Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter

Murder is the big one - unlawfully killing someone with malice aforethought (basically meaning you intended to kill or cause serious harm). The prosecution needs to prove you actually killed someone (actus reus) and that you meant to do it (mens rea).

For the killing itself, it has to be unlawful, the victim must be a living person (not a foetus), and your actions must have caused their death. The causation rules are vital here - your act must be both the factual cause ("but for" what you did, they'd still be alive) and the legal cause (not too remote from the death).

Voluntary manslaughter gives defendants a way to reduce murder to a lesser charge. Diminished responsibility applies when you've got a recognised medical condition that substantially impairs your ability to understand what you're doing or control yourself. Loss of control covers situations where you genuinely "snap" due to fear of violence or something really serious that would make a reasonable person lose it too.

Key Point: Murder requires intent to kill OR intent to cause grievous bodily harm - both count as malice aforethought under R v Vickers.

Involuntary Manslaughter and Assault Offences

Involuntary manslaughter happens when you kill someone without meaning to. There are two main types that'll definitely come up in your exams.

Gross negligence manslaughter requires proving you owed the victim a duty of care, breached it badly, there was an obvious risk of death, and your negligence was so shocking it deserves criminal punishment. Think dodgy landlords or people who should've looked after someone but didn't.

Unlawful act manslaughter is simpler - you do something illegal and dangerous that kills someone, even if you never meant to hurt them. The act must be a crime (not just a civil wrong), and any reasonable person would see it risked causing some harm.

Assault is making someone fear immediate violence, while battery is actually touching them unlawfully. You don't need to hit someone hard - even touching their clothes counts if they're wearing them.

Remember: For unlawful act manslaughter, you don't need to foresee the harm - the test is what a reasonable person would recognise (R v Church).

Serious Violence and Theft

The violence offences get more serious as the harm increases. ABH (actual bodily harm) covers "any hurt or injury" that interferes with someone's health or comfort - even psychological harm counts. GBH under s20 requires "really serious harm" but you only need to intend some harm. GBH under s18 is the top tier, requiring specific intent to cause serious harm.

Theft needs five elements that all must be present. You must dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive them of it. The tricky bits are usually dishonesty and whether you meant to keep it forever.

Appropriation happens as soon as you assume any rights of the owner - even switching price labels counts. Property includes most things but watch out for the exceptions like wild plants and electricity. Belonging to another covers anyone with control over the item, not just the legal owner.

The dishonesty test from Ivey asks what you actually believed about the situation, then whether ordinary people would consider that dishonest. Most exam questions hinge on this bit.

Top Tip: For theft, you can appropriate property even with the owner's consent (Lawrence) - consent doesn't automatically make it lawful.

Robbery, Burglary and Attempted Crimes

Robbery is basically theft plus force - you need a complete theft plus the use or threat of force immediately before or during the theft to enable it. Even a small push can count as sufficient force if the jury thinks so.

Burglary comes in two flavours under s9. Type $a$ is entering as a trespasser with intent to steal or cause GBH. Type $b$ is entering as a trespasser then actually stealing or causing GBH once inside. You can be a trespasser even in your own house if you exceed your permission to be there.

Criminal attempts cover situations where you try to commit a crime but don't quite manage it. The key test is whether you've moved beyond "merely preparatory" acts to actually trying to commit the full offence. You need full intent for the completed crime - for attempted murder, intending GBH isn't enough.

The law covers attempting the impossible too - if you genuinely try to commit a crime but it's actually impossible in the circumstances, you can still be guilty of attempt.

Watch Out: For robbery, the theft must be complete - if there's no theft, there's no robbery, even with loads of force (Robinson).

Self-Defence and Duress

Self-defence lets you use reasonable force to protect yourself or others, prevent crime, or make lawful arrests. You don't have to retreat or wait to be attacked first - pre-emptive strikes are allowed if genuinely necessary.

The force must be necessary in the circumstances as you genuinely believed them to exist (even if you're mistaken about the facts) and proportionate to the threat. Householders get more leeway against intruders - they can use disproportionate force as long as it's not "grossly disproportionate".

Duress by threats can excuse crimes (except murder) when someone threatens you or your family with death or serious injury, you reasonably believe the threat, and you can't escape it. The threat must relate directly to the crime you commit.

Duress of circumstances applies when external circumstances force you to commit a crime to avoid greater harm - like speeding to hospital in an emergency. Both types use an objective test asking whether a reasonable person with your characteristics would have acted the same way.

Key Rule: You can't claim duress if you voluntarily put yourself in a situation where you knew threats were likely (R v Sharp).

Mental State Defences and Consent

Insanity uses the old M'Naghten rules - everyone's presumed sane unless they can prove they suffered from a "defect of reason" caused by "disease of the mind" and didn't know what they were doing or that it was wrong. This covers internal conditions like epilepsy, diabetes, and sleepwalking.

Automatism is for when external factors make you act without conscious control - like being attacked by bees or having PTSD flashbacks. If it's self-induced (like taking drugs), you might only get the defence for crimes requiring specific intent.

Intoxication works differently for different crimes. For basic intent crimes (where recklessness is enough), voluntary intoxication is no defence because getting drunk is itself reckless. For specific intent crimes, being too drunk to form the required intent can be a defence.

Consent can be a defence to some violence, but there are strict limits. You can consent to everyday contact, properly conducted sports, medical treatment, and things like tattoos. But you generally can't consent to serious harm unless it falls within established exceptions.

Important: The special verdict for insanity can lead to indefinite hospitalisation for murder cases - it's not always the best option for defendants.