Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Legal Topic Test 2
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Presumption of innocence | major feature of our legal system where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. |
| Actus reus | wrongful act |
| Mens rea | guilty mind |
| Strict Liability (example) | Can be found guilty on the spot if the police have caught you in the act. Eg. run a red light (summary offence) (not to clog up courts) |
| The burden of proof | who has to prove it |
| The standard of proof | the level of proof- beyond reasonable doubt |
| how are they burden of proof and standard of proof linked? | They come under the umbrella of the presumption of innocence, Prosecution has a burden of proof and they have to prove the standard of proof. |
| Summary offence (example) | less serious or minor criminal offences where the impact on society is relatively small and the matter is resolved by a single magistrate in the Magistrate’s court. Eg. common assault (threat). |
| Indictable offence (example) | More serious criminal offences where the impact on society is significant and the matter is resolved by a judge and jury in higher courts. Eg. assault, theft. |
| Indictable offence triable summary (example) | lower maximum sentence quicker to have case heard in magistrates cheaper Steal a pack of chips- magistrates Steal a car- county |
| Principal offender (example) | main person who causes the incident |
| Accessories (example) | someone who can assist, help or hide the principle offender Eg. Child commits a crime, lie to police about where the child is because they’re trying to protect them |
| Malice aforethought | the intent to kill |
| Intentional murder | intent to kill |
| Reckless murder | act in reckless causing death even if accused had no intent to kill |
| Murder actus reus - Example | stabbing shooting punching kicking poisoning |
| Causation | who caused the murder |
| Supervening event | something that could disrupt the Chain of causation. Eg. Someone gets in a fight with someone and later the victim bumps their head and dies. Did the accused's punch cause the death or was it the fall? |
| But-For cause | if the event didn’t occur the death wouldn’t have occured |
| Case R v Evans and Gardiner Facts | Evans and Gardiner stabbed their victim in the stomach during a street fight. The Victim was treated but fell seriously ill 11 months later. |
| Case R v Evans and Gardiner When did victim die | 11 months after the stabbing. |
| Case R v Evans and Gardiner What did the victim die of? | Undiagnosed build-up of scar tissue caused by the stabbing found after his death. |
| Case R v Evans and Gardiner What did defendants argue? | The defendants argued that the failure to discover the scar tissue during his illness had caused his death, rather than the stabbing. |
| Case R v Evans and Gardiner Outcome significance | The court referred to ‘substantial and operating cause test’ and used this as persuasive precedent and decided the stabbing was a substantial and operating cause of the victims death, despite the doctors failure to diagnose the scar tissue. |
| Natural consequences test | where the accused didn’t commit the actus reus |
| 3 major elements of the natural consequence test | Accused cause victim to perform act It was reasonable to escape Action was reasonable-no other way to escape |
| Royall v R case What did Royal admit | assaulting the victim after a violent argument |
| Royall v R case Royalls defence | Royal claimed the victim had been in the shower when he heard a thump. The victim had epilepsy which concerned the accused as she often fainted or became unconscious. He proceeded to open the door with a knife, causing the deceased to jump out the window. |
| Royall v R case Contradictory evidence | Forceable entry into the bathroom, victims blood splashed in the bathroom, chipped glass ashtray, gouge marks along the bathroom wall. |
| Royall v R case Outcome significance | The accused was the major cause. whether a voluntary act committed out of fear or self-preservation breaks the chain of causation. |
| What is a human? | If a person's body no longer circulates blood or to breaths they are clinically dead. |
| Issues with identifying death | Some people are on a life support system. If you’re being assisted by a machine to circulate blood or to breathe you are clinically dead. |
| Malice aforethought | acted with conscious desire |
| Different types of murder and manslaughter | murder includes intentional and recklessness. Manslaughter includes unlawful and dangerous acts and criminal negligence. |
| Subjective and objective assessments | Subjective is based on opinion, the objective is based on facts. I chased someone out of the room and they hurt themselves. Objective is they hurt themselves. Did I cause them to hurt themselves? |
| Complete defences | This means that a person will not be found guilty of an offence if they can prove they were acting in self-defense. |
| How does burden change | As soon as the accused uses a defence, the burden of proof moves. The prosecution doesn’t have to prove that you're guilty at this stage, the accused has to prove their act was reasonable. |
| Conduct is necessary | This requires that the force exerted in relation to the threat was reasonably necessary to protect the accused or another person from harm. |
| Conduct is reasonable | This is determined by considering what the accused reasonably believed in the circumstances . It does not matter what a reasonable person would have believed or if the belief was incorrect. |
| Self-defence in family violence | the person is responding to harm that is not immediate the force used may be excess of the threatened harm |
| Duress definition | where you act in a way that is reasonable in the circumstances but is not immediate. |
| 3 elements of Duress | Threat of harm Only way to response Reasonable response |
| Age of criminal responsibility (under 10) | Cannot be found guilty of a criminal offence, society believes children under 10 don’t know right from wrong |
| Age of criminal responsibility (doli incapax) | 10-14: BUT you can be found guilty of an offence, if the prosecution can prove the child knew right from wrong. They use prejudicial evidence (evidence gathered by police that may be compromised-police are trained, experienced and intimidating) |
Created by:
abbeysw
Popular Law sets