1. Actus Reus Flashcards
Criminal Trial: Who has the legal burden of proof?
The prosecution must prove all elements of the offence, and often must disprove the defence
Criminal Trial: Who has the evidential burden?
The prosecution has an evidential burden to provide sufficient evidence for each element of the offence (eg. police interviews, witness or expert reports)
What standard of proof is the prosecution subject to?
Beyond Reasonable Doubt (should be ‘sure’ of defendant’s guilt before convicting)
When does the legal burden of proof shift to the defendant? What standard of proof do they have?
Sometimes, defendant must prove their defence
- eg. diminished responsibility
- They must prove this on balance of probabilities (more likely than not)
What is the AR for conduct crimes?
AR = an act or failure to act by the defendant
What is the AR for result crimes?
Certain consequences flowing from the defendant’s conduct
What is the AR concerned with in ‘circumstances / state of affairs’ crimes?
The existence of certain characteristics at the time of the defendant’s conduct
Generally, is there criminal liability for failing to act?
No
Exceptions to ‘no liability for omissions’: Common Law Offences
Situations wherein the defendant is under a positive duty to act and fails to do so:
1. Duty arising out of contract
(eg. doctors and nurses, lifeguards)
2. Special Relationships
3. Voluntary Assumption of care
4. Dangerous Situation
Omissions and Special Relationships: when does a special relationship exist?
- Close relationship like parents to children, between spouses etc.
- Person voluntarily undertakes to care for those who cannot care for themselves (ie. infancy, ill-health)
Omissions: Dangerous Situation
If a person creates a dangerous situation by doing something to endanger the victim which they are aware of, they have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm from occurring
- reasonableness depends on circumstances
General Rule: Causation and Result Crimes
The defendant is only criminally liable if they can be shown to have caused, both in fact and in law, harm to the victim
Factual Causation
But For Test: But for the defendant’s conduct, would the consequence have occurred?
- If yes, then factual causation cannot be established
Legal Causation Test
The defendant’s conduct must be a substantial and operating cause of the consequence
When is legal causation considered for result crimes?
Once factual causation has been established
Legal Causation Rules
- the consequence must be attributable to a culpable act or omission
- the culpable act must be a more than minimal cause of the consequence
- the culpable act need not be the sole cause
- the accused must take their victim as they find them
- the chain of causation must not be broken
‘Thin-Skull Rule’:
If victim has certain frailty / condition which makes them more succeptible to a certain injury, this will not relieve the defendant of liability for causing them harm / death
Events that break the chain of causation
- unforeseen and extraordinary natural events
- unreasonable actions by the victim
- voluntary (free deliberate and informed) actions of third parties
