Cut or break in the
continuity of the skin
JCC v Eisenhower – internal bleed in
the eye didn’t amount to a wound –
cut must be to the whole skin
Remember – all wounds can be
Wood (1830) – broken bone with no
GBH injuries (as a cut injury etc
cut to the skin is not a wound (could
is clearly ‘serious harm’), but not be GBH though!)
all GBH injuries are wounds!
GBH - Serious harm
Saunders – broken bone amounts to
GBH – ‘serious harm’
Bollam – 17 month old had bruising seriousness to be assessed according
to Vs age and health – bruising on a
young baby did amount to serious
harm
Burstow – stalker V suffered severe
depressive illness – psychiatric injury
can amount to GBH
Dica – HIV infection can amount to
GBH
Brown & Stratton – multiple minor
injuries can amount to GBH together
Inflict
The D must have caused the
GBH/wounding injuries
Causation
Factual Causation – ‘but for’
White – poisoned drink – ‘but for’ D’s
actions would have died anyway – so
not the FC of V’s death
Pagett – human shield - ‘but for’ D’s
actions the V would not have died so was the FC of V’s death
Legal Causation – the chain of
causation must remain
unbroken
A novus actus interveniens (new
intervening act) can break the
chain
Blaue – D stabbed V who needed
blood transfusion, V refused based on
religion, D guilty of murder – you
must take your victim as you find
them – thin skull rule
Medical Treatment 
Jordan – D stabbed V in the stomach,
given wrong injection by hospital –
‘palpably wrong’ medical treatment
broke the chain, D not guilty
Smith – soldiers fighting, V stabbed,
dropped on the way to medical
treatment – ‘thoroughly bad’ medical
treatment didn’t break the chain,
wound still the ‘operating and
substantial’ cause of death
Cheshire – V shot and died from rare
complication in medical procedure –
Medical negligence/poor treatment
CAN break the chain but only where
it is “so independent of D’s acts, and
in itself so potent in causing death,
that…the contribution made by D’s
acts…are insignificant”
Victim’s own act 
Roberts – V jumped from car, alleged
D had made sexual advances – V’s
actions were reasonably foreseeable
and so did not break the chain
Williams – V jumped from car, alleged
D tried to steal wallet – V’s actions
Maliciously
Maliciously means intention or
recklessly causing ‘some harm’
‘daft’ and so broke the chain
Mohan – was it D’s ‘aim purpose and
desire’ to cause V some harm?
Cunningham – gas meter – where D is
aware of a risk of a criminal
consequence but goes ahead and
takes that risk anyway
Parmenter – injured 3 month old
baby when thrown into the air and
caught, D often did this with older
children and didn’t realise there was
a risk of injury. As didn’t foresee
injury hadn’t been reckless so no s.20
offence
Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent – s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1864 – Life imprisonment
Unlawful and malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent to
cause grievous bodily harm, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension of any
person
Element of Offence
Law
Case
GBH/Wounding
Do not need to prove both!
Wound - Cut or break in the
continuity of the skin
JCC v Eisenhower – internal bleed in
the eye didn’t amount to a wound –
cut must be to the whole skin
Remember – all wounds can be
Wood (1830) – broken bone with no
GBH injuries (as a cut injury etc
cut to the skin is not a wound (could
is clearly ‘serious harm’), but not be GBH though!)
all GBH injuries are wounds!
GBH - Serious harm
Cause
Saunders – broken bone amounts to
GBH – ‘serious harm’
Bollam – 17 month old had bruising seriousness to be assessed according
to Vs age and health – bruising on a
young baby did amount to serious
harm
Burstow – stalker V suffered severe
depressive illness – psychiatric injury
can amount to GBH
Dica – HIV infection can amount to
GBH
Brown & Stratton – multiple minor
injuries can amount to GBH together
The D must have caused the
GBH/wounding injuries
Factual Causation – ‘but for’
White – poisoned drink – ‘but for’ D’s
actions would have died anyway – so
not the FC of V’s death
Pagett – human shield - ‘but for’ D’s
actions the V would not have died so was the FC of V’s death
Legal Causation – the chain of
causation must remain
unbroken
Intent to cause serious
harm/prevent lawful
arrest
A novus actus interveniens (new
intervening act) can break the
chain
Blaue – D stabbed V who needed
blood transfusion, V refused based on
religion, D guilty of murder – you
must take your victim as you find
them – thin skull rule
Medical Treatment 
Jordan – D stabbed V in the stomach,
given wrong injection by hospital –
‘palpably wrong’ medical treatment
broke the chain, D not guilty
Smith – soldiers fighting, V stabbed,
dropped on the way to medical
treatment – ‘thoroughly bad’ medical
treatment didn’t break the chain,
wound still the ‘operating and
substantial’ cause of death
Cheshire – V shot and died from rare
complication in medical procedure –
Medical negligence/poor treatment
CAN break the chain but only where
it is “so independent of D’s acts, and
in itself so potent in causing death,
that…the contribution made by D’s
acts…are insignificant”
Victim’s own act 
Roberts – V jumped from car, alleged
D had made sexual advances – V’s
actions were reasonably foreseeable
and so did not break the chain
Williams – V jumped from car, alleged
D tried to steal wallet – V’s actions
‘daft’ and so broke the chain
Taylor – V found with stab wound,
difficulty proving if D had intention to
wound – intention to wound is not
sufficient for s.18
D must be proved to have
intended to either:
 do some grievous bodily
harm; or
 resist or prevent the lawful
apprehension or detention
of any person.
CANNOT be committed
recklessly
Mohan - was it D’s ‘aim purpose and
desire’ to cause V serious harm?
Woollin – was serious harm a virtually
certain result of D’s actions and did D
know it was a VC consequence?
For resisting arrest – P must
Morrison – police officer told D he
prove D had specific intention to
resist or prevent arrest, but not
the injury. Only need to prove D
was reckless as to whether his
actions would cause a
wound or injury when resisting
arrest
was arresting him, he dived through
window taking officer with him
Rowe – deliberately infected Vs with
HIV by cutting holes in condoms etc –
intended serious harm guilty of s.18
Fatal Offences Against the Person





Murder
Loss of Control (Voluntary Manslaughter)
Diminished Responsibility (Voluntary Manslaughter)
Unlawful Act Manslaughter (Involuntary Manslaughter)
Gross Negligence (Involuntary Manslaughter)
Murder – Common Law Offence – Mandatory life sentence
‘The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the Queen’s Peace, with malice
aforethought, express or implied’
Element of Offence
Law
Case
Unlawful Killing
Must have a dead person! If no
one has died go to Non-Fatal
Offences!
Queen’s Peace
Reasonable Person in Being
Self-defence
Death penalty
Not in wartime – killing enemy
in war wouldn’t be murder
Killing a prisoner of war would
be under the queen’s peace
and so could be murder
Foetus in the womb
Brain dead
Causation
The D must have caused the
GBH/wounding injuries
AG Ref No.3 (1994) – foetus
deliberately injured and child
died from these injuries –
injuries ‘in utero’ cannot be
murder
Malcherek & Steel – Doctors
turning off life-support not
murder
Factual Causation – ‘but for’
White – poisoned drink – ‘but
for’ D’s actions would have died
anyway – so not the FC of V’s
death
Pagett – human shield - ‘but
for’ D’s actions the V would not
have died - so was the FC of V’s
death
Legal Causation – the chain of
causation must remain
unbroken
A novus actus interveniens
(new intervening act) can break
the chain
Blaue – D stabbed V who
needed blood transfusion, V
refused based on religion, D
guilty of murder – you must
take your victim as you find
them – thin skull rule
Medical Treatment 
Jordan – D stabbed V in the
stomach, given wrong injection
by hospital – ‘palpably wrong’
medical treatment broke the
chain, D not guilty
Smith – soldiers fighting, V
stabbed, dropped on the way
to medical treatment –
‘thoroughly bad’ medical
treatment didn’t break the
chain, wound still the
‘operating and substantial’
cause of death
Cheshire – V shot and died
from rare complication in
medical procedure – Medical
negligence/poor treatment
CAN break the chain but only
where it is “so independent of
D’s acts, and in itself so potent
in causing death, that…the
contribution made by D’s
acts…are insignificant”
Victim’s own act 
Roberts – V jumped from car,
alleged D had made sexual
advances – V’s actions were
reasonably foreseeable and so
did not break the chain
Williams – V jumped from car,
alleged D tried to steal wallet –
V’s actions ‘daft’ and so broke
the chain
Malice Aforethought, express
or implied
Express malice – intent to kill
Implied malice – intent to cause
GBH
Vickers – D broke into V’s cellar,
attacked V by punching and
kicking her to the head, she
died from injuries – intention to
inflict GBH which results in the
death of V is enough for the MR
of murder
Whether express or implied –
you then need to discuss if it is
direct or indirect
Direct – D intends to kill V
Indirect – D did not intend the
particular consequences but
they were a virtually certain
result and D knew this
Mohan – D’s ‘aim purpose and
desire’ to bring about the
criminal consequence
Woollin – D lost temper feeding
baby and threw at wall – if the
consequence is virtually certain
to occur and D appreciates it is
VC to occur then he has indirect
intent
Matthews and Alleyne – threw
V into river knowing he couldn’t
swim – jury is entitled to find
intention but does not have to
Voluntary Manslaughter – D is charged with murder and is able to plead a specific defence and
ends up being convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
Prove MURDER first, then prove LOC/DR
Diminished Responsibility –s.2 Homicide Act as amended by s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 –
discretionary life sentence
D was suffering from abnormality of mental functioning which is due to recognised medical
condition which substantially impairs D’s ability to understand nature of conduct OR form rational
judgment OR exercise self-control and the abnormality provides explanation for D causing V’s
death
Element of Offence
Law
Case
Abnormality of Mental
Old law – abnormality of mind
Byrne – sexual psychopath’s
Functioning
inability to control desires –
Doesn’t have to be permanent
abnormality means ‘a state of
– just operating at the time D
mind so different from that of
killed
ordinary human beings that the
reasonable man would term it
abnormal’
Recognised Medical Condition
New/emerging conditions – D
Dietschman – adjustment
can call an acknowledged
disorder
specialist whose work has been Jama – Asperger’s
validated, it is then up to the
Seers – depression
jury to consider the evidence
Bailey – epilepsy
Substantially Impaired
Provides an Explanation
s.52(1)(b) – AMF must have
substantially impaired D’s
ability to do one or more of the
three things listed in S53(1A).
(a) to understand the
nature of his conduct;
(b) to form a rational
judgment; or
(c) to exercise self-control
Simcox - paranoia
English – PMT
Reynolds – Post natal
depression
Alhuwalia – battered woman
syndrome
Byrne – sexual psychopath
Moyles – schizophrenia
Lloyd- need not be total, but
more than minimal
Egan – more than trivial…less
than total impairment
The AMF must be a significant
contributory factor in causing D
to act as he did
Abnormality of mental
functioning need not be the
only factor that caused D to be
involved in the killing but it
must be the significant factor.
D must prove on the balance of
probabilities, that they were
suffering from an abnormality
of mental functioning caused
by a RMC which SI them and
provides an explanation for the
killing.
Loss of Control – s.54(1)(a)-(c) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 – discretionary life sentence
D kills as a result of a loss of control which had a qualifying trigger and a person of D’s sex and
age, with a normal degree of tolerance in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same
or similar way.
Element of Offence
Law
Case
Loss of Control
D must have lost control
(evident on/from the facts) –
point this out in the exam – ie D
has clearly lost control as can
be seen by the way he….
S54(2) - does not need to be
sudden. But a delay may be
taken into account by the judge
when deciding whether to
leave defence to the jury and
by the jury when deciding if the
Alhuwalia – D had been abused
by V over many years, when
sleeping D poured petrol over V
and set him on fire – under old
provocation law appeal failed
as not sudden – could however
Qualifying Triggers
killing resulted from a loss of
control
s.55(3)-(5) Coroners and Justice
Act
win out under new law
s55(3) Fear of Serious Violence
 This is subjective, ie D
doesn’t need to prove his
fear was reasonable, just
that it was genuine
 Violence must be in respect
of D or some other
identifiable person – not
just a general fear of
violence against anyone
s55(4) - Things said or done of
an extremely grave character
and D has a justifiable sense of
being seriously wronged
 Objective test – Whether D
is justifiably wronged is for
the jury to decide
Camplin – homosexual rape
followed by taunting – taunts
were extremely grave character
– very serious to D + justifiable
to feel wronged
Mohammed – finding boy in
daughters bed was extremely
grave to D (devout muslim), but
not justifiable to feel wronged
S55(5) D fears serious violence
and things said/done
 On their own 2 triggers
didn’t make D lose control,
but combined they did
S55(6)(c) - Things said/done
cannot amount to sexual
infidelity
AG v Jersey v Holley – D’s GF
told him she had just had sex
with another man. He picked
up an axe and she said “You
haven’t got the guts”. Hit 7/8
times killing her. S55(6)(c), her
infidelity would be disregarded
by the court but taunting his
lack of courage would still be
relevant
Clinton – D and V having
relationship problems, D
clinically depressed. V told D
she had had an affair. D beat
and killed V – where sexual
infidelity is the only element it
cannot be relied upon, however
if it is integral to, and forms an
essential part of the context
along with other things said
and done it is unrealistic to
exclude it
s.55(6)(a)-(b) - D cannot rely on
the triggers if his FSV or being
seriously wronged is due to D
inciting them
Standard of Self Control
S.54(4) - LOC does not apply
when D acted in a ‘considered
desire for revenge’
s.54(1) – a person of D’s sex
and age, with a normal degree
of tolerance and self-restraint
and in the circumstances of D
would have acted the same
s.54(3) – circumstances applies
to all circumstances except
those that affect D’s capacity
for tolerance and self-restraint
Camplin – 15 yr old boy killed
sexual tormentor – reasonable
man not confined to the adult
male
Mohammed – strict, bad
tempered and violent D –
temper would be disregarded
Gregson – unemployed and
depressed were circs
Hill – D was sexually abused as
a child – this was a circ
Might have reacted in the same
or similar way
Clarke – RM might have lost
control, reasonable man would
not have head-butted,
strangled and electrocuted his
ex-girlfriend
Involuntary Manslaughter – D does not intend to kill or cause GBH
Unlawful Act Manslaughter – discretionary life sentence
D commits an unlawful act dangerous act which was the substantial cause of death and has the
MR for the unlawful
Element of Offence
Law
Case
Unlawful Act
Must be a criminal offence, not Lamb – L and friend playing
a civil wrong
with revolver didn’t believe it
could fire – pointed gun at V
and fired – there was no
unlawful act, as V didn’t fear
violence so not an assault
Franklin – civil tory not enough
as basis
Must be an act, not an omission
Dangerous
Church test
Lowe – D convicted of wilful
neglect of son – failure to act
cannot support a UActMnsl
conviction
Church – all sober and
reasonable people would
inevitably recognise that it
would subject the other person
to at least the risk of some
harm
Causes Death
Not enough to just frighten
someone necessarily - where a
reasonable person would be
aware of the V’s frailty and the
risk of physical harm to him,
then D will be liable.
Dawson – attempted robbery
of a petrol station using
pickaxes – V had a heart attack
and died, fear not an act on its
own dangerous enough for
UActMnsl
Watson – D threw brick
through V’s window and broke
in. 87 yr old frail V came to
investigate, Ds physically
abused V and left. V died 90
mins later from heart attack –
Burglary could become
dangerous as soon as condition
of V became obvious to Ds
Dangerous act doesn’t have to
be aimed at V and can be
aimed at property
Mitchell – Post office queue –
punch to intended V was
dangerous enough and
unlawful to constitute UActMns
to actual V
Goodfellow – D set flat on fire
to get rehomed, wife and son
died in resulting out of control
fire – reasonable person would
recognise that the arson of a
residential building might cause
some harm to another person
White – poisoned drink – ‘but
for’ D’s actions would have died
anyway – so not the FC of V’s
death
Pagett – human shield - ‘but
for’ D’s actions the V would not
have died - so was the FC of V’s
death
Normal rules of causation
Factual – ‘but for’
Legal – using unlawful act
manslaughter cases where
possible!
Corion-Auguiste – D threw
firework in enclosed bus
station, general panic resulted
in V being crushed – D was
direct and substantial cause of
V’s death
Sohid – D in group who
attacked V and friend on
platform. V forced onto tracks
V prevented from climbing back
up – Original attack sufficiently
serious as to be cause of death
Carey – fight causing minor
bruising, V ran away and died
from heart condition – acts of
violence/affray not dangerous
enough for anyone to foresee
some harm and wasn’t
therefore serious enough to
have caused the death
AG’s Ref No.4 (1980) – D
pushed V headfirst over railing,
then dragged back upstairs by
rope round neck. D finally cut
V’s neck before disposing of
body – D could be convicted of
UActMnsl even though it
couldn’t be shown which act
actually caused death
Kennedy – D on V’s request,
filled syringe with heroin and
gave it to V to self-inject, V died
from drug – D hadn’t
administered the noxious
substance (an unlawful act) and
so couldn’t be guilty of
UActMns – V did the
administering and so broke the
chain
Mens Rea
For the unlawful act
Le Brun – D hit wife on chin in
fight, she fell unconscious, in
trying to hide this, D
accidentally hit her head on
concrete, causing a fractured
skull and death – although
original act hadn’t caused
death, the act and cause were
part of the same sequence of
events, the original punch was
intended, unlawful and
dangerous and part of
sequence of events which was
the substantial cause of death
Gross Negligence Manslaughter – discretionary life sentence
a person dies as a result of the negligence of another, and the degree of negligence by the
defendant is sufficiently serious to make him criminally liable for the death
Element of Offence
Law
Case
Duty of Care
DO NOT argue Caparo v
Stone v and Dobinson –
Dickamn tort law!
voluntary assumption of duty
Litchfield – D owned and
Use the criminal cases and
obvious relationships etc to
show a duty of care
Dr/Patient, Road users to each
other, Public position,
contractual etc
Breach of Duty
Failing to meet required
standard – but higher standard
than civil cases
Gross Negligence
Risk of death
captained ship, knowingly
sailed despite ship being in bad
condition – 3 crew members
died – captain had duty
Singh – duty owed to tenant by
D who was in charge of
maintaining property
Wacker – illegal immigrants
died of suffocation due to D
closing air vent - duty owed to
one with whom D is complicit in
crime
Willoughby – D owned pub, V
died in fire that D asked him to
set - A duty can arise from a
combination of factors
Evans – V was heroin addict
living with D and mother, D
gave heroin to V to self-inject, V
obviously overdosed. No
medical help sought. Mother
clearly owed DOC to daughter,
D owed DOC based on state of
affairs created by D that D
ought to have known was life
threatening to V
Andrews (1937) – where there
is a charge of gross negligence
manslaughter, simple lack of
care (enough for civil liability) is
not enough - a very high degree
of negligence must be proved
before the crime is established
Adomako - jury has to consider
extent to which D’s conduct
departed from the proper
standard of care on him.
Bateman – beyond a mere
matter of compensation
Bateman (1925) – ‘gross
negligence’ by D as the basis of
criminal liability
‘Does the conduct of the
accused show such disregard
for the life and safety of others
as to amount to a crime against
the state and conduct
deserving of punishment?’
Adomako (1994) – D was an
anaesthetist during an eye
operation. Oxygen supply
disconnected, V had heart
attack and later died as a result
of brain damage – competent
anaesthetist should have
noticed oxygen issue and D’s
failure to do so was ‘abysmal’
Finlay – scout leader in charge,
10 yr old fell to death, safety
procedures had been followed
– must show disregard for life
and safety, here D hadn’t
shown that so not guilty
Edwards – D allowed daughter
and friend to play on train
tracks and said they would
warn if train approached –
ignoring an obvious and serious
danger/decided to take risk –
this was grossly negligent
Substantial Cause of Death
Normal rules of causation – did
the grossly negligent conduct of
D which breached the duty of
care actually cause death
Factual Causation – ‘but for’
White – poisoned drink – ‘but
for’ D’s actions would have died
anyway – so not the FC of V’s
death
Pagett – human shield - ‘but
for’ D’s actions the V would not
have died - so was the FC of V’s
death
Legal Causation – the chain of
causation must remain
unbroken
A novus actus interveniens
(new intervening act) can break
the chain
Blaue – D stabbed V who
needed blood transfusion, V
refused based on religion, D
guilty of murder – you must
take your victim as you find
them – thin skull rule
Medical Treatment 
Jordan – D stabbed V in the
stomach, given wrong injection
by hospital – ‘palpably wrong’
medical treatment broke the
chain, D not guilty
Smith – soldiers fighting, V
stabbed, dropped on the way
to medical treatment –
‘thoroughly bad’ medical
treatment didn’t break the
chain, wound still the
‘operating and substantial’
cause of death
Cheshire – V shot and died
from rare complication in
medical procedure – Medical
negligence/poor treatment
CAN break the chain but only
where it is “so independent of
D’s acts, and in itself so potent
in causing death, that…the
contribution made by D’s
acts…are insignificant”
Victim’s own act 
Roberts – V jumped from car,
alleged D had made sexual
advances – V’s actions were
reasonably foreseeable and so
did not break the chain
Williams – V jumped from car,
alleged D tried to steal wallet –
V’s actions ‘daft’ and so broke
the chain
Attempts and Property Offences




Attempts
Theft
Robbery
Burglary
Attempts – s.1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981
D has intention to commit an offence and does an act which is more than merely preparatory
Element of Offence
Law
Case
More Than Merely Preparatory D doesn’t need to have
AG’s Ref (No 1 of 1992) - D
performed the last act before
dragged V shed, with the intent
the crime or have reached the
of raping her and assaulted but
‘point of no return’
did not rape V – attempted as D
doesn’t need to have
performed the last act before
the crime or have reached the
‘point of no return’
Embarked on the ‘crime proper’ Guellefer - D jumped onto a
race track to try and stop race
to get money back. D hadn’t
‘embarked on the crime proper’
and so conviction for
attempted theft quashed.
Test for MMP:
1. Had D moved from
planning or preparation
to execution or
implementation?
2. Had D done an act
showing that he was
actually trying to
commit the full
offence, or had he only
got as far as getting
ready, or putting
himself in a position, or
equipping himself to do
so?
Intention
D must act with intention to
commit the offence.
Geddes - D was found in the
boys toilets in a school in
possession of a large knife,
some rope and masking tape,
he had no right to be in the
school. He had not spoken to
any pupils or contacted any
pupils. His conviction for
attempted false imprisonment
was quashed
Campbell - D outside post office
with fake gun, disguise and
threatening note. Conviction
for att robbery quashed actions were not ‘more than
merely preparatory’
Boyle and Boyle - Ds found
standing next to a door. Lock
and hinge were broken. Trying
to gain entry was an attempt,
they were embarking on the
crime proper.
Tosti - D, intending to burgle
took metal cutting equipment
with him and examined
padlock. No damage on lock.
Guilty of att burglary
Jones - D's partner told him she
wanted to break up and she
was seeing V. D bought a gun,
got into V’s car wearing a crash
helmet, obscuring his face, and
pointed the gun at V. D
convicted of attempted murder
Easom - D picked up handbag
rifled through it, then put it
back without taking anything there was no evidence that D
intended to permanently
deprive so therefore could not
be guilty of attempted theft
AG’s Ref (Nos 1and 2 of 1979) If D had a conditional intent
(i.e. intended stealing but only
if there was anything worth
stealing) he could now be
charged with an attempt to
steal
For attempted murder P (and
therefore you in a scenario)
must prove an intention to kill
(intent to cause GBH is not
enough for attempted murder)
Impossibility
s.1(2) Criminal Attempts Act
1981 - ‘A person may be guilty
of attempting to commit an
offence….even though the facts
are such that the commission
of the offence is impossible.’
Whybrow - D wired up his
wife’s bath and caused her to
have an electric shock - he was
convicted of attempted murder
Walker & Hayles - W and H
threw V from a third-floor
balcony. V was not killed
Attempted murder CAN be
committed with the MR of
oblique intention to kill
(Woollin)
Shivpuri - D was convicted of
attempting to be ‘knowingly
concerned in dealing drugs’ He
thought he was carrying a
suitcase of heroin or cannabis,
which was in fact dried cabbage
leaves.
D can be guilty of an offence
which is physically impossible in
the exact circumstances, but
legally possible.
Sentence
If found guilty of attempted
murder D can face a
punishment of life
imprisonment.
If found guilty of an attempted
indictable crime (GBH/
manslaughter) D can face the
same penalty as if being tried
on indictment for that crime.
If found guilty of an attempted
crime which is TEW D will be
liable on summary conviction,
and can face punishment for a
summary offence.
Theft - s.1(1) Theft Act 1968 – 7 years imprisonment
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the
intention to permanently deprive the other of it
Element of Offence
Law
Case
Appropriation
s.3(1) – assumption of the
Morris – price tags rights of an owner
assumption of any of the rights
of an owner amounts to an
appropriation
Property
s.4(1) - includes money and all
other property, real or
personal, including things in
action and other intangible
property
Oxford v Moss – exam info confidential information does
not constitute property
s.4(3) – a person who picks wild
mushrooms, flowers or foliage
growing wild on any land not
guilty of theft unless it is for
sale/reward
Belonging to Another
Dishonesty
Intention to Permanently
Deprive
s.4(4) – wild creatures cannot
be stolen unless they have
been reduced into possession
s.5(1) – any other person
having possession or control of
it or having a proprietary right
or interest
s.2(1) – 3 examples when not
dishonest
(a) believes he has a right
in law to deprive the
other of it
(b) belief he would have
the others consent to
the appropriation
(c) he appropriates the
property in the belief
the person to whom
the property belongs
cannot be discovered
by taking reasonable
steps
s.2(2) – a person may be
dishonest notwithstanding their
willingness to pay
s.6(1) - intention to treat the
thing as his own to dispose of
regardless of the other's rights;
and a borrowing or lending…
equivalent to an outright taking
or disposal
Turner (No.2) – car repair - a
person can be liable for the
theft of their own property
Woodman – scrap metal - a
person can be in possession of
property even though they do
not know it is there
Ivey v Gentings - as confirmed
in R v Barton and Booth
1.) What was D’s
knowledge and belief
of the facts at the time?
2.) (in light of the above)
was his conduct
dishonest by the
standards of ordinary
decent people?
Lavender – council doors - D
intended to treat the property
as his own, regardless of the
rights of the council – as such
there was an ITPD
Lloyd – cinema films – no ITPD
as the ‘goodness, virtue and
s.6(1) – borrowing in
practical value’ had not been
circumstances making it equal
used up
to an outright taking
Robbery s.8(1) Theft Act 1968 –up to life imprisonment
A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in
order to do so he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then
and there subjected to force.
Element of Offence
Law
Case
Steals (Appropriation, Property, s.1-6 Theft Act 1968
Robinson - D had a right in law
Belonging to Another;
to the property (ie wasn’t
Dishonesty, Intent to
dishonest) and so there was no
Permanently Deprive
completed theft and therefore
no robbery
Force
Sufficient to be noticeable
Dawson and James – a nudge is
considered enough to be force
Jury to decide using the
– it is for the jury to decide if
ordinary meaning of the word
what occurred amounted to
‘force’
force
Threat of Force
Timing of the Force
Immediately before, or at the
timeof the theft
Intentional or reckless use of
force
Cannot be an accidental use of
force alongside a theft.
Bentham – Even if the threat is
not real, the D’s intention to
cause fear is what matters –
use of a fake gun still amounts
to a threat of force
Hale – Theft can be a
continuing act, it is for the jury
to decide when the theft is
complete and therefore
whether force has been used
during/after the theft
– did D intent to use force? Or
was he aware of the risk of
using force and took it
anyway?)
In order to steal
Force used for other purposes
does not become a robbery if D
later decides to steal
Burglary- s.9(1)(a) and s.9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968 – 14 years inprisonment
s.9(1)(a) – D enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft,
GBH or unlawful
s.9(1)(b) –having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser D steals or attempts to
steal or inflicts or attempts to inflict GBH
Element of Offence
Law
Case
Entry
Entry must be sufficient - for
Ryan –D was trapped in the
the jury to determine based on window so wasn’t effective
the evidence
entry but still convicted of
burglary
Building or part of a building
Permanence - Includes
inhabited vehicle or vessel
Can be entry of part of a
building
As a trespasser
Mens Rea
Permission negates trespasser
If D goes beyond permission
then he can be a trespasser
D must know or be reckless as
to whether he is a trespasser
PLUS:
s.9(1)(a) – intention at point of
entry to commit theft, gbh or
criminal damage
or
Aggravated Burglary
s.9(1)(b) - mens rea for theft or
gbh at point of committing or
attempting to commit these
offences in a building
s.10 – a person is guilty of
aggravated burglary if he
commits a burglary and at the
time has with him a firearm or
imitation firearm, any weapon
of offence or any explosive
B&S v Leathley – freezer with
electricity used for storage for 2
years was a building
Walkington – where D has
permission to be in one part of
a building but not another he
can be a trespasser in that part
of a building
Smith and Jones – A person is a
trespasser if he enters and
knows he is entering in excess
of the permission.
Smith and Jones – D’s
knowingly exceeded their
permission to be in the house,
permission was not given to
enter and steal things
Defences







Insanity
Automatism
Intoxication
Consent
Self-Defence
Duress by Threats
Necessity/Duress by Circumstances
Automatism – Bratty v AG
an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a
convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing
Element of Defence
Law
Case
External Cause
The cause of the automatism is
R v T – exceptional stress may be an
external – a complete defence
external factor which can cause
automatism – D as suffering from
External causes could include: a
PTSD from a rape and assisted in a
blow to the head, an attack by a robbery
swarm of bees, sneezing,
Quick - D, a nurse, injured a patient.
hypnotism, the effect of a drug
He had taken prescribed insulin in
the morning and then had a little to
eat. When in hypoglycaemic state
(too much insulin to sugar in blood)
sufferers mental functioning is
affected and they can become
violent in later stages. D’s state of
automatism was caused by an
external factor – the insulin, and so
he could rely on automatism as a
defence.
Hennessey - D charged with a TWOC
and whilst disqualified. Claimed he
was suffering from a hyperglycaemic
state (high blood sugar) as he hadn't
taken insulin to stabilise or eaten
properly and so was acting
unconsciously. Diabetes (which
caused the high blood sugar level)
was an internal factor and so
automatism didn’t apply, but D could
plead insanity.
Burgess - Sleepwalking can be
automatism but only if it is from an
external cause eg a blow to the head
Without Any Control
D’s plea is that his actions were
Broome and Perkins - D in a
not under the control of his
hypoglycaemic state drove home
conscious mind, i.e. that his
very erratically from work, hitting
actions were involuntary and
another car. He couldn’t remember
that there is no voluntary actus
the journey. Medical evidence
Self-Induced Automatism
reus and D does not have the
mens rea
suggested it was possible for him to
complete a familiar journey without
being conscious of doing so and he
would be able to react sufficiently to
steer and operate the car. D was able
to exercise some voluntary control
he had not been acting in an entirely
involuntary manner. – no
automatism defence
AG Ref No 2 of 1992 – reduced or
partial control of one’s actions is not
enough for non-insane automatism –
here D drove his lorry along the hard
shoulder and hit a broken down
vehicle killing 2 children he claimed
he was driving without awareness in
a trance state – since he was still in
control enough to drive the lorry not
automatism
Where D knows his conduct is
likely to bring on an automatic
state
Bailey – D a diabetic failed to eat
enough after taking his insulin – if
the offence is one of specific intent
then can be a defence as D lacks MR,
however if basic intent then not – as
D has been reckless in allowing
himself to be in an automatic state
If D is charged with a basic intent
offence:
• P must prove that D has
been reckless in his selfinduced automatism
• If it is caused through
drink/illegal
drugs/intoxicating
substances D will be unable
to plead (Majewski)
• Where D doesn’t know his
actions are likely to lead to a
self-induced automatic state
he has not been reckless
(Hardie)
Insanity – M’Naghten 1843 Rules
Labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature
and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what
was wrong
Element of Defence
Law
Case
Defect of reason
D’s powers of reasoning must Clarke – D put 3 jars into her bag and
be impaired
Disease of the mind
Legal term, not medical and
must be an internal cause
Can be a mental disease or
physical disease which affects
the mind and can be
temporary – as long as
occurring at time of offence
D not knowing
nature/quality of his act
or not know he was
doing wrong
Where D is having delusions
then they do not know the
nature and quality of their act
‘wrong’ – means legally not
morally wrong
Misc
Burden of proof lies on the
defence who must prove that
D was suffering from insanity
at the time based on the
balance of probabilities
left store without paying. D was being
absentminded and didn’t remember
picking up the items – conviction
quashed – DoR must be more than
absent-mindedness or confusion
Burgess – sleepwalking is within the
legal definition of insanity – at trial Dr
gave evidence that the sleepwalking
was due to an internal cause of a sleep
disorder
Kemp – D suffered from hardening of
the arteries to the brain, this caused D
to have temporary loss of control
moments during which he attached V
with a hammer. D’s ordinary mental
faculties of reasoning were affected and
so it was a DoM
Sullivan – D suffered from epilepsy and
had aggressive fits, during which he
injured a neighbour. Source of the DoM
is irrelevant, it just needs to exist at the
time of D’s actions
Hennessy – High blood sugar levels due
to diabetes were classed as insanity as
the levels affected the mind
Kemp/Sullivan/Hennessy/Burgess – all
of these D’s were unaware of what they
were doing
Windle - D’s wife spoke often of suicide,
D gave her 100 aspirin and when
arrested said ‘I suppose they will arrest
me for this’. He was suffering from a
mental illness, however his words
showed that he understood the nature
and quality of his act as he knew it was
legally wrong
Johnson – D forced his way into a
neighbour’s flat and stabbed him.
Charged with s.20. D was a paranoid
schizophrenic and was suffering from
delusions, however it was agreed that D
did know the nature and quality of his
acts and that they were legally wrong
M’Naghten rules – D thought he was
being persecuted by the Tories and tried
to kill a member of the Govt, but failed
and killed his secretary.
Where D is found to be
insane, the verdict is ‘not
guilty by reason of insanity’
Element of Defence
Misc
Voluntary Intoxication
Intoxication
Law
Covers intoxication by drink, drugs
or other substances
Case
Whether D is guilty or not depends
on:
 Whether the intoxication
was voluntary or
involuntary
 Whether the offence D is
charged with is one of basic
or specific intent (eg
Specific Intent: s.18,
murder, theft, Basic Intent:
assault, battery etc)
Where D has chosen to take an
intoxicating substance
Where D does not realise he
strength of the intoxicating
substance, this does not make it
involuntary
Allen – D was charged with
buggery and indecent assault. He
had been drinking wine with a
friend and claimed he didn’t know
the strength of the wine and this
made the intoxication involuntary
For a specific intent offence, VI can
negate MR – if D is so intoxicated
he did not form the MR he is not
guilty
Sheehan and Moore – 2 Ds were
very drunk when they threw
petrol over a tramp and set fire to
him. They were too drunk to have
formed any intent to kill/cause
GBH. Therefore they were not
guilty of murder (were guilty of
manslaughter though!)
Where D has the necessary MR
despite his intoxicated state he is
guilty of the offence – drunken
intent is still intent
AG Northern Ireland v Gallagher –
D decided to kill his wife. He
bought a knife to kill her with and
a bottle of whiskey. He drank a
large amount of whiskey before
killing V. Convicted of murder.
For a basic intent offence,
intoxication is not a defence. By
voluntarily becoming intoxicated D
has been reckless, which is the
DPP v Majewski – D had taken
drugs and alcohol. When very
intoxicated he attacked people in
a pub and the officers arresting
necessary MR for a basic intent
offence – getting drunk is a
‘reckless course of conduct’
Involuntary Intoxication
him. Convicted of s.47 – as the
MR for these included
recklessness, then a basic intent
crime and D had been reckless to
get intoxicated in the first place
Richardson & Irwin (1999)
Ds and V were university
students. They had each drunk
about five pints of lager. V was
dropped 10ft off a balcony
suffering serious injury. Fact of
being intoxicated does not
automatically make D
Where D did not know he was
taking an intoxicating substance.
Where D voluntarily takes a nondangerous drug, although not
specifically prescribed to him, the
taking may be treated as
involuntary and may therefore
provide a defence if he does so nonrecklessly.
Hardie - D took some valium (a
sedative) and set fire to a
bedroom as a result of his
intoxicated state which was an
unexpected reaction to the ‘nondangerous’ drug.
Where D has the necessary MR
when he commits the offence he
will be guilty
Kingston – Ds coffee was drugged
by a blackmailer, he was shown a
15yr old boy who was sleeping
and invited to abuse him, which D
did. D had the MR for the
indecent assault at the time and
the fact he was involuntarily
intoxicated dint affect this.
Where D has no MR at the time of
the offence he cannot be guilty of a
specific intent offence or a basic
intent offence – he has not been
reckless in getting drunk
Self-Defence/Prevention of Crime
s.3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 – a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in
the prevention of crime
Element of Defence
Law
Case
Misc
Includes actions to defend oneself, as
well as those to defend another.
Force used must be
 Necessary
 Reasonable in the
circumstances
Necessary
Burden of proof is on the prosecution
to prove to the jury beyond all
reasonable doubt that D was either;
not acting in s/d, not acting to defend
property or if he was, the force was
excessive
The use of force is not justified if it is
not necessary. It will be deemed
necessary in the circumstances which
exist or which the D genuinely
believed existed.
No duty to retreat
Proportionate Force
The force used by D must be
reasonable/proportionate in all the
circumstances (including the actual
circumstances, the circumstances D
believed, the time available to D to
decide on his actions, the risk to D, the
risk to V)
s76 of the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008:
s.76(3) The question whether
the degree of force used by D
was reasonable in the
circumstances is to be decided
by reference to the
circumstances as D believed
them to be
s.76(4) If D claims to have held a
Williams – D was on a bus and
saw a man assaulting a youth.
In fact the man was trying to
arrest the youth for mugging an
old lady. D got off the bus and
struggled with the man during
which he was injured. On
appeal, D was able to use
protection of others element as
he should have been judged
according to Ds genuine
mistaken view of the facts
Bird - D is under no duty to
retreat and does not have to
wait for an attack to start.
Striking first does not mean
that force is unnecessary
AG’s Ref No.2 1983 - D’s shop
had been attacked and
damaged by rioters. Fearing
further attacks, he made petrol
bombs. He was able to rely on
self defence and that D can
make preparations in self
defence
Clegg – Stolen car came
towards check point. D fired at
car after it had passed, since
there was no danger when shot
fired, the force was excessive
and self defence could not be
used
Martin – Burglars entered D’s
house in the night. D armed
himself with a a shotgun and
without warning fired 3 shots
into the dark. One burglar was
killed. Self defence rejected as
force wasn’t reasonable
particular belief as regards the
existence of any circumstances—
a) the reasonableness or
otherwise of that belief is
relevant to the question
whether D genuinely held it;
but
b) if it is determined that D did
genuinely hold it, D is entitled
to rely on it for the purposes
of subsection (3), whether or
not—
i.
it was mistaken, or
ii.
(if it was mistaken) the
mistake was a
reasonable one to
have made.
s.76(7) - outlines guidance when
deciding whether the force used
is reasonable in the circumstances
a) a person acting for a
legitimate purpose may not be
able to weigh to a nicety the
exact measure of any
necessary action; and
b) evidence of a person’s having
only done what the person
honestly and instinctively
thought was necessary for a
legitimate purpose constitutes
strong evidence that only
reasonable action was taken
by that person for that
purpose.
Palmer – it is ‘good law and
good sense that a man who is
attacked may defend himself. It
is both good law and good
sense that he may do, but may
only do, what is reasonably
necessary’
Consent
A person can consent to common assault, but not to ABH or greater harm, unless it comes within
an established exceptions
Element of Defence
Law
Case
Misc
Consent is not a defence to murder
Pretty – Mrs Pretty suffered from
MND and wanted her husband to
assist in her suicide.
HoL/European Court did not find
that Art 2 created a right to die.
Therefore, Euthanasia is a
criminal offence
Rice - Duelling, where the victim
consents to running the risk of
being killed, is illegal and the
dueller who inflicts the fatal
wound is guilty of murder
Normal Sports Activities
Extent of consent can be limited
Recognised exceptions:
 Tattooing etc
 Properly conducted games
and sports
 Reasonable surgical
interference
 Dangerous exhibitions
Brown – Consenting homosexual
males took part in BDSM
activities which caused a variety
of GBH/wounding injuries –
cannot consent to serious injury
(so includes s.47, s.20 and s.18)
Emmett - D and his partner
engaged in ‘high risk’ sexual
activity, which on one occasion
left V with hemorrhages to the
eyes and severe burns to the
breasts. Consent not allowed for
injuries caused for sexual
gratification.
While an event is being properly
conducted and supervised within the
rules and regulations of the sport
there is consent
Barnes – V suffered a serious leg
injury following a tackle during a
football match – criminal
proceedings should only be
brought where the conduct was
sufficiently serious – most
participants consent to such
injuries
When an incident goes beyond the
rules/regulations then there is
possibility of criminal liability but first
the following would be taken into
consideration:
 Type of sport
 Level at which being played
 Nature of the act
 Degree of force
 Extent of risk of injury
 State of mind of person
causing the injury
Horseplay and Sexual
Activities
True and Informed
Consent
Consent cannot be a defence if it has
been obtained by deception (no True
Consent) or the Victim has not made
an informed decision (no Informed
Consent).
Jones – group of boys tossing
each other into the air –
indulging in ‘rough’ undisciplined
sport or play not intending to
cause harm
Dica – biological GBH s.2- for
transmission of HIV/AIDS –
consent to sex does not mean
consent to risk of sexually
transmitted disease
Tabassum – females consented
to breast exams carried out by D
who they believed was medically
qualified. They had consented to
a medical exam, but not any
other purpose so they had not
consented
Richardson – consent to dental
treatment accepted even though
patients didn’t know D had been
disqualified from practice
Submission does not necessarily
mean true consent
Olugboja - V was raped by D’s
companion and saw her friend
raped by the same man. When D
tried to have sex with her, she
submitted. D claimed that this
meant she had consented and
that she knew the nature and
quality of the act (ie sex).
Sexual Offences Act 2003 puts
this on a statutory footing in
relation to sexual offences but
the principle applies to all
offences
Informed consent – V is fully aware of
all the risks involved in the activity.
Dica - D knew he was HIV+ and
had unsafe sex with a number of
women who also became
infected. At the time they had
sex the women were unaware of
D’s condition. Women D had
slept with did not provide
Informed Consent. They did not
fully appreciate the risks involved
and D’s failure to explain them
could form the basis of his
liability for s.20 OAPA
Where it cannot be proved D had the
AR and MR for the offence the issue
of informed consent is irrelevant (as
there is no offence to defend against)
Slingsby - D caused internal
injuries to V from the signet ring
he was wearing. Neither D nor V
were aware of the injury or the
cause of it until the subsequent
seriousness as a result of the
wound becoming septic and V
died. Her death was not the
result of a criminal act as the
defendant lacked the mens rea
for unlawful act manslaughter,
so the issue of consent was
irrelevant.
Age doesn’t necessarily mean there is
no consent – the importance is they
appreciate the nature of the act
Burrell v Harmer – D tattooed 2
boys aged 12/13 with their
consent. Consent defence not
allowed as the boys were unable
to understand the pain involved
and what a tattoo was
Mistaken Belief in
Consent
Consent may be a defence even
when D is mistaken about its
existence
Aitken - RAF officers set a friend
on fire when he was asleep (he
was wearing flameproof clothing
at the time). They honestly
believed he would have given
consent and their convictions for
s.20 were quashed.
Richardson & Irwin - Drunken
students were acquitted of s.20
after dropping a friend off a
balcony because they believed
he was giving consent
Duress by Threats
D has been forced to commit a crime because he has been threatened with death or serious injury
Element of Defence
Law
Case
Threat
The defence must be based on
R v Valderama Vega - D illegally
threats to kill or do serious
imported cocaine claiming he
bodily harm.
had done this because of: death
threats made by drug gang,
Jury are entitled to look at the
threats to disclose his
cumulative effects of all the
homosexuality to his wife and
threats
financial pressures/rewards for
his actions. . Threats to reveal
his homosexuality alone would
be insufficient to find the
defence but could be taken into
account when coupled with
threats of serious personal
violence.
Threat to person reasonably
feel responsible for
R v Hurley – Australian case
where duress defence accepted
when threats had been made
towards D’s girlfriend with
whom he was living at the time
The threat must be specifically
related to the crime that has
been committed.
Cole - D claimed he and his
girlfriend (and child) had been
threatened in order to repay
money that he owed. During
the threat he was hit with a
baseball bat. He did not have
money so committed two
Test for Duress
Graham Test:
1. Was the defendant
compelled to act as he did
because he reasonably
believed he had good cause
to fear serious injury or
death (a subjective test)?
2. If so, would a sober person
of reasonable firmness,
sharing the characteristics
of the accused have
responded in the same
way? (An objective test.)
Relevant Characteristics
This is in relation to the second
part of the duress test:
If so, would a sober person of
reasonable firmness, sharing
the characteristics of the
accused have responded in the
same way?
The mere fact that D was more
pliable, vulnerable, timid or
susceptible to threats than a
normal person does not have an
impact on the second part of
the test.
robberies to pay his debt threats to him were directed at
getting repayment and not
directed at making him commit
a robbery. Not a sufficient
connection between the threats
and the crimes he committed
Graham - K was a violent man
and told D to help strangle V. D
did so and V was killed. D
pleaded not guilty - he had
complied with K's demand to
pull on the flex only because of
his fear of K. D was convicted.
Bowen – characteristics of a D
which might make duress more
likely and which ones would not
be taken into account.
Bowen suggested the following
could be considered: age;
possibly gender; pregnancy;
serious physical disability which
might inhibit self-protection;
recognised mental illness or
psychiatric condition.
However, if D is in a category of
persons whom the jury might
think less able to resist pressure
than people not within that
category this can be considered.
Immediacy
The threat must be
"immediate" or "imminent" in
the sense that it is operating
upon the accused at the time
that the crime was committed.
Also D can only use duress if the
D is placed in a situation where
Gill - D and his wife had been
threatened unless they stole a
lorry. But there was a period of
time where D was left alone so
could have raised the alarm –
could not use the defence of
duress.
Self-Induced Duress
there is no safe avenue of
escape.
Hudson and Taylor - Allowed to
use the defence of duress
because the police may not
have been able to provide
effective protection for this.
(also age was a factor)
Where D has brought the
duress on himself through his
own actions; for example where
a defendant voluntarily joins a
criminal gang and commits
some offences, but then is
forced to commit other crimes
which he did not want to do
under duress
Sharp - D joined a gang who
carried out robberies. He
claimed that he had wanted to
withdraw from the robberies
before the last one where a
man was shot dead. Couldn’t
use duress as a defence. He
knew when he joined the gang
that they were likely to use
violence, so he could not claim
duress when they threatened
him with violence.
Shepherd - D joined an
organised gang of non-violent
shoplifters. D said he wanted to
stop taking part but was then
threatened with violence unless
he continued. Conviction
quashed - If he had no
knowledge that the gang was
likely to use violence then the
defence of duress was available
to him.
Hasan - D associated with a
violent drug dealer who told D
to burgle a house in order steal
a large amount of money that
was in a safe there. The dealer
threatened that if D did not do
this then D and his family would
be harmed. D, carrying a knife,
broke into the house but was
unable to open the safe.
The defence of duress is
excluded where D voluntarily
associates with others who are
engaged in criminal activity and
he foresaw or ought reasonably
to have foreseen the risk of
being subjected to any
compulsion by threats of
violence.
Misc
Duress is available for all crimes
except for murder/attempted
murder
If D is voluntarily intoxicated
and mistakenly believes he has
been threatened he cannot use
Duress as a defence.
However, if the duress is
irrelevant to the intoxication
the D can still use the defence.
Element of Defence
Necessity
Necessity
Law
Duress by Circumstancesextension of the law on the
defence of Necessity.
Necessity used to be available
in specific circumstances eg –
pulling down a house to prevent
fire spreading, a prisoner
escaping if the jail catches fire.
Case
ReA (conjoined twins) 2000
Dudley and Stephens necessity not a defence to the
murder and cannibalism of the
cabin boy!
Sir James Stephen 1887 three requirements for the
application of the defence of
necessity:
1. the act is needed to avoid
inevitable and irreparable
evil;
2. no more should be done
than is reasonably
necessary for the purpose
to be achieved;
3. the evil inflicted must not
be disproportionate to the
evil avoided.
Duress of Circumstances
D believes he, or those with him (for example, in a car) would suffer death or serious injury if he
did not act by doing what he did
Element of Defence
Law
Case
Duress of circs available where
Willer – D and passenger were
on an objective standpoint D
driving down a narrow alley
was acting in order to avoid a
when car was surrounded by
threat of death/serious injury.
gang of youths. D drove on the
pavement at 10mph to get
away from them and drove to
police station. D charged with
The 2 stage test from Graham
reckless driving. Jury should
applies to duress of circs also
have been able to consider
1. Was D compelled to act as
whether D drove under duress
he did because he
Conway – Passenger in D’s car
reasonable believed he had had previously been shot. The
good cause to fear
car was stopped when P saw 2
death/serious injury
2. If so, would a sober person
of reasonable firmness,
sharing the same
characteristics of the
accused have responded in
the same way
men running towards the car,
thinking they were the people
after him and yelled at D to
drive off very fast. D charged
with reckless driving.
Pommell – D was found by
police at 0800 lying in bed with
a loaded sub-machine gun. He
told police he had taken it off
some ‘geezer’ who was going to
do some damage with it at
1am. Duress of circs should
have been left to jury.
Rodger & Rose – Ds were
serving life sentences for
murder – the original tariffs had
been increased. Ds claimed
they became angry and
depressed and that this forced
them to break out of prison.
Duress of circs not allowed as
the circs which caused the
actions were internal to the D’s,
not external as in other cases