2. Starter:
Do you know your exam paper?
Using the paper you have been given, and your own knowledge…
Complete the grid outlining the demands and the mark break
down for criminal law
3. What would you answer?
Look at the paper.
1. Decide which three questions you would answer
2. Now go through all of them. Identify the areas that you would
need to include in your response to that question.
3. RAG each question
4. Dominoes of Pain!
You know the drill… put them in the correct order to
relieve the pain with a lollipop!
Hint: Be careful what
you say yes to!
If you are stuck…
Then you may use your notes or a
textbook to help, and still be rewarded
with a lovely sticker.
If it’s all too quick and easy…
Use the information to help you
complete the AO1 for your essay plan
6. Thin skull rule/ Life Support
Unreasonable actions of 3P
Palpably wrong medical treatment
“practical solutions” “sound moral principles”
Challenge: Could you
expand the causation
discussion into mens rea?
7. Complete the AO2
Using your understanding and the
sample essay, complete the rest of
your AO2 for the Causation Essay.
Look at the student’s overall marks.
What general advice would you
give them to improve their
responses?
8. What does A* look like?
Comment:
This is a full marks A* grade essay. It has
used a wide-range of cases demonstrating
accurate and detailed confident knowledge
of this area of the law and developed the
AO2, identifying relevant points of criticism
and showing good understanding of the
current debates, with a logical and well
informed conclusion.
Tasks:
Read through this essay and pick out as
many strengths of the essay as you can,
explaining why in the margin next to it.
What do you notice about the way the
author has used the cases?
What can you learn about the structure of
an essay from this example?
10. 'Despite the development of the
defence of automatism, a
mentally disordered defendant is
not always dealt with justly under
English law
Discuss whether the
common law governing the
offence of murder is
satisfactory or is in need of
reform by Parliament.
“Law should encourage citizens
in their civic duty to do ‘the right
thing’ in a moral sense and not
to turn a blind eye or fail to act
to help someone who is in need.’”
Mens Rea requires fault on
the part of the defendant.
The current law on intention
and recklessness is
uncertain and unjust.
“Insane and non-insane
automatism are similar defences
involving mental abnormality. It
is vital that the distinction
between them is fully understood
since they produce very different
consequences for a defendant
who relies on one or other of
them
'Despite recent reforms, the
law relating to loss of
control as a special and
partial defence to murder
remains muddled and
occasionally unjust.
What’s the topic?
11. Intoxication is/ is not a true defence. D is
either arguing that he does not have the
actus reus/ mens rea because he was so
intoxicated or that because of it, he made a
mistake/ cake.
Generally speaking involuntary/ voluntary
intoxication is no defence as D intended/
was reckless as to whether or not they
took the intoxicant to begin with. Public
policy does/ does not play a strong part in
the limitation of intoxication as an excuse in
court.
12. Now can you complete this using only your memory?
Hint: the cases are at the bottom of the page!
13. “The defence of intoxication represents a satisfactory compromise between justice
for an individual defendant and the demands of public policy.”
Assess the accuracy of this statement.
Stage One: Outline plan....
Intro
Main
Conclusion
What are you
supposed to cover?
What does this mean
for this essay?
14. “The defence of intoxication represents a satisfactory compromise between justice
for an individual defendant and the demands of public policy.”
Assess the accuracy of this statement.
Introduction:
Means:
Comes from:
Main issues:
15. AO1 Plans and Coverage:
Rules: Cases (AO1)
Voluntary
Intoxication:
Specific
• can negate MR needed
• works as partial defence to most of these offences
• Dutch courage is no defence.
• drunken intent is nevertheless an intent.
Voluntary
Intoxication:
Basic
• reckless comes from the drinking
• needs some accompanying action to demonstrate
• no defence
Involuntary
Intoxication:
• if successful can be complete defence
• different effect
• not if D has mens rea before
• Perhaps not if strict liability offence.
Mistake: General
and Fact
• judged by ‘honest standards’
• if mistake one would have made if sober, then may have a defence.
• some statutory exceptions.
Mistake:
Excessive Force
• not applied to manslaughter, murder or other crimes
• confirmed in statute.
Reforms • Clarify need for knowledge as if sober
• Mistake would apply to SL crimes
•Diabetics would be included in mistake
• Butler Committee – alternative ‘dangerous intoxication’
16. AO2: It’s all about the
debate and discussion!
Public policy is an issue as intoxication is linked to a large
amount of criminal conduct
Need to balance personal
responsibility and protect
those are vulnerable and
may be the victims of crime
Does D really have a mens
rea and set out to commit a
crime if drunk?
Problem of the fall back
offence...
... More effective with
certain crimes e.g. theft.
Arbitary nature of
distinctions between
specific and basic intent
Should D have a defence
where they have no choice
over intoxication?
Should voluntary intoxication
be a defence to all crimes
(Australia; Law Com 1995)
“Candidates are unlikely to achieve level 5 AO2 without a discussion that focuses both on intoxication and
its problems. This can be demonstrated by candidates whose discussion also identified with role of judges,
Parliament, the Law Commission potential avenues for reform and the influence of policy in decision making.”
Why is an offence of
dangerous
intoxication rejected?
Is it just a risk of ‘doing
something stupid’?
Does the approach to
MR here fit in with the
general rules?
17. Do
you
understand
how
to
answer
essay
style
questions?
Simply naming cases
No sense of time or logical order
Reach a conclusion related to the title
Recounting all the facts of a case
Prefer law to facts
Show a wide range of knowledge
Forgetting to comment or analyse
Detailed knowledge of the law and reforms
Repeating the command word from the question
Leave all comment to the end
Forgetting the introduction or conclusion
Analyse and comment throughout
Conclude and be consistent
18. A
whole
other
problem...
Section B
It’s all about knowledge and application to the question!
At least eight cases, well applied and considered (although I’d say 10-14 is a more realistic aim!)
Let’s start with what not to do...
James would be guilty of murder
because he stabbed Louis in the
chest.
As James has stabbed Louis in the chest, he has clearly caused him to
die and so has fulfilled the actus reus of murder, according to Lord
Coke. In addition, by stabbing him, it is clear he has a clear desire to
bring about the consequence, which is the definition of specific intent
under Mohan and so has the mens rea for at least GBH, which is
sufficient for liabilty for murder following the case of Cunningham.
Sean is insane because he is
sleepwalking.
Graham is depressed and this
means that he has a defence of
diminished responsibility to the
murder of his wife.
Sam is like T and can rely on
automatism
Because Jane was drunk she can
rely on intoxication as a defence
to assault.
19. Let’s apply this lovely new found knowledge...
Corinne has been in a steady relationship with David for over ten
years. They have always had arguments during which David has
often hit Corinne. He has also threatened her that if she ever tries
to leave him he will track her down and “sort her out”. This has
made Corinne feel depressed and trapped in the situation. She
has been to her doctor who has placed her on medication to treat
her depression.
One evening, Corinne and David argue again and, in the course of
the dispute, David insults her calling her “pathetic and useless”.
Corinne starts to cry so David slaps her face and tells her to “grow
up”. David then goes to bed. Corinne sits and watches television
for two hours before going to the bedroom. When she sees David
asleep she is suddenly overcome with anger and picks up the
bedside lamp which she smashes over David’s head, killing him
instantly. Corinne has now been charged with David’s murder.
Discuss Corinne’s potential liability for the murder of David,
including any partial defences available to her
20. Discuss Corinne’s potential liability for the murder of David, including any
partial defences available to her
Stage One: Outline plan....
Intro
Main O
C
D
Conclusion
What are you
supposed to cover?
What does this mean
for this essay?
21. Modelling Section One:
Liability for Murder
Point Cases/Statutes/Definitions etc. Application (What does this mean for
Corrine’s liability and why?)
Liability for
Murder
Common law offence – Lord Coke
Unlawful killing of human being
Malice aforethought
•Specific intent ‘true desire’ Mohan
•Oblique intent ‘virtual certainty’ as
evidence Woollin
Smashed on head – actus reus
causation of death.
Clearly at least intends to cause
GBH (Cunningham) through
violence of action.
Sample Answer:
The offence committed by Corinne is murder – a common law offence. She has to commit
both the actus reus and the mens rea. She has committed the actus reus which is the
unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s peace. Murder is a
specific intent crime and the prosecution would be likely to find beyond reasonable doubt
that she has an intention to kill or cause GBH because by picking up the lamp and
smashing it, she is clearly causing his death.
22. Now complete the AO2 for the first
partial defence: loss of control
Point Cases/Statutes/Definitions etc. Application (What does this mean
for Corrine’s liability and why?)
Loss of Control
s.54-5 Coroners
and Justice Act
2009
Loss of Control
not sudden and temporary (Duffy)
must exist (Cocker)
Cooling off (Thornton)
Cumulative (Humphreys)
Qualifying Trigger s.55
threat of serious violence to D or another
(Ahluwalia; Thornton No.2)
Circumstances of extremely grave character,
causing justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
Person of D’s age and Gender in those
circumstances. (Camplin)
not characteristics (Smith)
cumulative (Humphreys)
This is your challenge!
Can you apply it to Corrine and conclude on liability.
23. Now complete both columns...
There’s some information below to help...
Byrne
s.2 Homicide Act (as
amended)
Abnormality of mental
functioning
State of mind so
different as to be
abnormal
Recognised medical
condition
Substantially impaired
Provide an explanation for the
killing
Gittens
Ahluwalia
Brown
Seers
Thornton No 2
Not so trivial as to be minimal
Interfere with the defendant’s ability to exercise control,
understand what they are doing or form a rational
judgement
25. Starter
Can you name the case and ratio?
All of you should be able to identify the facts or name of the case depicted.
Most of you should be able to match it to the relevant ratio.
Some of you will be able to divide the cases into AO1 and AO2, and explain how the courts’
interpretation of this area links to the concept of public policy.
26. Introduction:
Can you use the skills and understanding we practised in the last
topic, to highlight and annotate this problem?
Mike, a drug dealer, meets Shirley, Rita and Zara in his house where he sells them
heroin. Mike sees that Shirley is suffering from withdrawal symptoms and
sympathetically suggests that he inject her there and then with a 'shot' of heroin
from a syringe which he prepares. Mike injects the heroin into Shirley's arm. He
then helps Rita to prepare her arm so that she may inject herself with some heroin.
Rita injects the heroin herself. Shirley, Rita and Zara then leave.
Next day Shirley and Rita die from the effects of the heroin. Zara is so overcome
with grief that she injects herself with heroin and dies as a result. Medical evidence
states that they have all died as a result of overdosing on the drug.
Discuss the liability of Mike for the manslaughter of Shirley, Rita and Zara.
28. Plenary
Which of these sentences sums up your status on
writing at the end of the lesson?
I can discuss a wide range of points
in a scenario and reach a well
informed conclusion.
I can apply the law to a scenario
and reach a logical conclusion
I can apply some points of law to a
scenario, but struggle to reach a
conclusion
I can identify at least one relevant
point in a scenario
I can identify a wide range of points
and support them with detailed
description and citation.
I can identify a range of points, and
add some detail to some of them.
I can explain at least one point
fully, and illustrate it with an
example.
I can identify a range of relevant
points.
Essay Writing
Section A
Application Question
Section B
29. Starter:
What’s wrong?
Jordan held that the actions of the
doctor broke the chain of causation
because by dropping V, they reduced V’s
chances of survival by over 70%..
Lamb confirms that a civil crime is
not sufficient for D to be liable for the
constructive manslaughter of V.
Under the doctrine of transferred
malice, Larkin was liable for his assault
with a belt on the victim.
30. Introduction:
Can you use the skills and understanding we practised in the last
topic, to highlight and annotate this problem?
Raul and Christiano are standing in a queue at a bus stop when they begin arguing with
one another. Raul pushes Christiano who staggers backwards and collides with Margaret,
an 83 year old lady. Margaret falls backwards onto the pavement. She is injured and in
pain. Margaret is taken to hospital where x-rays reveal that she has broken her hip.
Doctors agree that the injury is made worse partly because she suffers from osteoporosis
(a disease which makes her bones unusually brittle).
Although Margaret is elderly, Doctor Smith decides to operate in order to allow Margaret
any chance of being able to walk in future. A few days later, Margaret is recovering slowly
from the operation when she develops a secondary infection. Doctor Smith prescribes
Margaret penicillin but she is allergic to the drug and dies.
Discuss the potential criminal liability of both Raul and Doctor Smith for the death
of Margaret
31. An example essay:
What do you think of this?
Tips for improvement?
Technique to follow?
Now, write the next stage on causation for Raul’s liability
33. Starting with the AO1 then...
Raul
Area Definitions, terms, cases etc.
Murder
Involuntary Act
Manslaughter
Gross Negligence
Reckless Act
Causation
Other issues
34. Now, you complete Dr Smith’s
AO1!
Dr
Smith
Area Definitions, terms, cases etc.
Gross Negligence
35. AO2 points to consider...
Apply the principle of
transferred malice and
apply to Margaret’s injury
The act must be criminal/a
push, though trivial, is a
battery
Is it ‘dangerous’? Would
V suffer some harm in
the eyes of a jury?
Has it made a factual and
more than minimal
contribution to Margaret’s
death?
Margaret’s injuries are far more
serious than could have
reasonably been foreseen... Is
he still liable?
Has the medical negligence
broken the chain of causation?
Arguable – discuss and
apply Jordan; Smith; Cheshire to a
reasoned conclusion
Is a duty of care owed to
Christiano (and Margaret)?
Has the duty of care been
broken?
Is Raul’s conduct so far below
that to be expected of a
reasonable person in those
circumstances as to amount to a
crime?
Is there a risk of death? (This is
debateable) There was clearly a
very small risk of death and
Margaret has eventually died but
would a jury think it existed when
Raul pushed Christiano?
Discuss and apply the principle of
transferred malice
N.B. Candidates who do not discuss every potential type of manslaughter offence may
nevertheless attain a Level 5 answer if they discuss only one or two provided the
causation/transferred malice elements are addressed.
Did Raul foresee a risk
of death or serious
harm to Christiano?
37. Intro:
What does the
examiner think?
Read through the report you have been
given and identify two things you will
focus on to help you attain your
aspirational grade
38. Section C:
The Last Step
Term Means Origin
Murder
Specific intent
Diminished
Responsibility
Automatism
Loss of control
Insanity
M’Naughten
Mohan
s.54-55 Coroners
and Justice Act
2009
s.2 Homicide
Act 1957
Bratty
Coke
39. Erica has been in a steady relationship with Bob for several months. He has often hit her and Erica feels trapped and
depressed. Her doctor has been giving her medication to treat her depression. One day during an argument, Bob
calls her a ‘useless pathetic item’. Bob falls asleep in his chair. Erica goes to her bedroom where she drinks several
glasses of whisky in an hour. She goes back downstairs and when she sees Bob asleep she suddenly picks up a heavy
ashtray and smashes it over Bob's head, killing him instantly.
Statement A: Erica can be charged with murder
Statement B: Erica may successfully plead intoxication as a defence.
Statement C: Erica cannot plead loss of control as a defence.
Statement D: Erica will be successful if she pleads the defence of diminished responsibility.
40. Rashid suffers from diabetes. He has previously suffered blackouts due to hyperglycaemia and been placed on medication
which he normally takes three times per day. He fails to take his insulin for a whole day and during the evening, while
driving, he suffers from a blackout. He loses control of his car and crashes into a pedestrian, Larissa, who is on the
pavement. Larissa dies instantly.
Evaluate the accuracy of each of the four statements A, B, C, and D individually, as they apply to the facts in the
above scenario.
Statement A: Rashid may be charged with the manslaughter of Larissa because the condition was self-induced.
Statement B: Rashid may plead the defence of automatism
Statement C: Rashid may be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Statement D: Rashid may be hospitalised in a secure institution for the mentally disordered if found 'not guilty by reason
of insanity'
[20]
41. Homework
Prepare and annotate your mock in
preparation for completing it in our
next double lessons.
Remember:
No sentences
You cannot answer the involuntary
manslaughter essay question
If you choose to complete qu4, you
cannot complete qu7.
Highlighters are ok.
