1. A Level Law

2. 3 C’s of Crime IRCUMSTANCES ONSEQUENCES ONDUCT OMISSION ACT

3. Where Can A Duty To Act Arise From? STATUTE/statutory duty to act. Eg: The Road Traffic Act 1988/seat belt, taking out car insurance CONTRACTUAL DUTY. Eg: R v Pittwood-gatekeeper forgot to close barrier COMMON LAW DUTY-caring for your child IMPLIED DUTY Eg: R v Instan PRIOR CONDUCT/failing to stop a chain of events. Eg: R v Miller- squatter PUBLIC POSITION. Eg: R v Dytham-off duty police officer

4. Men’s Rea. Mental element Guilty mindState of mind Internal element Actus reas. Guilty act Physical element External element

5. States of mind that are liable to be punished. Intention – direct (carry out act to achieve end result, A decision to bring about a particular consequence” )- Mohan or oblique (realise what will happen but carry on anyway, Foresight of consequence as being ‘virtually certain’ can be used as evidence of intention. )-woollin, Hancock and shack land, Mathews and allenyne Recklessness – the taking of unjustified risks R v Cunningham-gas meter leaked

6. Transferred Malice. Transferring the MENS REA of one crime onto the VICTIM of another.- they intended harm so doesn't matter who they hit as a result of their actions EG : R v Mitchel-old man fell on old women Latimer-belt hit two people

7. Coincidence. Contemporaneity rule = 2 stages to make actus reus & mens rea coincide. Continuing act ( Fagan v MPC-parked on policeman's foot ) - Waiting until mens rea comes along. One transaction ( R v Thabo Meli-left victim at bottom of cliff) - Viewing several events as a single transaction.

8. What Is Strict Liability? Decided by statute. Judges presume mens rea unless statute says otherwise. ONLY NEED PROOF ON ACTUS REAs Eg: Drink driving OR real life case: Shah v London Borough of Harrow – lotto ticket More serious offences tend NOT to be strict liability. Tend to be regulatory-parking, drugs, sea belts

9. Factors Affecting Strict Liability. Wording of that statute Nature of the offence Gravity of the offence – Punishment Issues of social concern – eg: pollution, food manufacture etc

10. Arguments For And Against Strict Liability Offences. Protection of the public, quicker easier and cheaper convictions, easier for prosecution, regulates issues of social concern, improve standards of care, stops cutting corners Results in innocent people getting convicted therefore generation bad feelings towards the law. Goes against burden of proof. Carries some stigma

11. Causation. Causation in FACT (factual). ‘But For’ the defendants conduct would the result have occurred? ( R v White-tried to poison mum, but died of heart attack-act didn’t casue consequence so factual causation ) Causation in LAW(legal). Moral responsibility. Was the defendants conduct a ‘More than trivial’ contribution to the result. ( R v Cheshire )

12. What breaks the chain of causation so there's no longer a direct link between act and end result? intervention of a 3 rd party – Will only break the chain of causation if it is unforeseeable. ( R v Pagett-used girlfriend as shield-actions directly caused end result ) Escape – Will break the chain of causation if it is unreasonable in relation to the threat.-dpp v daley ( R v Roberts ) Negligent medical treatment will normally never break the chain of causation. ( R v Smith & R v Jordan ) Characteristics of the victim or refusal of medical treatment will never break the chain of causation. You take your victim as you find them. ( R v Blaue & R v Haywood )-eggshell skull rule

13. Section 39. Of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Assault Battery (common assault) Penalty: 6 months imprisonment and/or £5,000 fine, if racially aggravated attack up to 2 years imprisonment

14. Assault Actus Reus – Causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force. Mens Rea – Intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.

15. Cases involved. R v Ireland  Silence can amount to an assault. R v Costanza  Words can amount to an assault. Smith v Superintendent of working police station  immediacy means there and then. Tuberville v Savage  Negatives counteract an assault.

16. Battery Actus reus = The application of unlawful force. Mens rea = Intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force

17. Cases Involved. Collins v Wilcock  Every day contact is not a battery. DPP v K  Indirect force can also amount to a battery.

18. Section 47. Of the Offences Against The Persons act 1861. Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)

19. Actus Reus = Assault occasioning ABH Mens Rea = The mens rea for either an assault or a battery. (There is no need to foresee any ABH) Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)

20. R v Miller  ABH = Any hurt or injury likely to interfere with the victims health or comfort. R v Chanfook  The hurt/injury must be ‘More than trifling’ and can be extended to include psychological harm. Cases involved.

21. Wounding Breaking both the dermis and epidermis layers of the skin or internal cavities such as the nose. (R v Eisenhauer )

22. Section. 20 of the Offences Against The Persons Act 1861 Maliciously Wounding Or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm.

23. Actus Reus = Wounding or inflicting Grievous bodily harm. Mens Rea = Intending or being reckless as to causing some harm.

24. Cases Involved. R v Burstow  s.20 can include serious psychological harm. Victim suffered a nervous breakdown after being stalked. R v Sanders  s.20 is defined as ‘serious harm’.

25. Section. 18 of the Offences Against The Persons Act 1861. Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent.

26. Actus Reus = Wounding or inflicting GBH. Mens Rea = Intention to cause wounding/GBH or resist arrest.

27. Cases Involved. R v Morrison  Shows how resisting arrest can amount to s.18. Police officer is injured after defendant jumped through a glass window whilst resisting arrest.

28. Types Of Criminal Offences. Summary offences  Magistrates court Indictable offences  Crown court Triable either way offences  Either court depending on the defendants plea.

29. Bail Act 1976 Bail  Where a person is given their freedom until the date of the trial. Bail can be conditional or unconditional

30. Why would a defendant be refused bail? If it were believed to be likely that they would fail to surrender. If it were believed to be likely that they would interfere with evidence or witnesses. If it were believed to be likely that they would commit another offence. If the police needed more time to collect evidence.

31. CPS The CPS review cases for prosecution. They perform 2 tests: The public interest test  Considering the factors for/against prosecution. The evidential test  Are a judge & jury likely to prosecute? The CPS can either prosecute, dismiss or send back to the police for a caution. Mitigating & aggravating factors are taken into account.

32. Aims of sentencing Punishment  Should reflect the crime and give a sense of revenge. Deterrence  Individual or general to put people off committing crime. Rehabilitation  Reforms the offender so that they will not re-offend. Reparation  Focuses on the victim and offers them compensation. Protection of the public  Takes away the offenders ability to commit crime.

33. Ways of punishing crime. Custody Fines Community service Discharge  conditional or absolute

34. Civil law. Tort  A civil wrong Civil law is concerned with the relationship between two people: The claimant & the defendant. The standard of proof is lower than criminal law. Liability lies on the balance of probabilities and liability aims to compensate the claimant.

35. Negligence. Someone is negligent if… There is a duty of care There is a breach of duty There is causation/damage

36. Duty of care. Donoghue v Stephenson  “Neighbour test” We have a duty not to injure our neighbours. Caparo Industries v Dickman  3 step test. 1.Is damage/Injury reasonably foreseeable? (Jolley v Sutton Borough Council ) 2.Is there sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant? ( Bourhill v Young ) 3.Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on the defendant? ( Hill v CC of WYP – Floodgate argument & Public policy )

37. Breach of duty. Negligence is… doing something a reasonable man wouldn’t do or not doing something a reasonable man would do. The reasonable man is an ordinary man such as ‘the man on the Clapham bus’ Reasonable care is an objective test.

38. Risk Factors. Degree of risk of harm  Bolton v Stone Seriousness of the harm that could occur  Paris v Stepney Borough Council. Potential benefits of taking the risk  Watt v Hertfordshire County Council. Cost and practicality of taking precautions  Latimer v AEC.

39. Breach expectations. Bolam v Friern hospital  Professionals are expected to act reasonably within what is considered ‘Normal Practice’. Mullin v Richards  Children are expected to take a lower standard of care.

40. Causation/Damage. Factual causation. “But For” the defendants conduct would the damage/Injury have occurred? Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington hospital. Legal causation/Remoteness of damage. A defendant will only be liable for damage/injury that is reasonably foreseeable and not too remote. The wagon mound.

41. Damage. It is the kind of damage that has to be reasonably foreseeable not the way in which it comes about. Eg; Jolley v Sutton Borough Council.

42. Thin skull rule. You must take your victim as you find them

43. Related cases. Sayers v Harlow  Contributory negligence. The claimant is to share the blame for the damage/injury and will therefore get less damages in compensation.

44. Alternative dispute resolution. Keeps cases out of court to avoid stress and expenses. Eg; mediation.

45. Three Track System Small claims track  Claims up to £10,000 or £1,000 for personal injury claims. Fast track  £10,000 – £25,000 claims Multi track  £25,000 + claims, complex and high value. If negligence, although m-t heard in county court

46. Civil remedies. Special damages  Financial losses from the date of the injury/loss until the date of the trial. General damages  Future financial losses (multiplier x multiplicand), pain and suffering, loss of amenity, injury itself.

47. Payment. Lump sum  Money is given to claimant all at once. Structured settlements  Money is given in certain amounts at certain times. Claimants have a mitigation duty. I.e. keeping all claims to a minimum.

48. NOW GO AND GET AN A !!