Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

Fraud Revision Sheet
Fraud by false representation is defined under s2 Fraud Act 2006
...


There are therefore four elements to consider:
Actus reus
-

Makes a false representation

Mens rea
-

Dishonestly
With knowledge that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
With the intent to make a gain for himself or another, or cause loss to another/ expose
them to a risk of loss

Makes a false representation
S2(2) Making an untrue or misleading representation
DPP v Ray 1974 – a representation can be a continuing representation and therefore any change of
the situation must be notified if the previously true representation becomes false; in this case the
representation was to pay for meals at a restaurant
Rai 2000 – D s represe tatio was true up u til the poi t whe his
notify the council
...

S2(4) A representation can be express or implied:

other died, a d he failed to

Fraud Revision Sheet
MPC v Charles 1976 – Giving a cheque makes the implied representation that he has the authority to
use the cheque; in this case, the cheque given to a casino bounced and this was seen as a false/
misleading representation that sufficient funds were available
...


Dishonestly
The Ghosh test applies when considering dishonesty as it did in theft
...


With knowledge that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading s2(2)(b)
The words ight e do ot ea re klessly
...


ight e

With the intent to make a gain for himself or another, or cause loss to another/ expose them to a
risk factor of loss
There simply needs to be an intent from D to gain for himself or another, cause loss to another or
expose another to a risk factor of loss
...

Gains are defined under s5 Fraud Act 2006 as only including money or other property, but the gain
or loss can be temporary or permanent
...
e
...

-

The act is more than merely prepatory
With intention to commit the offence

AG s ‘ef ( o 3 of 1992) [1994] – can be reckless as to the circumstance; i
...
attempted rate where D
may be reckless as to whether V is consenting

S1 does not apply to summary offences, but there are also a vast number of statutory offences
where s1 does not apply e
...

S5(1)(a) Road Traffic Act 1988 – Driving or attempting to drive with excess alcohol

S1(2) Criminal Attempts Act 1981
-

Can be guilty even where the offence is impossible as in Shivpuri (1987)

Taaffe 1984 – there can be no attempt if the behaviour is not criminal in nature

More than merely prepatory
Tosti 1997 – esse tiall the fi st steps take whe hidde e uip e t ea
a lock
Attempted murder
Only an intention to kill will suffice, not the intention for GBH
Whybrow 1951 – attempted the murder of his wife

a d D was e a i i g

Inchoate Offences and Conspiracy Revision Sheet
Encouraging or assisting

S44 Criminal Attempts act 1981
-

Intentionally does an act capable of encouraging or assisting an offence by P

I te tio he e efe s to di e t i te t o l i
...
It is D s pu pose
...


Defences
S47(6) – Impossibility is not a defence to inchoate offences
S50 – D acted reasonably in the circumstances that he knew or reasonably believed exists
S51 – Puts the principle from Tyrell 1894 in to statute – if D is the victim of the crime he is
encouraging or assisting he is in a protected category
...

Saik 2006 – essence is agreement and offence is complete as soon as the parties agree, whether or
not the plan is put in to action
-

MR is the intention to carry out the act

S1(2) – Recklessness is not sufficient for conspiracy
...

Bateman 1925 – Established that gross negligence can be the basis of criminal liability; in the case, a
do tor s eglige t treat e t resulted i the death of his patie t
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 – Key case that established the neighbour test and the principles of
duty of care; in this case, a snail was found in a ginger beer
...


y a t that I ought to ha e the

i

Duty of care
Adomako 1994 – A leading case in GNM; in this case, a anaesthetist failed to notice a disconnected
tube whilst in operation and was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter
...
They were convicted
...


Risk of death
Adomako 1994 – Lord Ma kay referred to his judge e t as a risk of death
...

Bateman – clarified Ado ako a d state that a risk of death is the disregard for the life a d safety of
others
...
The mens rea is derived from the negligent
behaviour of D
...

The act must be:
-

Unlawful
Dangerous
That causes death
An act for which D has mens rea
Actus reus

The unlawful act
The unlawful act must be a criminal offence
...
There was no criminal offence involved and there was therefore no conviction of
manslaughter
...

Church 1966 – established the test for a dangerous act:
1) It need not be the accused to foresee harm, but the sober and reasonable person
2) The risk need be some harm, not necessarily serious harm

Mitchell 1983 – Scuffle in a post office queue resulted in an old lady dying after being knocked down
...

Dawson 1985 – The act was not dangerous enough to warrant a manslaughter conviction; in this
case, a petrol station attendant died from a heart attack brought about by the fear of 3 men
attempting to rob the shop
...
In this case, the V was old and frail who then had a heart
attack after a burglary
...

Corion-Auguiste 2004 – an old lady died as a result in a panic rush after a firework was thrown at a
bus stop
...


Involuntary Manslaughter Revision Sheet
Kennedy 2007 – V injected himself with a drug given to him by D
...
No conviction of manslaughter
...
The act must be intentional with
the mens rea to commit the act
...
This was
enough for a manslaughter conviction as they had the mens rea for the unlawful act
...
This was enough as the
act was intentional
...
3 People died
in the fire
...
However he could also have been convicted of GNM where he
failed to minimise the danger of the situation he had created when he had a duty to, as in Miller
...
It then
naturally considers intention which can be direct or indirect/ oblique
...
e
...
This is the level of mens rea, less than intention,
where D is aware of the risk of his actions but commits the act anyway
...


In Brady 2006 – it was established that D needs only foresee a possible risk, not necessarily an
obvious or significant one
...

R v Thabo Meli 1954 – a series of acts can constitute one continuing act and thus there remains the
coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
...


i g the

e s ea to ot

R v Le Brun 1991 – with no preconceived plan, trying the conceal an assault was treated as the same
sequence of events

Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter Revision Sheet
Murder is a common law offence and thus has no statutory definition
...


ei g a d u de the Ki g s pea e ith

ali e

Actus reus
Unlawful Killing
Some killings may be lawful i
...
in self-defence or when it as u de the ki g s peace

Omissions
Some killings can result from an omission when there is a duty to act
...
Examples include,
Gibbins and Proctor 1918 – Duty arising from the relationship between a parent and a child
Pitwood 1902 – Contractual duty
Miller 1983 – Duty arising from creating a dangerous situation

A reasonable person in being
This raises the issue of when a person becomes a human being, and seizes to be, from a legal
perspective
...


ai dead patie ts so it ould see

the a e ot

Malcherek and Steel 1981 – Two separate cases where doctors turning off life support did not break
the chain of causation and the doctors were not liable for unlawful homicide
...


Under the King’s peace
The simply means at times when not at war
...


Causation
The normal rules of factual causation (White 1910/ Pagett 1983) apply, as well as the normal rules of
legal causation (Cheshire 1991)
...

Blaue 1975 – V, a Jeho ah s Wit ess, efused a lood t a sfusio follo i g a sta
an intervening act as the D must take his victim as he finds it
...
This as ot

Intervening act (novus actus interveniens)
It is possible for the chain of causation to be broken if an intervening act leads D to no longer be the
operating and substantial cause of death (legal causation)
...

Roberts 1971 – Jumping out of a moving car to avoid sexual assault did not break the chain of
causation
Williams 1991 – Jumping out of a moving car to avoid a wallet being stolen was unreasonable and
did break the chain of causation
...
Case law has identified
extensions to this definition
...
e
...

Afo ethought does ot eed a
after the killing
...
This was established in Vickers 1957
...
This was sufficient mens rea for murder
...
Implied intention can also be found easily in
most cases as in Vickers, where the intention can be inferred where D clearly intended to cause
serious injury
...
The case law regarding the foresight of
consequence has developed over time
...
It was held that nothing less than actual
intention to kill or cause GBH can satisfy the mens rea of murder
...
It was held that the foresight of consequence could indeed
amount to intention, but this is for the jury to consider
...
The Court of Appeal suggested that the jury should consider
2 uestio s…
-

Do they feel that death o se ious i ju
as a i tuall e tai esult of D s a tio s?
Did the accused foresee that this was a virtually certain result?

If the answer to both is yes then intention can be inferred
...


Woolin 1998 – D killed his baby in a fit of temper, it was held that the test developed in Nedrick
should epla e the o d i fe fo fi d
...


This offence is triable either way, depending on the gravity of the assault
...


Occasioning
An assault or battery under s47 can only be charged if it occasions in abh
...
The courts considered whether the chain of causation had been broken which it
had t si e V s a tio s ould e reaso a l foreseen by D
...


Actual bodily harm
A tual refers to the fa t that there is a tuall so e for
done
...

Chan Fook 1994 – Psychiatric harm can be deemed as abh, provided that expert evidence
sho s the har is a s pto of a ide tifia le li i al o ditio that is ot just ere
e otio s
...
This is therefore the
intention or recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence
or force
...


S20 OAPA

S20 states that,
hosoe er shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm on
any person, either with or without a weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and
shall be liable to imprisonment for no more than 5 years
...

Actus reus
-

Unlawful wounding, or
Unlawful infliction of gbh

Wounding
JCC v Eisenhower 1994 – there ust e a reak i the o ti uit of the ski
...
There must be a break in both layers of the skin, usually causing
blood loss
...


Burstow; Ireland 1997 – Psychiatric harm can be enough for GBH so long as there is
suffi ie t a d e pert edi al e ide e
...

Brown 2004 – injuries to a young child or the elderly shall be treated as more serious than
the same injuries to a strong an healthy adult
...

Mowatt 1976 – this case established that D will be liable under s 20 should he intend or
foresee so e ph si al har , al eit i or i hara ter
...


Actus reus
The actus reus of s18 includes everything regarding the actus reus of s20
...

Mens Rea
The level of mens rea required is the vital difference between s20 and s18
...
Furthermore, it is not enough to foresee some harm, but an
intention to cause GBH is required, even when the resulting injury is wounding
...
It is
sufficient that the D intends or is reckless as to cause some harm
...

Oblique intention will suffice for s18
...


Revision sheet
The courts: procedures for negligence cases
Tort Law
The civil courts

The court of first instance – the court that first tries a case
The basic structure:
Initial hearing: County court or High court (QBD)
First appeal: Court of Appeal (Civil division)
Final appeal: Supreme Court

The courts of first instance
Cases are generally heard depending on which track they fit in: small claims, fast track or multi track
...

Appeals
Either side of a i il ase a appeal agai st the judge s decision
...
These are usuall o pro edural atters or
smaller claims in country court
...
The leapfrog procedure can take a case straight from County Court or High court
to the Supreme Court, but this is only used in cases of extreme significance
...
The rarel ha ge the trial judge s fi di gs i
fact, as the judge would have seen the it esses behaviour whilst under oath
...
e
...


The burden and standard of proof
In civil cases the burden of proof in on the C to prove his claim on the balance of probabilities
...
The C must prove that it is ore likel tha ot that D
had been negligent (standard of proof)
...

There are 2 exceptions to this
...
This is where if D has been criminally
convicted of a crime based on the same event, the court will immediately be satisfied that D was
wrongful beyond all reasonable doubt (standard of proof in criminal cases)
...
The D would then have the opportunity to prove that he is not negligent, which
would seem impossible given the conviction
...

Res ipsa loquitur is the se o d e eptio hi h literall ea s the thi g speaks for itself
...
There is a part
test for this
...
Res
Ipsa loquitur applied and was satisfied
...
Res ipsa
loquitur was satisfied
Pearson v NW Gas Board – D was able to show that there was no negligence so res ipsa loquitur
as t satisfied; i this ase a a as killed due to a e plosio , ut all reaso a le pre autions
were taken and 24 hour emergency service was available
...

2) Instruct solicitor: Initial instructions taken; terms of business letter and initial letter of instruction
sent to C
...

4) Letter of claim sent to D: Three months to investigate
...
If
denies then the matter will proceed in relation to both liability and quantum via court proceedings
...
In high value cases
the C and D may instruct their own medical experts
...

8) Negotiations
9) If negotiations fail to produce settlement, issue court proceedings
...

Fast track: £5000-£25000, trail up to one day, moderately complex cases/
Multi-track: Over £25000, complex cases
...
Include personal injuries up to
£1000 which include pain, suffering and loss of amenity
...

Fast track
Normal tra k for ases that do t fit i the s all lai s a d are less that £ 5000
...
There may be
some complex issues involved
...

Multi-track
More complex cases involving more than £25000
...


Court proceedings

1) Claim form
2) Particulars of claim: Court Issue Fee (Depends on case value)
...

3) Acknowledgement of service
...
Court Fee
...

7) Disclosure of documents relevant to case held by both parties
...

Lawrence 1972 – consent of the owner is irrelevant to appropriation which does not imply the
absent of consent
Gomez 1993 – the assumption of any of the rights of the owner is considered as appropriation
Hinks 2001 – receiving a valid gift is an appropriation

Property
Property is given a broad definition under s4(1) of the Theft Act 1968, as follows,
all thi gs, eal o pe so al, i ludi g

o ey, thi gs i a tio a d othe i ta gi le p ope ty
...
e
...


Intention to permanently deprive
S6 – Extended meaning
ega ded as ha i g the i te tio of pe a e tly dep i i g the othe of it if his i te tio is to t eat
the thi g as his o to dispose of ega dless of the othe s ights
Raphael 2008 –
he e o o i g o le di g is fo a pe so a d i the i u sta es
out ight taki g
Lloyd 1985

aki g it e ui ale t to a

Revision Sheet
Liability in negligence
Law - Tort
Civil law – law concerned with the relationship between individuals
Civil evidence – the rules that sets out how the facts of a civil case must be proved
Balance of probabilities – the standard of proof in a civil case where the claimant must prove that his
case is more likely than not to be as presented
The reasonable man – a term used to describe the basis of negligence law – the typical, ordinary
person

The duty of care
Blythe v Birmingham waterworks – defi ed the ea i g of eglige e as the o ission to do
something which the reasonable man, guided on considerations which ordinarily regulate human
o du t, ould do
Donoghue v Stevenson – developed the neighbour principle when a snail was found inside a ginger
beer – the D as see to e the eigh our of the o pa y
Caparo v Dickman – set out the modern three-part test to decide whether a duty of care exists in
cases where there is no precedent for the duty of care
The three part test
1) Foreseeability
This is an objective test: would the reasonable a i the D s positio ha e foreseen that
someone in the lai a t s position may be injured? This can be seen in Donoghue v Stevenson
where failure to prevent the snail being in to bottle could cause foreseeable harm
...
There can be proximity in time, space and relationship
...
e
...

Bournhill v Young – When a woman went to see an accident and suffered a miscarriage, there
was no proximity as the claimant was in a safe place when the collision occurred
...

M Loughli O Brie – when C was told of events that injured the family, she rushed to see
them and suffered shock
...


Revision Sheet
Liability in negligence
Law - Tort
3) Reasonableness
This concerns whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care
...
of West York – it was decided that the police need to be able to work without
undue worry of legal action in negligence against them when the mother raised a case against
them when they had released the Ripper who later killed her daughter
MPC v Reeves – The police owed a duty of care to a prisoner who committed suicide when he
was known to be a suicide risk
Orange v Chief C
...
This is done by failing to reach the standard of care of the reasonable man (Blythe v
Birmingham waterworks)
...

Types of reasonable man





The ordinary person doing to task
The learner
The professional
The youth

The ordinary person doing the task
The D is expected to act as an ordinary and reasonable person doing the task
...
It was held that he DID reach the standard of the reasonably competent
person doing the task
...

Nettleship v Weston – the standard of care expected of a learner driver is the same as any driver
...


Revision Sheet
Liability in negligence
Law - Tort
The professional
The principle for professionals is established by asking two questions:
1) Does the conduct of D fall below the standard of the ordinary, competent professional?
2) IS there any substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the course
taken by D?
If the a s er to the first Q is
care
...
HE
can only breach his duty where the risks are or become known
Young people
When a non-adult in concerned, the standard of care is that of a person of their age
...


Risk factors to the standard of care of the reasonable man

Factors





Any special characteristics of C
The size of the risk
Have all practical precautions been taken?
What are the benefits of taking the risk?

Any special characteristics of C
The reasonable man should take more care when the situation demands it
...

Paris v Stepney Borough Council – where D knows of an increased risk to C, they should take more
care
...


Revision Sheet
Liability in negligence
Law - Tort
Walker v Northumberland CC
...

Bolton v Stone – the reasonable man takes precautions against reasonable risks, not fantastic
possibilities
...

Latimer v AEC – After a flood in a factory, all reasonable, practical precautions were made when the
floor was mopped as well as it could and warning signs were present
What are the benefits of taking the risk?
This is also known as the public utility factor
...

Watt v Hertfordshire CC
...
e
...
So eti e there are multiple causes
...
This is see i …
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services – the normal rule on causation can be modified on policy
grounds here there are spe ial ir u sta es
...
The illness was likely caused
y dust a d therefore all of C s pre ious e ployers ere harged proportionately to the time C
served with them
...
Where factual causation can
be placed on both parts, legal causation is required to see what legally caused the injury
...
West York – there WAS an i ter e i g a t here they did t k o of sui ide risk
MPC v Reeves – there WASN T a i ter e i g a t as they did k o of sui ide risk
Smith v Littlewoods – vandals breaking into an unoccupied, but secured, building and setting fire to
it was a new intervening act as keeping it secured was enough
...
e
...

Therefore the D is only liable for damage that is reasonably foreseeable due to the breach of duty, as
established in the Wagon Mound
...
C was welding his shit and the oil caught fire
...


Remoteness of damage – the kind of damage must be reasonably foreseeable
So lo g as the type of da age is foreseea le, it does t

atter the for

it takes
...

Hughes v Lord Advocate – Two boys took a paraffin warning lamp down a man hole and dropped it
causing an explosion coming back up
...


Revision Sheet
Liability in negligence
Law - Tort
Doughty v Turner Asbestos – The C s lai failed he s ie tifi k o ledge, at the ti e, ould ot
predict the explosive reaction when an asbestos lid was knocked in to a vat of molten metal
...

Smith v Leech Brain – C had a pre-cancerous condition which developed in to a cancer when molten
metal splashed on his skin
...




---