LA104: Criminal Law Revision
Essay Structure:
Problem question
- State the law and apply the law
- Deal with each issue clearly – always will be more than 1
- Detailed and analytical application of law/statute
- No need for overall introduction
IRAC method
- I – Issues – what needs to be sorted out
- R – Rules – the law/statute - case law
- A – Application – AR, MR, defences
- C – Conclusion – single sentence normally suffices – D is/isn’t guilty
Essay question x 2 (25% each) - 1,250 each
- Brief introduction – context, angle adopted, essay points (paragraphs)
NO NEED FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY – REFERENCE WITH FOOTNOTES
Homicide
Murder
- Actus Reus- the unlawful killing of another person in the Queen’s peace
o Feutuses not protected as not considered to be ‘alive’ - protected by the
offences of ‘procuring a miscarriage’ and ‘child destruction’ under the
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – maximum life sentence
o Unlawfully – self-defence not unlawful
o Queen’s peace – killing during warfare is not murder
o Must be shown D caused the death of V – accelerated V’s death more than a
negligible amount – the ‘year and a day’ rule abolished in the Law Reform
(Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
- Mens Rea- an intention to cause death or GBH to V
o s.1 Homicide Act 1957 - ‘when a person kills in the course or furtherance of
some offence, the killing shall not amount to murder unless done with the
same malice aforethought’
- Sentence – life sentence
Case Facts Judges Outcome Critics
Rv D killed V by Lord Halisham Held - Jury Herring – the
Cunningham hitting his head – upholds mens inferred intent ‘correspondence
[1982] 2 QB repeatedly with rea definition, to cause GBH - principle’- most
396 a chair malice D convicted of appropriate
(unprovoked aforethought for murder mens rea is
attack triggered murder can be CA upholds this intent to kill
by sexual implied by He appeals Steyn in Powell
jealousy) voluntary act to – GBH
, Issue - D denied cause GBH and intention should
intent to kill person dies as a be coupled with
(claimed no result ‘awareness of
mens rea) Lord Edmund- the risk of
Davies (dissent) death’
- doesn’t like
GBH rule - Others reject it
‘There should – see intention
be no to cause serious
conviction of harm as
murder unless ‘crossing the
an intent to kill moral
is established’ - threshold’ to
believes which they
manslaughter should be held
punishment responsible for
would be ‘fully the
adequate’ consequences of
their actions
Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter – killings which would be murder but for the existence of defined
extenuating circumstances – even if D had MR and AR for murder
o D who pleads loss of control charge to murder
▪ D must show: (1) He lost self control, (2) This was caused by a
‘qualifying trigger’, (3) A person of D’s age/sex with a normal degree
of tolerance/self-restraint would have acted the same way
• Don’t consider defence if no killing
• If lost control completely and not aware of what they’re doing
when defence does not apply – just lacks MR for murder
s.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
1. Where a person (“D”) kills or is a party to the killing of another (“V”), D is not to be convicted of
murder if:
a. D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of
self-control,
b. the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
c. a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in
the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
2. For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), it does not matter whether or not the loss of control was
sudden.
3. In subsection (1)(c) the reference to “the circumstances of D” is a reference to all of D's
circumstances other than those whose only relevance to D's conduct is that they bear on D's
general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint.
NB – Suddenness not required (s.54(2))
NB - ‘Qualifying trigger’ (s.55):
, - Fear of serious violence
- Things said/done amounting to circumstances of extreme gravity causing justifiable
sense of being wronged
Case Facts Judges Outcome Critics
Dawes [2013] D punched and hit D’s plea of self-
EWCA Crim 322 V with a bottle (V defence not
is D’s estranged accepted by jury
LOSS OF wife’s lover) D tried loss of
CONTROL D said V took the control but this
bottle and attacked could not be put to
him jury under s.55
D grabbed knife (6)(a) as he had
and fatally stabbed incited the
V in neck violence
Convicted of
murder but
appealed on the
grounds that loss
of control
should’ve been
put to jury
CoA – rejected
D’s appeal –
insufficient
evidence he lost
control
R v Dietschmann D killed whilst HoL looked at the Even if D would
[2003] 1 AC 1209 heavily requirements of not have killed if
(HL) intoxicated and section 2(1) prior he had been sober,
suffering from an to the amendments the contribution of
DIMINISHED adjustment made by the the alcohol did not
RESPONSIBILIT disorder Coroners and necessarily
Y, (depressed grief Justice Act 2009 prevent the
ABNORMALITY reaction following and concluded that abnormality of the
OF THE MIND bereavement) that there was no mind from
amounted to an requirement that substantially
abnormality of the the abnormality of impairing his
mind mind was the sole mental
Trial judge cause of killing responsibility and
directed the jury giving rise to
that diminished diminished
responsibility was responsibility
available only if D
would have killed
even if he hadn’t
taken a drink –
therefore
adjustment
disorder was the
sole cause he
would be able to
rely on the
defence
Essay Structure:
Problem question
- State the law and apply the law
- Deal with each issue clearly – always will be more than 1
- Detailed and analytical application of law/statute
- No need for overall introduction
IRAC method
- I – Issues – what needs to be sorted out
- R – Rules – the law/statute - case law
- A – Application – AR, MR, defences
- C – Conclusion – single sentence normally suffices – D is/isn’t guilty
Essay question x 2 (25% each) - 1,250 each
- Brief introduction – context, angle adopted, essay points (paragraphs)
NO NEED FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY – REFERENCE WITH FOOTNOTES
Homicide
Murder
- Actus Reus- the unlawful killing of another person in the Queen’s peace
o Feutuses not protected as not considered to be ‘alive’ - protected by the
offences of ‘procuring a miscarriage’ and ‘child destruction’ under the
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – maximum life sentence
o Unlawfully – self-defence not unlawful
o Queen’s peace – killing during warfare is not murder
o Must be shown D caused the death of V – accelerated V’s death more than a
negligible amount – the ‘year and a day’ rule abolished in the Law Reform
(Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
- Mens Rea- an intention to cause death or GBH to V
o s.1 Homicide Act 1957 - ‘when a person kills in the course or furtherance of
some offence, the killing shall not amount to murder unless done with the
same malice aforethought’
- Sentence – life sentence
Case Facts Judges Outcome Critics
Rv D killed V by Lord Halisham Held - Jury Herring – the
Cunningham hitting his head – upholds mens inferred intent ‘correspondence
[1982] 2 QB repeatedly with rea definition, to cause GBH - principle’- most
396 a chair malice D convicted of appropriate
(unprovoked aforethought for murder mens rea is
attack triggered murder can be CA upholds this intent to kill
by sexual implied by He appeals Steyn in Powell
jealousy) voluntary act to – GBH
, Issue - D denied cause GBH and intention should
intent to kill person dies as a be coupled with
(claimed no result ‘awareness of
mens rea) Lord Edmund- the risk of
Davies (dissent) death’
- doesn’t like
GBH rule - Others reject it
‘There should – see intention
be no to cause serious
conviction of harm as
murder unless ‘crossing the
an intent to kill moral
is established’ - threshold’ to
believes which they
manslaughter should be held
punishment responsible for
would be ‘fully the
adequate’ consequences of
their actions
Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter – killings which would be murder but for the existence of defined
extenuating circumstances – even if D had MR and AR for murder
o D who pleads loss of control charge to murder
▪ D must show: (1) He lost self control, (2) This was caused by a
‘qualifying trigger’, (3) A person of D’s age/sex with a normal degree
of tolerance/self-restraint would have acted the same way
• Don’t consider defence if no killing
• If lost control completely and not aware of what they’re doing
when defence does not apply – just lacks MR for murder
s.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
1. Where a person (“D”) kills or is a party to the killing of another (“V”), D is not to be convicted of
murder if:
a. D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of
self-control,
b. the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
c. a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in
the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
2. For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), it does not matter whether or not the loss of control was
sudden.
3. In subsection (1)(c) the reference to “the circumstances of D” is a reference to all of D's
circumstances other than those whose only relevance to D's conduct is that they bear on D's
general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint.
NB – Suddenness not required (s.54(2))
NB - ‘Qualifying trigger’ (s.55):
, - Fear of serious violence
- Things said/done amounting to circumstances of extreme gravity causing justifiable
sense of being wronged
Case Facts Judges Outcome Critics
Dawes [2013] D punched and hit D’s plea of self-
EWCA Crim 322 V with a bottle (V defence not
is D’s estranged accepted by jury
LOSS OF wife’s lover) D tried loss of
CONTROL D said V took the control but this
bottle and attacked could not be put to
him jury under s.55
D grabbed knife (6)(a) as he had
and fatally stabbed incited the
V in neck violence
Convicted of
murder but
appealed on the
grounds that loss
of control
should’ve been
put to jury
CoA – rejected
D’s appeal –
insufficient
evidence he lost
control
R v Dietschmann D killed whilst HoL looked at the Even if D would
[2003] 1 AC 1209 heavily requirements of not have killed if
(HL) intoxicated and section 2(1) prior he had been sober,
suffering from an to the amendments the contribution of
DIMINISHED adjustment made by the the alcohol did not
RESPONSIBILIT disorder Coroners and necessarily
Y, (depressed grief Justice Act 2009 prevent the
ABNORMALITY reaction following and concluded that abnormality of the
OF THE MIND bereavement) that there was no mind from
amounted to an requirement that substantially
abnormality of the the abnormality of impairing his
mind mind was the sole mental
Trial judge cause of killing responsibility and
directed the jury giving rise to
that diminished diminished
responsibility was responsibility
available only if D
would have killed
even if he hadn’t
taken a drink –
therefore
adjustment
disorder was the
sole cause he
would be able to
rely on the
defence
