Examination Tips - Homicide Scenarios & General Tips

Here is some helpful Examination tips for Law, primarily dealing with Homicide Scenario questions. There from a second year textbook, but could easily be translated into first year.

Answering Scenario Questions

Both OCR and WJEC examination papers require candidates to answer problem questions. In these a scenario is set out and candidates have to explain whether someone is liable for a ceiminal offence. There are 4 key points to remember when answering such questions. These are:

• Identify the offence (and possible defences)
• Define the law on the offence (or defences)
• Expand that deifnition with relevant sections and/or cases
• Apply the law to the facts given in the scenario.

As you will see, the first letters of these 4 points spell out the word IDEA. So, go into the exam remembering your great IDEA!

As well as general points, there are also ways of approaching scenarios on specific areas of law to make sure that you do Identify the relevant points to be discuss.

When considering a murder problem in an examination question, always consider whether the Actus Reas (AR) and/or the Mens Rea (MR) need discussion for the specific scenario that you have been given. For example, if the facts in the question state that V was shot dead, then there is no need to discuss the AR or any aspect of causation. However, if you are told that D was shot and taken to hospital where he was given the wrong blood and died, then causation is very relevant.

Also, remember that the scenario may involve other points. It may be a situation where it is uncertain whether D had the MR for murder or not. It will therefore be necessary to consider involuntary manslaughter as an alternative.

Alternatively, there may be a defence available to the defendant. Different types of defence have different effects on the verdict. For example, the special defences of diminished responsibilty and provocation can reduce the mandatory life sentence for murder reduced to anything up to a life sentence for manslaughter.

If a defendant proves he was insane at the time of the killing he will not be guilty by reason of insanity. If the defendant successfully pleads automatism, mistake or self-defence he is entitled to be acquitted of murder. If he is intoxicated he may not have the necessary intention for murder.

The following flowchart takes you through the different points you may have to consider.

Did the defendant do an act which caused Vs death? ----> No, not guilty of murder
|
|
v

Yes
Did the defendant intend to kill or cause GBH? ----> No, not guilty of murder but consider involuntary manslaughter
|
|
v
Yes
Was the defendant suffering from Diminished Responsibilty? ----> Yes, not guilty of murder, but guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
|
|
v
No
Was the defendant provoked? ----> Yes, not guilty of murder but guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
|
|
v
No
Was the defendant insane? ----> Yes, not guilty of murder by reason of insanity
|
|
v
No
Was the defendant acting in self-defence and used reasonable force in the circumstances as he believed them to be? ----> Yes, not guilty of murder
|
|
v
No
Does the defendant have another defence available to him? (Automatism, Mistake, Intoxication) ----> Yes, not guilty of murder
|
|
v
No
Guilty of murder

Key Cases - Mens Rea Theft

Here are the Key Cases you need to know for the Mens Rea of Theft.

(Quick Key - D = Defendant, V = Victim, MR = Mens Rea, CoA = Court of Appeal, HoL = House of Lords, ‼ = Comments)

R v Turner (no 2.) (1971)

D left his car at a garage for repairs, agreeing that he would pay for the repairs when he collected the car. The garage left the car outside their premises and D used a spare key to take the car without consent.D convicted.

CoA held that the garage were in possession or control of the car at the time, so D could be guilty of stealing his own car.

‼ When does someone become in possession or control? When does that possession control end? Wouldn't it be theft of the fees owned to the garage, not theft of the car?

R v Ghosh (1982)

D was a doctor who claimed fees for operations he hadn't carried out.

D convicted despite arguing that he wasn't being dishonest as he was owed the same amount for consulation fees. The trial judge directed the jury that they must apply their own standards to decide if what he did was dishonest.

‼ The CoA decided that the test for dishonesty has both an objective and subjective element to it.

Obj: Was what was done dishonest according to ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?

Subj: Did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards?

R v Velumyl (1989)

D took £1,050 from the office safe. He said he was owed the money by a friend and he was going to replace the moeny when that friend repaid him.

CoA upheld his conviction for theft as he had the intention to permanently depriving the company of the banknotes he had taken.

‼ Even though he was planning to return the same value of money, so there was no intention to permanently deprive the office of the sum of money, there was intention to permanently deprive the office of the exact banknotes he took.

DPP v Lavender (1994)

D took doors from a council property which was being repaird and used them to replace damaged doors in his girlfriends council flat. The doors were still in possession of the council but had been transferred without permission from one council property to another.

Divisional Court held that the question was whether he intended to treat the doors as his own, regardless of the rights of the council. The answer was yes, so D was guilty of theft.

‼ Would he still have been guilty of theft if he never touched, saw, used the doors ever again? What if he replaced the doors?

R v Marshall (1998)

D obtained underground tickets from travellers who had passed through the barriers and resold them.

D was convicted and the conviction was upheld.

‼ It was treated as theft as the tickets had been treated as his own. But they remained property of the train company. Would it have made a difference if he had given the money to the train company? Or whoever bought the tickets didn't use them?

R v Fernandez (1996)

D was a solicitor who wiothdrew money from a clients acount following a court order, but he then invested this money in a loan shark.

This was held to be theft as he had treated the money as his own.

‼ Would this have been any different if he had spent the money? Given it back to the client? Given it to his bosses?

R v Lloyd (1985)

D borrowed films from a friend of his who was a cinema projectionist. D made pirate copies and then returned the films in time for the next showing.

D was convicted of theft, but had his conviction quashed, as he did not intend to permanently deprive the cinema of the films - he returned them in their original state.

‼ If he had scratched the disks, would that have been considered 'altered'? Or if he had drawn on them, or otherwised altered them?

R v Easom (1971)

D picked up a handbag in a cinema, looked through it and put it back on the floor.

D was convicted of theft, but CoA quashed her conviction as they could not prove the intention to permanently deprive.

‼ If she had taken the bag home, he would have been convicted. What if she had stolen something inside the bag, or had taken it home, used it, then returned it to the cinema, where it was then lost? Would she be convicted of theft, as she risked its lost?

Theft Act 1968

Different Acts with the sections and sub-sections can all get very confusing. So, here is a one-post guide to the Theft Act 1968.

s1 - 'A person is guilty of theft is he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.'
Don't worry, this section is very simple once you break it down, and actually has no substance other than pulling the various sections together in a rag-tag definition of theft. All that is really saying is theft has 5 sections, which a person has to satisfy for he/she to be guilty of theft. These sections are described below.

s2 - Dishonesty (part of the mens rea)
(No statutory definition)
3 Areas which the Theft Act does not consider dishonest:
• D has belief he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person,
• D knew he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it,
• the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
Cases to illustrate this: R v Turner (no. 2) (1971), R v Small (1987), R v Ghosh (1982)

s3 - Appropriation (part of the actus reas)
'Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of the right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.'
Cases to illustrate this: R v Lawrence (1971), R v Morris (1983), R v Gomez (1991), R v Hinks (2001)

s4 - Property (part of the actus reas)
'"Property" includes moeny and all other property real or personal, includuing things in action and other intangiable property.'
Cases to illustrate this: Oxford v Moss (1979)

s5 - Belonging to Another (part of the actus reas)
'Property shall be regarded as belonging to any other person having possession or control of it, or having in it any propreitary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest.'
Cases to illustrate this: R v Turner (no. 2) (1971), R v Hall (1972), Davidge v Bunnett (1984), R v Wain (1995), Attorney-General Reference (no. 1 of 1983), R v Gilks (1972)

s6 - Intention to Permanently Deprive (part of the mens rea)
s6 (1) - 'D intends to treat the thing as his own regardless of the others rights' 'Borrowing an item until all the goodness has gone out of it is equivalent to an outright taking'
s6 (2) - 'Dealing with anothers property in such a manner that he knows he is risking its loss'
Cases to illustrate this: R v Velumyl (1989), R v Cahill (1993), DPP v Lavender (1994), R v Marshall (1998), Fernandez (1996), R v Lloyd (1985), R v Easom (1971)

Links to posts with full cases:
http://you-learn-something-new.blogspot.com/2008/12/key-cases-actus-reas-theft.html - Key Cases - Actus Reas Theft

Key Cases - Actus Reas Theft

These are the Key Cases that you need to know for the actus reas (AR) of Theft.
(Quick Key - AR = Actus Reas, D = Defendant, V = Victim, ‼ = Comments, HoL = House of Lords, CoA = Court of Appeal)

R v Lawrence (1971)
V got into a taxi, and took a journey which should have cost 50p. V gave £1, and D said it wans't enough. V offerred his wallet, and D took £7.
D was convicted, although he argued that it wasn't theft as V had offerred his wallet.
‼ Appropriation can occur with consent

R v Morris (1983)
D went into a supermarket and switch 2 price labels to show lower prices.
D cpnvicted of theft. D argued he hadn't assumed all the rights of the owner, just 1. The HoL said that only 1 right need be assumed, not all.
‼ Appropriation requires adverse interference with owners rights. Appropriation cannot occur with consent.

R v Gomez (1991)
Fradulent cheques were used to buy goods, which the manager knew about, although he still accepted them as payment.
D charged with theft, although he had consent. D convicted.
‼ Solves conflict. Following Lawrence principle - Yes an appropriation occured, even though consent was given. Following Morris - No appropriation occured as the goods had been taken with consent. Morris overruled.

R v Hinks (2001)
D befriended a naive man who had a low IQ. Over a period of about 8 months D accompanied the man on numerous occasions to his bank, where he withdrew money and deposited it into Ds account.
D convicted, as it was held that although the man was mentally capable of understanding ownership and making a vlid gift, D had used him and taken advantage of him.
‼ This principle could change every case - who's to say when a legitimate gift has taken place, and when someone has used someone else?

Oxford v Moss (1979)
Student stole a test paper and copied down the answers, before returning the paper.
Wasn't charged with theft as he gave the paper back, so no intention to permanantly deprive.
‼ Answers are counted as information, so cannot be stolen.

R v Turner (no. 2) (1971)
D left his car at a garage for repairs, agreeing that he would pay for the repairs when he collected the car. The garage left the car outside their premises and D used a spare key to take the car without consent.
D convicted. CoA held that the garage were in possession or control of the car at the time, so D could be guilty of stealing his own car.
‼ When does someone become in possession or control? When does that possession control end? Wouldn't it be theft of the fees owned to the garage, not theft of the car?

R v Hall (1972)
D was a travel agent who recieved deposits from cleints for airtrips to the US. D paid deposits into the firms general account, but never organised any tickets, and was unable to return the money.
D convicted of theft, but on appeal this was quashed as when D recieved the deposits he was under no obligation to deal with it in a particular way.
‼ CoA stressed each case depends on facts. Why wouldn't D be under obligation to do something with the money? It was for tickets, not to be deposited into the general account.

Davidge v Bunnet (1984)
Flatmates paide money to one of the flat members for bills. D spent it on himself instead.
D convicted - money was given for a specific purpose.
‼ Surely, if D in this case was under obligation, D in above case would also be under obligation?

R v Wain (1995)
£3k was raised for charity, and D was permitted to transfer the money to his own account and pay for it in. D used money for his own purposes.
D under obligation to retain the 'at least the proceeds of the sums collected' - Convicted of theft.
‼ Again, wouldn't Hall be under obligation if this D was?

Attorney General Reference (no. 1 of 1983)
Ds salary was paid into her account by transfer, except on one occasion she was overpaid.
D was acquitted, and the prosecution appealed asking the CoA to rule that a person in this situation who dishonestly decided not to repay the money would be guilty.
‼ D was under obligation to repay te moeny, so she had to repay them. But, asking to rule that if she had spent the money she would be guilty, so she should be guilty now is harsh and unfair. What if we said that I was going to kill my boyfriend, but didn't, so I should be found guilty of murder?

R v Gilks (1972)
D placed a bet on a horse ('Fighting Scot') and the race was won by a different horse ('Fighting Taffy'). Manager mistakenly paid the winnings to D.
D acquitted - s5(4) = 'property acquired by mistake needs to be returned but obligation to return must be a legal one' (contract)
‼ In gambling there is no contract formed, so there is no theft.

Key Cases - Causation

There always seem to be hundreds of 'need to know' cases in Law that you rush to try and memorise, and then normally end up getting wrong anyway. Well, here are 11 of the main cases you need to know for Causation:
(Quick Key - D = Defendant, V=Victim, ‼=Comments, CoA=Court of Appeal, HoL=House of Lords)

R v White (1910)

D tried to poison his mother to gain her will. He laced her night-time drink with cyanide. Later, V was found dead, but she hadn't drunk a lethal does of her drink, but had died of a heart attack.
D acquitted of murder, but convicted of attempted murder.
‼ Causation was not established - mother died of a heart attack, not poisoning.

R v Pagett (1983)

D armed himself with a shotgun and used his girlfriend as a human shield as he fired at police. The police returned fire, and killed the girl.
Conviction held-CoA said it was reasonably foreeseeable that the police would return fire, either in self-defence or in duty.
‼ Technically the police killed the girl.
Reckless and over-action by the police
Parents successfully sued the police

R v Smith (1959)

D and V were soldiers involved in a barrack room brawl. D stabbed V twice, piercing his lung. V died after receiving poor treatment (dropped on way into medical room, had to wait while the doctors were busy, was given the wrong treatment).
Conviction held - CoA found that the wounds were still operating and substantial at time of death.
‼ Principle - if orginal wounds are still operating and substantial at time of death, D can be found liable.

R v Cheshire (1991)

V developed complications after he had surgery on gunshot wounds inflicted by D. The wounds had nearly healed, but D was convicted.
Conviction held - CoA said that the prosecution had only to prove that Ds acts contributed to the death. Ds act need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of death, provided that his acts contributed significantly to the death.
‼ If principle in Smith was followed, D would have escaped liabilty.

R v Jordan (1956)

D stabbed V and V was taken to hospital and treated for his wounds. They were healing, but V was given a drug he was allergic to. On doctor stopped the use of the drug, but another doctor gave him a large does and V died.
Conviction dismissed - Treatment described a palpably wrong
‼ Case never followed - Courts reluctant to let D escape liabilty.

R v Malcherek and Steel (1981)

D stabbed his wife in the stomach and she was put on a life support machine. A number of tests showed she was brain dead, and the machine was switched off.
Conviction held-trial judge refused to allow the issue of causation to go to a jury.
‼ If it were not but for Ds actions, V wouldn't have been in that position.

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)

V was a young man crushed in a crowd panic, which stopped oxygen getting to his brian, leaving him in a persistant vegitative state (PVS). 3 years later tests declared him brain dead, and his doctors asked to stop feeding him, knowing it would kill him.
Appeal granted-switching off the machines was held to be in Vs best interests.
‼ HoL said switching off the life machine was an omission to act, not an act, so it was allowed.

R v Roberts (1971)

D was convicted of assualt occaisioning actual bodily harm after V jumped out of his car after D allegedly tried to remove her coat. She thought he was going to rape her.
Conviction held-D set off chain of events, and the reaction was reasonable and foreseeable.
‼ D set off chain of events, so as long as the reaction was foreseeable and expected there is no chain of causation.

R v Dear (1996)

D slashed V with a stanley knife, severing an artery. V died from blood loss 2 das later. D pleaded provocation as a defence, and another defence was that V had committed suicide, either by reopening the wounds or not seeking help.
Conviction held-the wounds were still operating and substantial at the time of death.
‼ Courts didn't apply Roberts principle, but the Smith principle as V letting himself die was daft and unexpected.

R v Blaue (1975)

D stabbed V, piercing her lung, and causing her to loose a large amount of blood. She refused to have a life saving transfusion as she was a Jehovah's Witness, and she died the next day.
Conviction held-Although D appealed on a question of causation, the courts followed the thin skull rule
‼ Should the thin skull rule cover medical beliefs? Consider other things - phobias, medical beliefs, parental status etc

R v Hayward (1908)

D was in a condition of violent excitment. He chased his wife and threatened her. She ran from the house, into the road, and collapsed, dying instantly.
Convictions held-convicted of mansluaghter. V had a heart condition, so any combination of a strong emotion and physical exertion could have produced the same results.
‼ Unlike the other cases there was no physical act by D, but the thin skull rule still applies.