Exam Technique As you work through each offence use the following structure: I dentify – the appropriate offence/defence D efine – the offence/defence E xplain – the legal rules using authorities (cases and statutes) to support your answer A pply – these rules to the facts of the question

Murder 1.Actus Reus: Unlawful killing Of a reasonable person in being Under the Queen’s peace 2.Causation: Factual Causation (“But for” test) Legal Causation (Substantial and Operating cause Any Novus Actus Interveniens? (by 3 rd party or victim) 3.Mens Rea: Express or Implied malice? Direct or Indirect Intent – if indirect consider foresight of consequences Transferred Malice?

Loss of Control 1.Did D actually lose self-control? Was there a delay between the incident causing the loss of control and the killing? Is this relevant? 2.Did D lose control because of one of the qualifying triggers? a)Fear of serious violence from V (subjective test) b)Things done and/or said which constituted circumstances of a grave character and also caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (objective test) 3.Do one of the restrictions apply? a)Did D incite the victim? b)Did D lose control because of sexual infidelity? If so, are there any other factors that could be considered (Clinton)? c)Was D acting out of a considered desire for revenge? 4.Objective test – Might a person of D’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D have reacted in the same or a similar way Must discount any characteristics or conditions that would make D more likely to lose self-control

Diminished Responsibility Is there an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition Does this substantially impair D’s ability to either: Understand the nature of his conduct; or Form a rational judgement; or Exercise self-control Does the abnormality of mental functioning provide an explanation for the killing (causal link) Abnormality of mental functioning must cause D’s conduct or at least be a significant contributory factor in causing it Consider effects of intoxication – disregard the effects of voluntary intoxication If Alcohol Dependency Syndrome – jury to only consider effects of involuntary intoxication and disregard voluntary intoxication

Gross Negligence Manslaughter 1.Did D owe V a duty of care? 2.Was there a breach in duty? Objective - Did D act as a "reasonable person would do in their position". 3.Did the breach directly result in V’s death (causation)? 4.Was there a risk of death? 5.Was the negligence serious enough to give rise to criminal liability (“gross negligence”)?

Unlawful Act Manslaughter 1.Was there an unlawful act? 2.Was it a dangerous act? Church – objective test - all sober and reasonable people would recognise it would subject the other person to the risk of some harm, not necessarily serious harm 3.Did the act cause the death? Normal rules of causation and thin skull rule apply 4.Did D have the mens rea for the unlawful act (not the killing)? Need intention for the unlawful act – will either be intent or subjective recklessness depending on the unlawful act

Assault 1.Was there an act? What was it? 2.Did the act: Cause (normal causation rules) V to apprehend Immediate Violence/force? 3.Was there intention or recklessness to cause V to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence

Battery 1.Was there force? What was it? 2.Was the force unlawful? Would not be unlawful if V consented, if police preventing a crime, or if everyday contact Indirect battery? Omission? – if so only if duty to act 3.Did D intend or was he subjectively reckless to apply force? Transferred malice?

S.47 Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm 1.Was there an assault (assault or battery)? 2.Is there causation? The assault or battery must occasion the harm 3.Is there actual bodily harm? Look at nature of injuries 4.Is there mens rea for either assault or battery?: Does not need to be any intent or recklessness as to any harm

S.20 Grievous Bodily Harm 1.Is there either: An unlawful wounding; or An unlawful infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm? Look at level of injuries Is victim vulnerable? If so, ABH injuries could amount to GBH Is there a series of ABH injuries? If so, together could amount to GBH 2.Did D intend to inflict some harm or was he subjectively reckless as to whether such harm would occur?

S.18 Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent 1.Is there either: An unlawful wounding; or An unlawful infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm? Look at level of injuries Is victim vulnerable? If so, ABH injuries could amount to GBH Is there a series of ABH injuries? If so, together could amount to GBH 2.Did D either intend to either: Cause GBH (intend serious harm) Recklessness not enough Includes oblique/indirect intent Resist or prevent an arrest AND intended or was reckless as to cause some harm

Self-Defence 1.Was there a necessity for the force? In the circumstances as they actually exist? or In the circumstances as they are genuinely believed to be by D? But remember if D is voluntarily intoxicated, he cannot rely on his mistaken belief There can still be necessity even if an attack hasn’t occurred yet provided it was imminent 2.Was the force used by D reasonable in the circumstances as D perceived them? Was the force excessive? Was the threat still present or had it passed? Was the amount of force unreasonable?

Intoxication Voluntary or Involuntary Intoxication? InvoluntaryVoluntary Did intoxication remove MR? YES = defence of Intoxication - Acquittal NO – no defence of Intoxication Was crime Basic or Specific Intent? Basic Intent (recklessness) – No defence Specific Intent (Intent only) – has intoxication removed intention? YES = defence of Intoxication – but D convicted of lesser basic intent crime NO – no defence of Intoxication

Consent 1.Is it an offence that D can consent to? Fatal offence – no Non-fatal offence – usually cannot consent to more than battery But “recognised exceptions”: Normal sports activities Normal social intercourse Medical etc. Horseplay Lawful correction Sexual Activities – not normally a recognised exception if more than battery (but inconsistent case law 2.Is the consent genuine? Consider age and mental capability Fraud

Insanity 1.Is there a defect of reason? Was D intoxicated? If so no defence if it caused the defect of reason 2.Is it caused by a disease of the mind? (remember it must be an internal factor for insanity) 3.Does one of the following apply? D does not know the nature and quality of his act He did not know what he was doing; or He did not appreciate the consequences of his act; or He did not appreciate the circumstances in which he was acting OR D does not know that what he was doing was wrong 4.Explain consequence of the defence Potential unlimited hospital order (mandatory if murder)

Automatism 1.Is D’s act involuntary? 2.Is D’s act caused by an external factor? (if it is internal consider insanity) 3.Is the automatism self- induced? (If so, no defence)