1. Actus Reus

Question 1

Criminal Trial: Who has the legal burden of proof?

Answer 1

The prosecution must prove all elements of the offence, and often must disprove the defence

Question 2

Criminal Trial: Who has the evidential burden?

Answer 2

The prosecution has an evidential burden to provide sufficient evidence for each element of the offence (eg. police interviews, witness or expert reports)

Question 3

What standard of proof is the prosecution subject to?

Answer 3

Beyond Reasonable Doubt (should be ‘sure’ of defendant’s guilt before convicting)

Question 4

When does the legal burden of proof shift to the defendant? What standard of proof do they have?

Answer 4

Sometimes, defendant must prove their defence
- eg. diminished responsibility
- They must prove this on balance of probabilities (more likely than not)

Question 5

What is the AR for conduct crimes?

Answer 5

AR = an act or failure to act by the defendant

Question 6

What is the AR for result crimes?

Answer 6

Certain consequences flowing from the defendant’s conduct

Question 7

What is the AR concerned with in ‘circumstances / state of affairs’ crimes?

Answer 7

The existence of certain characteristics at the time of the defendant’s conduct

Question 8

Generally, is there criminal liability for failing to act?

Answer 8

No

Question 9

Exceptions to ‘no liability for omissions’: Common Law Offences

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Omissions and Special Relationships: when does a special relationship exist?

Answer 10

1. Close relationship like parents to children, between spouses etc.
2. Person voluntarily undertakes to care for those who cannot care for themselves (ie. infancy, ill-health)

Question 11

Omissions: Dangerous Situation

Answer 11

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

Question 12

General Rule: Causation and Result Crimes

Answer 12

The defendant is only criminally liable if they can be shown to have caused, both in fact and in law, harm to the victim

Question 13

Factual Causation

Answer 13

But For Test: But for the defendant’s conduct, would the consequence have occurred?
- If yes, then factual causation cannot be established

Question 14

Legal Causation Test

Answer 14

The defendant’s conduct must be a substantial and operating cause of the consequence

Question 15

When is legal causation considered for result crimes?

Answer 15

Once factual causation has been established

Question 16

Legal Causation Rules

Answer 16

1. the consequence must be attributable to a culpable act or omission
2. the culpable act must be a more than minimal cause of the consequence
3. the culpable act need not be the sole cause
4. the accused must take their victim as they find them
5. the chain of causation must not be broken

Question 17

‘Thin-Skull Rule’:

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Events that break the chain of causation

Answer 18

1. unforeseen and extraordinary natural events
2. unreasonable actions by the victim
3. voluntary (free deliberate and informed) actions of third parties