Pq Master Compilation Notes

[AR/MR generally]

AR –

1. Relates to 3 aspects

   1. Conduct

   2. Circumstances

   3. Consequences

MR –

1. Intent

   1. For direct intent,

      1. Courts avoid giving specific direction unless necessary – usually leaves ‘intent’ as it is for the jury (Moloney)

      2. Law Commission – acting in order to bring something about

   1. For indirect/oblique intent, 4 steps (Woollin direction) –

1. Is this a rare case, where simple direction for intent is not enough?

2. If so, jury is entitled (not obliged) to find intention if –

3. Result was actually a virtual certainty, barring unforeseen intervention

   1. Interpreted to mean the act’s “inevitable consequence” in Matthews – but cannot mean absolutely inevitable, since if D pushes V off the top of a cliff, it is conceivable that despite the fall V will not suffer death or serious injury. Hence, virtual certainty means as certain as we can be about anything

4. D appreciated (iii) – subjective

1. Recklessness

   1. R v G as authority – D must

      1. Foresee a risk (subjective)

         1. Everyone and anyone must foresee a risk, at least fleetingly, if they are held to be reckless

      2. Take it

      3. The risk, in the circumstances known to D, is an objectively unreasonable one to take

   2. Further –

      1. R v G – D cannot close his mind to the obvious – in deliberately closing his mind, it is presumed that D has foreseen the risk – and that is the end of the matter

         1. In Parker, where D slammed down the handle of the telephone hard on to the machine, no defence to say he did not foresee the risk.

      2. 2 ways of reading it –

         1. Brief/fleeting glimpse of the risk – satisfies the advertent test

         2. Legal fiction – employing a legal fiction to achieve what is morally appropriate for this kind of case. D didn’t actually foresee risk, but court tried to make it seem as though he did

2. Presumption of MR

   1. Sweet v Parsley established in statutory interpretation there should be presumption of MR

3. Mistake

   1. A genuine belief in consent will provide a defence of consent, regardless of whether it is reasonable (Morgan)

Contemporaneity + continuing act/one transaction/creation of danger –

1. Contemporaneity rule

   1. Requirement

      1. AR & MR must coincide for a crime to be committed (Fagan, Thabo Meli)

   2. Innocent agent

      1. Jakeman – *MR existed at the start of the journey, together with D’s AR, despite it being ultimately completed by an innocent agent. Contemporaneity rule satisfied

         1. D was importing two suitcases of cannabis from Ghana. She left the suitcases at Paris and the French authorities assumed it had been misrouted and forwarded it to England. She claimed to have repented during the flight and did not claim the suitcase

2. Continuing act

   1. Fagan – where initial act was unintentional, but when D knew the wheel was on the officer’s foot, and refused to move, contemporaneity rule is satisfied. 4 factors – when F knew the wheel was on officer’s foot, F –

      1. Remained seated in the car so that his body was in indirect contact with officer through the medium of the car

      2. Switched off the ignition of the car

      3. Maintained the wheel of the car on the foot

      4. Used words indicating the intention of keeping the wheel in that position

3. One transaction

   1. Thabo Meli

      1. Established doctrine of “one transaction”, where a serious of acts constituting an overarching plan to kill cannot be divided, and AR + MR coincidence is found through the whole transaction

   2. Le Brun

      1. Where the unlawful application of force and the eventual act causing death are parts of the same sequence of events, the same transaction, the interval of time between the two does not serve to exonerate D

      2. **Crucial that D dragged V to hide his crime

Omissions –

1. Requirement

   1. D liable for omission only if D has a duty to act

2. Act/Omission distinction

   1. Speck – child innocently placed her hand on a man’s genital area and he did not move her hand – held to be an act by the man

   2. Bland – discontinuing life-sustaining treatment and medical support by doctors regarded as an omission

      1. Analysis by Herring – 2 strands of arguments

         1. Suggestion that by switching off life support Bland’s doctors are returning him to the position he was in when arriving at the hospital – argument is that if the doctors had left him alone and he had died, that would have been an omission – suggests that focus of the distinction is not so much physical movement, but whether there was an interruption in “nature taking its course”.

            1. But this might put too much weight on it. Applying it to Speck, maybe the “natural” course of events would be the man moving his hand away – it is unclear

         2. Best to imagine life support machine as a team of doctors and nurses working to keep patient alive. If the head doctor declares it hopeless, and the team steps back, it would have been clearly an omission

3. Duties

   1. Statutory duty

   2. Duties of law enforcement

   3. Contractual duty –

      1. Pittwood – D employed as a gatekeeper on railway line – one day failed to perform his duties and did not close the gate, leading to an accident that resulted in the death of a man. Held liable for manslaughter

   4. Voluntary assumption of duty – may be expressed or implied

      1. Stone & Dobinson – where Ds voluntarily let V stay at their house, and Dobinson took care of V, there is a duty

         1. *Familial relation itself seems insufficient

   5. Creation of danger

      1. Miller – where D has created a danger, and fails to take measures that lie within one’s power to counteract it, criminal liability is incurred

      2. Evans – extended Miller principle – D liable if s/he contributed to creation of risk

Transferred malice

1. Rule

   1. When, having MR to harm V1, D inadvertently causes a V2 to be hurt instead, D is still responsible (Latimer)

2. Complications

   1. Horder – that if outcome arose in an unexpected and unforeseen way, transferred malice doesn’t work

   2. S&S – if the difference immaterial to the offence definition, if it is, then transferred malice works

      1. Better view because this is in line with the normal rule in the absence of transferred malice

[Criminal...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Law Notes.