A
Abnormality of mental functioning statute
The first limb of diminished responsibility under s.2 Homicide Act 1957 (as amended by Coroners and Justice Act 2009). A state of mind so different from that of an ordinary human being that a reasonable person would call it abnormal.
Acceleration principle
If the defendant's act hastens a death that would have occurred anyway (e.g. due to existing illness), legal causation is still established. Linked to the thin-skull rule.
Actual bodily harm (ABH) statute
Assault or battery occasioning bodily harm under s.47 OAPA 1861. Defined as "any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort" of the victim (R v Miller [1954]), provided it is more than "transient and trifling". Includes recognised psychiatric injury (R v Chan Fook [1994]) but not mere emotions such as fear or distress.
Actus reus core
The "guilty act" — the physical element of a crime. Can be a positive act, an omission (where a duty exists), or a state of affairs.
Aggravated burglary statute
Burglary under s.9 Theft Act 1968 committed while the defendant has with them a firearm, imitation firearm, weapon of offence, or explosive. s.10 Theft Act 1968.
Aiding and abetting statute
Secondary participation in an offence — assisting (aiding), encouraging (abetting), procuring, or counselling the principal offender. Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.
AO1, AO2, AO3 core
OCR Law's three marking categories: AO1 — knowledge and understanding; AO2 — application of legal rules and authorities; AO3 — analysis and evaluation. AO3 is what lifts answers from Level 3 to Level 4 / A*.
See worked AO3 examples →Apprehension
In assault, the victim's anticipation of imminent unlawful force. The victim need not fear the force, only apprehend it. Apprehension can be caused by words alone (R v Ireland).
Appropriation statute
"Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner" — the actus reus of theft. s.3 Theft Act 1968. Even an innocent acquisition can become appropriation when the defendant assumes ownership rights.
Assault
A common law offence (charged under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988). Causing the victim to apprehend immediate, unlawful, personal violence. No physical contact required.
Attempt statute
An inchoate offence under s.1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The defendant does an act which is "more than merely preparatory" with intent to commit a substantive offence.
Automatism
A defence where the defendant's muscular movements are involuntary — "an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind" (Bratty v AG NI). Sane automatism (external cause) vs insane automatism (internal — within M'Naghten Rules).
AG's Reference (No 3 of 1994)
AG's Reference (No 6 of 1980)
R v Adomako Free sample
Lord Mackay LC laid down the four-stage test for gross negligence manslaughter: (1) duty of care, (2) breach of duty, (3) gross breach causing criminal liability, (4) breach caused death. The modern leading authority.
R v Asmelash
B
"But-for" test core
The test for factual causation: but for the defendant's act, would the prohibited consequence have occurred? If yes, no factual causation (R v White).
Basic intent
Crimes which can be committed recklessly or where the mens rea is recklessness. Voluntary intoxication is no defence to basic-intent crimes (DPP v Majewski).
Battery
A common law offence (s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988). The application of unlawful force to another. Even slightest touching can suffice if unwanted (Collins v Wilcock).
Beyond reasonable doubt
The criminal standard of proof. The prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt to a degree where a reasonable person would have no real doubt. Higher than civil "balance of probabilities".
Bolam test
(Tort) The standard for medical negligence — a doctor is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion.
Building
In burglary (s.9 Theft Act 1968), a structure of considerable size with some degree of permanence. Includes inhabited vehicles and vessels (s.9(4)).
Burden of proof
The obligation on a party to prove the facts in issue. In criminal law, the burden lies on the prosecution (subject to limited reverse burdens, e.g. diminished responsibility).
Burglary statute
s.9 Theft Act 1968. Two forms: s.9(1)(a) — entering as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict GBH, or do unlawful damage. s.9(1)(b) — having entered as trespasser, stealing or attempting to steal or inflicting/attempting GBH.
R v Bailey
R v Barton & Booth
R v Bateman Free sample
Lord Hewart CJ: negligence is criminal where it shows "such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime". The original gross-negligence threshold, still cited by Adomako.
R v Blaue Free sample
Held: the "thin skull" or "eggshell" rule — defendants take their victims as they find them, including their religious beliefs. Jehovah's Witness's refusal of blood transfusion did not break the chain of causation.
C
Caldwell recklessness overruled
Objective recklessness test from MPC v Caldwell [1982] — defendant liable if a reasonable person would have seen the risk. OVERRULED by R v G [2003] HL. Do not cite as current law.
Caparo three-stage test
(Tort) Test for duty of care in negligence: (1) reasonable foreseeability of harm; (2) sufficient proximity; (3) fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
Causation core
The link between the defendant's conduct and the prohibited harm. Two limbs: factual (but-for) and legal (operating and substantial cause).
Cheshire test
For legal causation: the original wound must be the "operating and substantial cause" of death. Medical treatment will not break the chain unless it is "so independent and so potent that the defendant's contribution becomes insignificant".
Church test
For unlawful act manslaughter — the unlawful act must be objectively dangerous. The test: would a sober and reasonable person, observing the act, recognise that it subjects the victim to the risk of some harm?
Coincidence of AR and MR core
The actus reus and mens rea must exist at the same time for liability. Softened by the continuing act and single transaction doctrines.
Common assault
Umbrella term covering both assault (apprehension) and battery (force). Charged under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 as a summary offence.
Common law
Law developed by judges through the doctrine of precedent (stare decisis), as opposed to statute. Murder, manslaughter, and assault are common-law offences.
Conditional intent
Intention to commit an offence only if a particular condition is met (e.g. entering a building intending to steal "if anything is worth taking"). Sufficient for inchoate offences and burglary.
Conduct crime
A crime where the actus reus is satisfied by conduct alone — no consequence required (e.g. perjury, possession of a controlled drug, dangerous driving).
Consent (as defence)
A defence to assault, battery, and (limited) ABH/GBH. Cannot consent to deliberate harm above ABH except in recognised exceptions (sport, surgery, tattooing). Sado-masochism not exempt (R v Brown).
Conspiracy statute
An inchoate offence under s.1 Criminal Law Act 1977. Agreement between two or more people to commit an offence. Includes statutory conspiracy and common-law conspiracy to defraud.
Constructive manslaughter
Another name for unlawful act manslaughter. The mens rea is "constructed" from the mens rea of the unlawful act — the defendant need not foresee death or any harm.
Continuing act doctrine
Where the actus reus continues over a period of time, mens rea formed during that period satisfies coincidence.
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 statute
Reformed the partial defences to murder. ss.54-55 replaced provocation with loss of control; s.52 amended diminished responsibility (Homicide Act 1957 s.2).
Corporate manslaughter statute
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. An organisation is guilty if the way in which its activities are managed or organised causes a person's death and amounts to a gross breach of a duty of care.
Criminal Damage Act 1971 statute
Creates offences of destroying or damaging property belonging to another. Simple criminal damage (s.1(1)), aggravated criminal damage (s.1(2) — with intent or recklessness as to endangering life), arson (s.1(3)).
Crown Court
The court that hears indictable and either-way offences with a judge and jury. Located in major cities. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) hears appeals from it.
Cunningham recklessness core
Subjective recklessness — the defendant foresaw the risk and took it anyway. The dominant test post-R v G [2003].
Chan Fook (R v)
R v Clinton, Parker & Evans
R v Collins (1973)
Collins v Wilcock
R v Constanza
D
Damage (criminal)
Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, any temporary or permanent physical harm or impairment to property — including erasing data, scratching paintwork, or trampling a lawn.
Damages
(Tort/Contract) Monetary compensation awarded to a claimant. Compensatory, nominal, exemplary, or aggravated.
Dangerous act
For unlawful act manslaughter — an act which a sober and reasonable person would recognise as creating a risk of some harm to the victim. Objective test from R v Church.
De minimis rule
The defendant's contribution to the harm must be more than minimal/trifling. The act must be a "more than minimal" cause but need not be the sole or main cause.
Diminished responsibility statute
Partial defence to murder under s.2 Homicide Act 1957 (as amended). Requires: (1) abnormality of mental functioning; (2) arising from a recognised medical condition; (3) substantially impairing the defendant's ability to understand, form rational judgment, or exercise self-control; (4) providing an explanation for the killing.
Direct intention
The defendant's main aim, purpose, or desire to bring about the prohibited consequence.
Dishonesty
The Ivey test: (1) what was the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts? (2) was their conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? Replaces the Ghosh test.
Donoghue v Stevenson principle
(Tort) Lord Atkin's "neighbour principle" — you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
Duress
A defence to most offences (not murder, attempted murder, treason). Duress by threats (immediate threat of death/serious injury) or duress of circumstances. The Graham test applies.
Duty of care
(Tort) The legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid harm to others. Established by the Caparo three-stage test in novel situations.
Duty to act
In criminal law, an omission can satisfy actus reus only where the defendant owed a duty to act. Six recognised categories: statute, contract, public office, voluntary assumption, special relationship, and creation of danger.
Davidge v Bunnett
R v Dawes, Hatter & Bowyer
R v Dietschmann
DPP v Santana-Bermudez
DPP v Smith [1961]
E
Either-way offence
An offence triable in either the Magistrates' Court or Crown Court (e.g. ABH s.47, theft, burglary). The defendant elects Crown Court trial, or the magistrates decline jurisdiction.
Encouraging or assisting crime statute
Inchoate offences under ss.44-46 Serious Crime Act 2007. Replaced the common-law offence of incitement.
Entry (burglary)
For s.9 Theft Act 1968 — the defendant must enter as a trespasser. "Effective entry" is sufficient; entry of any part of the body can suffice.
Escape cases
Where the victim flees from the defendant and is injured. The chain of causation is broken only if the victim's response is "daft" — disproportionate to the threat.
Express malice
For murder — the intention to kill the victim. One form of malice aforethought.
R v Evans Free sample
Held: where the defendant creates or contributes to a life-threatening state of affairs (here, supplying heroin to a half-sister who then overdosed), the defendant has a duty to take reasonable steps to avert the danger. Breach can found GNM.
F
Factual causation
First stage of causation. The "but-for" test — but for the defendant's act, would the harm have occurred?
Foresight of consequences
Evidence (not equivalent) of intention. If consequence was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated this, the jury may find intention.
Fraud Act 2006 statute
Created three new fraud offences: fraud by false representation (s.2), failing to disclose (s.3), and abuse of position (s.4). Replaced the deception offences in the Theft Acts.
Free, deliberate, informed act
In causation, a victim's or third party's "free, deliberate, and informed" act will break the chain — e.g. a drug user freely self-injecting.
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
G
Gammon principle
The four-factor test for deciding whether to impute strict liability. (1) Presumption of mens rea; (2) stronger where the offence is "truly criminal"; (3) displaceable only by necessary implication; (4) only where it advances enforcement of the statute.
Grievous bodily harm (GBH) statute
"Really serious harm" (DPP v Smith [1961]). The actus reus of s.18 and s.20 OAPA 1861. Includes serious psychiatric harm (R v Burstow) and transmitting serious sexually-transmitted disease (R v Dica).
Gross negligence manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence. Four-stage test (Adomako): (1) duty of care; (2) breach; (3) breach caused death; (4) breach was so gross as to be criminal.
R v Goodfellow
H
Hansard rule
Permits courts to use parliamentary debates as an aid to statutory interpretation in limited circumstances.
Harassment statute
Course of conduct amounting to harassment of another. Civil and criminal liability under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Aggravated form (s.4) where it causes fear of violence.
Homicide
The unlawful killing of one human being by another. Includes murder, manslaughter (voluntary and involuntary), and infanticide.
Homicide Act 1957 statute
Codifies the partial defences to murder — diminished responsibility (s.2, as amended by Coroners and Justice Act 2009), suicide pact (s.4). Repealed common-law provocation (replaced by Loss of Control in Coroners and Justice Act 2009).
R v Hardie
Haystead v DPP
I
Implied malice
For murder — the intention to cause grievous bodily harm. Sufficient mens rea for murder if death results.
Inchoate offences
Offences which precede the full commission of a substantive offence: attempt (Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s.1), conspiracy (Criminal Law Act 1977 s.1), encouraging/assisting (Serious Crime Act 2007 ss.44-46).
Indictable offence
The most serious category of offence (e.g. murder, rape, robbery, GBH s.18). Tried only in the Crown Court before a judge and jury.
Inflict (s.20 OAPA)
Historically narrower than "cause" (s.18) but now treated as substantially the same — no need for assault or battery (R v Burstow).
Innocent agent
A person used by the principal offender to commit an offence without themselves having the mens rea (e.g. a child under 10, or someone deceived into delivering a parcel containing drugs).
Intention core
The highest level of mens rea. Two forms: direct (aim/purpose) and oblique (foresight of virtual certainty as evidence of intention).
Intention permanently to deprive statute
The final element of theft under s.6 Theft Act 1968. Treating the property as one's own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights. Borrowing can amount to it if the borrowing is "equivalent to an outright taking".
Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent (DPP v Majewski) but may negate the mens rea of specific-intent crimes. Involuntary intoxication is a defence if it negated mens rea.
Involuntary manslaughter
Manslaughter without the mens rea for murder. Two principal forms: unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter. "Reckless manslaughter" is no longer treated as a distinct category — it is largely absorbed into GNM following R v Adomako [1995].
R v Inglis
Ivey v Genting Casinos
J
Joint enterprise
Where two or more people commit an offence together. Following R v Jogee [2016] UKSC, secondary parties are liable only where they intentionally assist or encourage, with knowledge of the principal's conduct.
JCC v Eisenhower
R v Jordan Free sample
Held: "palpably wrong" medical treatment that is the substantial cause of death can break the chain of causation. Distinguished where the original wound is still operating substantially (cf. R v Smith).
K
Kennedy principle
In drugs cases, the victim's "free, deliberate, and informed act" of self-injection breaks the chain of causation — the supplier cannot be guilty of UAM where the victim freely injected themselves.
L
Latimer rule
Mens rea aimed at one victim transfers to the actual victim of the same type of offence. Foundation of transferred malice.
Legal causation
Second stage of causation. The defendant's act must be the "operating and substantial cause" of the harm. Considers intervening acts, thin-skull rule, and policy.
Literal rule
Statutory interpretation: words are given their ordinary, natural, dictionary meaning, even if this leads to an absurd result.
Loss of control statute
Partial defence to murder under ss.54-55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Three elements: (1) the defendant lost self-control; (2) qualifying trigger (fear of serious violence and/or things said/done of extremely grave character causing justifiable sense of being seriously wronged); (3) a normal person in the defendant's circumstances might have reacted similarly.
M
M'Naghten Rules core
The rules on insanity (1843). The defendant must prove (on balance of probabilities) that at the time of the act, due to a "defect of reason from disease of the mind", they did not know (a) the nature and quality of the act, or (b) that it was wrong.
Magistrates' Court
The lowest criminal court, hearing summary offences and either-way offences (where appropriate). Limited sentencing powers: 6 months for a single summary offence; 12 months for a single either-way offence (reinstated 18 November 2024 under regulations made under the Sentencing Act 2020). If the court considers its sentencing powers insufficient, it commits the case to the Crown Court for sentence.
Malice aforethought core
The mens rea of murder. Either express malice (intention to kill) or implied malice (intention to cause GBH).
Manslaughter
Unlawful killing without the mens rea for murder, or murder reduced by a partial defence. Two main categories: voluntary (with malice aforethought + partial defence) and involuntary (without malice aforethought).
Mens rea core
The "guilty mind" — the mental element of a crime. Levels include intention (direct/oblique), recklessness (Cunningham), knowledge, belief, and negligence.
Mischief rule
Statutory interpretation: courts look at the "mischief" the statute was designed to remedy and interpret the words to suppress that mischief.
Mistake
A defence where a mistaken belief negates the mens rea. Must be honest; need not be reasonable (DPP v Morgan). For self-defence, an honest mistaken belief in the need for force is judged on the facts as the defendant believed them.
More than minimal cause
For factual causation, the defendant's conduct must be more than a minimal contribution to the harm — but it need not be the sole or principal cause.
Motive
The reason a defendant acts. Motive is irrelevant to the existence of mens rea (a good motive does not negate intention).
Murder core
A common-law offence. The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's Peace, with malice aforethought, the death occurring within any time after the act.
R v Matthews & Alleyne
R v Misra & Srivastava Free sample
Held: the Adomako test for gross negligence manslaughter is sufficiently precise to satisfy Article 7 ECHR (no punishment without law). Circular phrasing is not the same as vagueness.
R v Mitchell
R v Mohan Free sample
Held: direct intent means "a decision to bring about" the prohibited consequence "no matter whether the accused desired that consequence or not". The leading definition of direct intent.
N
Necessity
A rare common-law defence — choosing the lesser of two evils where evil was inevitable. Recognised in Re A (Conjoined Twins) [2001] but otherwise narrow.
Nedrick direction
The original test for oblique intention (1986): the jury can infer intention if death/serious harm was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated this. Refined in Woollin — "infer" became "find".
Negligence
A failure to exercise reasonable care. Standalone mens rea in few criminal offences (e.g. dangerous driving) but central to gross negligence manslaughter and tort.
Novus actus interveniens core
A "new intervening act" that breaks the chain of causation. Can be (i) the act of a third party; (ii) the act of the victim; (iii) a natural event. Must be free, deliberate, and informed (third party) or unforeseeable (victim).
R v Newbury & Jones
O
OAPA 1861 statute
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Codifies the main non-fatal offences: s.18 (wounding/GBH with intent), s.20 (malicious wounding/GBH), s.47 (ABH), s.23 (administering noxious substance).
Obiter dicta
"Things said by the way" — comments in a judgment not strictly necessary for the decision. Persuasive but not binding precedent.
Oblique intention
Where the consequence was a virtual certainty of the defendant's act, and the defendant appreciated this. The jury may find intention (it is evidence of, not equivalent to, intention).
Omission
A failure to act. Generally not actus reus unless the defendant owed a duty to act. See Duty to act for the six categories.
Operating and substantial cause
The standard for legal causation. The original wound must still be operating and a substantial cause at the time of harm — even if not the sole cause.
Original precedent
A new point of law decided by a court for the first time. Often relies on analogy with existing principles.
P
Pembliton rule
Transferred malice does not transfer between offences of different types — mens rea for assault cannot transfer to criminal damage. (Note: commonly misspelt "Pembilton" in mark schemes — the correct spelling is Pembliton.)
Per incuriam
"Through lack of care" — a precedent decided in ignorance of a relevant statute or binding authority. Such decisions are not binding.
Persuasive precedent
A precedent which need not be followed but which the court may consider. Includes obiter dicta, decisions of lower courts, Privy Council decisions, dissenting judgments, and foreign-law decisions.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 statute
"PACE". Governs police powers and procedures for stop-and-search, arrest, detention, questioning, and treatment of suspects. Codes of Practice A–H supplement the Act.
Precedent (stare decisis)
"To stand by things decided". The doctrine that courts must follow earlier decisions of higher courts. Underpins certainty and consistency in English common law.
Presumption of mens rea
There is a presumption that mens rea is required for every offence. Displaceable only by clear statutory words or necessary implication (Gammon).
Principal offender
The person who actually commits the actus reus of an offence (the "perpetrator"). Distinguished from secondary parties (accessories).
Property (theft) statute
s.4 Theft Act 1968. Includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property (s.4(1)). Land cannot generally be stolen except in narrow circumstances (s.4(2)). Picking wild mushrooms, flowers, fruit, or foliage from wild plants for personal use is not theft (s.4(3)) — but it is theft if done for sale, reward, or other commercial purpose. Wild animals are property capable of being stolen only if tamed, kept in captivity, or reduced into possession (s.4(4)).
Proportionate force
In self-defence, force used must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat. The householder defence (s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) allows disproportionate but not "grossly disproportionate" force.
Purposive approach
Statutory interpretation: courts give effect to the purpose of the legislation as evidenced by the words used and external aids. The dominant modern approach.
R v Pagett Free sample
Held: a defendant's use of an innocent third party as a human shield does not break the chain of causation when police return fire. The reasonable, lawful response of police is not a novus actus interveniens.
R v Pittwood Free sample
Held: a contractual duty to act (here, a railway-gate keeper failing to close the gate) can found liability for manslaughter where breach causes death. Omission liability where contract creates a duty of care.
Q
Qualifying trigger statute
For loss of control. Either (a) fear of serious violence from the victim, or (b) things said or done of an extremely grave character giving the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. ss.55(3)–(4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Queen's Peace
For murder — the victim must be killed "under the Queen's Peace". Excludes killing enemy combatants in war, but covers virtually everyone else (including foreign nationals).
R
Ratio decidendi
"The reason for the decision". The legal principle on which the decision is based — binding precedent on lower courts.
Reasonable force
s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (codifying common law). Force must be proportionate; judged on the facts as the defendant believed them to be, even if the defendant was mistaken.
Reasonable person test
The objective standard used in many areas of law (causation, dangerous-act test, normal-person test in LOC). A hypothetical person of ordinary maturity and self-restraint.
Recklessness core
A lower mens rea than intention. The Cunningham (subjective) test applies — the defendant must have foreseen the risk and taken it. Caldwell's objective test was overruled.
Recognised medical condition
The second element of diminished responsibility post-2009 Act — the abnormality must arise from a medically recognised condition (e.g. depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, BWS, ADS).
Result crime
A crime where actus reus requires a specific consequence (e.g. murder requires death, GBH requires really serious harm). Distinguished from conduct crimes.
Robbery statute
s.8 Theft Act 1968. Theft + use or threat of force on any person, immediately before or at the time of the theft, in order to steal.
Rule of evidence
A principle relating to what may be considered in establishing a fact (e.g. foresight is evidence of intention, not equivalent to it).
R v Roberts (escape cases)
R v Robinson
R v Rose [2017] Free sample
Held: for the third stage of Adomako, the jury must find that a "serious and obvious risk of death" was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach — not assessed in hindsight. Optometrist conviction quashed.
S
Section 18 OAPA 1861 statute
Wounding or causing GBH with intent. Specific-intent offence. Maximum sentence: life imprisonment.
Section 20 OAPA 1861 statute
Maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH. Mens rea: intention or subjective recklessness as to some harm (not the GBH itself).
Section 47 OAPA 1861 statute
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Mens rea is the mens rea of the underlying assault/battery only — no need for foresight of the ABH itself.
Self-defence
A complete defence to crimes against the person and property. Codified by s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Honest belief in need for force; force must be reasonable.
Sexual infidelity (LOC)
Generally excluded as a qualifying trigger under s.55(6)(c) Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but can be considered as part of the wider context in which other triggers operate.
Single transaction doctrine
Treats a series of acts as one continuing transaction, allowing mens rea formed earlier to satisfy coincidence with a later actus reus.
Specific intent
Crimes where intention (not recklessness) is the mens rea — e.g. murder, s.18 GBH, theft, robbery, burglary. Voluntary intoxication can be a defence if it negates intention.
Standard of proof
Criminal: beyond reasonable doubt (prosecution). Civil: balance of probabilities. Diminished responsibility imposes a reverse burden on the defendant on balance of probabilities.
Stare decisis
See Precedent. The principle that courts follow earlier decisions of higher courts (and, with limited exceptions, their own previous decisions).
State of affairs offence
A crime where the actus reus is "being" in a particular state — e.g. being found drunk in a highway (Winzar v CC Kent), being an illegal alien in the UK (R v Larsonneur). Often strict liability.
Strict liability core
Offences requiring no mens rea for at least one element of the actus reus. Common in regulatory offences (food safety, road traffic). Applied by Gammon principles.
Subjective recklessness
The Cunningham test — the defendant foresaw the risk and went on to take it. The standard recklessness test in English criminal law since R v G [2003].
Substantial impairment statute
Third element of diminished responsibility (Coroners and Justice Act 2009). The abnormality must substantially impair the defendant's ability to (a) understand the nature of conduct; (b) form rational judgment; or (c) exercise self-control. More than trivial; need not be total.
Summary offence
The least serious category of offence (e.g. common assault, minor driving offences). Tried only in the Magistrates' Court.
Supreme Court
The highest court in the UK (since 2009; previously the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords). Binds all lower courts; can depart from its own previous decisions (1966 Practice Statement).
R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter
R v Sheehan & Moore
R v Singh Free sample
Held: the standard of care for gross negligence manslaughter is that of the reasonably competent person in the defendant's role. Landlord judged by the standard of a reasonable landlord; tenant died from carbon monoxide.
R v Smith [1959] Free sample
Held: the original wound need not be the sole cause of death — it must be the "operating and substantial" cause. Medical mistreatment did not break the chain where the stab wound was still operating significantly.
R v Stone & Dobinson Free sample
Held: a voluntary assumption of care for a helpless adult relative creates a duty to act. Failure to summon medical help when the adult became ill found liability for gross negligence manslaughter.
T
Take your victim as you find them
See Thin-skull rule.
Theft statute
s.1 Theft Act 1968. Five elements: (1) appropriation (s.3) of (2) property (s.4) (3) belonging to another (s.5) with (4) dishonesty (Ivey) and (5) intention permanently to deprive (s.6).
Theft Act 1968 statute
The principal statute on dishonesty offences: theft (s.1), robbery (s.8), burglary (s.9), aggravated burglary (s.10), making off without payment (s.3 Theft Act 1978).
Thin-skull rule core
The defendant must "take their victim as they find them" — physical, mental, or religious peculiarities of the victim cannot break the chain.
Transferred malice core
Doctrine allowing mens rea aimed at one victim to transfer to the actual victim within the same type of offence. Does not transfer between offence types (R v Pembliton) and cannot transfer twice.
Trespass
Entry to land or property without permission or other lawful authority. Required actus reus element of burglary (s.9 Theft Act 1968).
Thabo Meli v R
Tuberville v Savage
R v Turner (No 2)
U
Ulterior intent
A specific intent which goes beyond the actus reus — e.g. in burglary s.9(1)(a), the intent to steal once inside. The actus reus is entry as trespasser; the intent to steal is ulterior to it.
Unlawful act manslaughter core
Death caused by an unlawful and objectively dangerous act. Four elements: (1) unlawful act; (2) dangerous (Church); (3) caused death; (4) mens rea for the unlawful act only.
V
Vicarious liability
(Tort) An employer's strict liability for torts committed by an employee in the course of employment. Generally not a feature of criminal law (which requires personal fault), but applies in some regulatory offences.
Virtual certainty
In oblique intention, the consequence must have been a virtual certainty of the defendant's act (Woollin standard) and the defendant must have appreciated this. Lower than "moral certainty" but higher than "highly probable".
Voluntary act
The actus reus must be voluntary — an act of the will. Involuntary acts (automatism, reflex) negate actus reus.
Voluntary manslaughter
Murder reduced to manslaughter by a partial defence — loss of control (Coroners and Justice Act 2009) or diminished responsibility (HA 1957 s.2, as amended). The mens rea of murder is satisfied; the partial defence reduces liability.
R v Vickers
W
Wilful blindness
Deliberately closing one's eyes to obvious risk — often equated with subjective recklessness or, in some contexts, with knowledge.
Wound
A break in the continuity of both layers of skin (epidermis and dermis). Internal bleeding alone is not a wound (JCC v Eisenhower).
Wounding with intent statute
s.18 OAPA 1861. Wounding or causing GBH with intent to do GBH or resist/prevent arrest. Specific-intent offence. Maximum: life imprisonment.
R v Wacker Free sample
Held: a duty of care for gross negligence manslaughter can be owed even where the victim was a willing participant in the defendant's criminal venture. Lorry driver liable when 58 illegal immigrants suffocated.
R v Walkington
R v White (1910) Free sample
Held: factual causation requires the "but for" test — but for the defendant's act, the result would not have occurred. The defendant poisoned mother's drink; mother died of heart attack before drinking it. No factual causation; only attempt liable.
R v Woollin Free sample
Held: in murder, the jury may find intention (oblique intent) where death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty of the defendant's act and the defendant appreciated this. The modern oblique-intent direction.