1: Elememts of a crime

Question 1

actus reus

Answer 1

latin term meaning ‘guilty act’

physical part of a crime that prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt

must be a voluntary act or omission that causes a certain result or consequence

eg: in a theft, AR is taking someone’s property without their consent

Question 2

3 ways actus reus can be categorised

Answer 2

• consequence/result crimes: conduct must have caused the prohibited result
• conduct crimes: the prohibited conduct itself
• state of affairs crimes: factual circumstances in existence for which ad is responsible

Question 3

what must actus reus be?

include case

Answer 3

positive voluntary act

Hill v Baxter

Question 4

General exception to actus reus being a positive voluntary act

include case

Answer 4

Sometimes D can be convicted even though he didn’t act voluntarily

R v Larsonneur: “being an alien to whom leave to land in the UK had been refused, and was found in the UK”

Question 5

omission

Answer 5

failure to act/ do something

Question 6

general rule for omissions

Answer 6

only positive acts can make someone liable, failing to do something is generally not a a crime in English law

Question 7

exception to general rule on omissions

Answer 7

a person will be liable for a failure to act where they are under a legal duty to act

Question 8

how may a duty to act arise?

Answer 8

• statutory duty (eg failing to provide a specimen of breath)
• contractual duty
• voluntary assumption of duty
• duty through official position
• duty through creating dangerous situations
• duty through relationships

Question 9

Case for a contractual duty to act

Answer 9

R v Pitwood

signalman didn’t close gates, someone killed

Question 10

Case for voluntary assumption of duty

Answer 10

R v Stone & Dobinson

let someone live w them, died from anorexia, failed to care for her

Question 11

Case for duty through official position

Answer 11

R v Dytham

policeman ignored attack in streer

Question 12

Case for duty through creating dangerous situation

Answer 12

R v Miller

smoking, mattress, fire, asleep

Question 13

Case for duty through relationship

Answer 13

R v Gibbins & Proctor

failed to feed 7y/o daughter, died

Question 14

Example for statutory duty to act

Answer 14

failing to provide specimen of breath

s6 Road Traffic Act 1988

Question 15

causation

Answer 15

required for consequence/result crimes

must be proven that the Ds actions caused the result

Question 16

2 types of causation that must be proven

Answer 16

factual causation

legal causation

Question 17

test for factual causation

include case

Answer 17

‘but for’ test

if the D is guilt, the result must not have happened had it not been for the Ds actions

R v White (poison in glass, died from heart failure)

Question 18

legal causation test

include case

Answer 18

‘de minimis’ test: Ds conduct must have ‘more than a slight or trifling link’ to the result

R v Kimsey (car chase, forced V off road)

Question 19

what if there are several factors for causation?

include 2 cases

Answer 19

D will only be liable if his actions were the operating and substantial cause of that result
R v Smith (stabbed, inadequate medical treatment)

OR the significant or substantial cause of that result
R v Hughes

more than one person can be held responsible for the result

Question 20

chain of causation

Answer 20

the link between the Ds actions and the result

Question 21

what may break the chain of causation

Answer 21

a new and intervening act
(novus actus interveniens)

Question 22

3 possible new and intervening acts that may break the chain of causation

Answer 22

• third party
• the victim
• natural but unpredictable event

Question 23

breaks in the chain: third part

5 cases

Answer 23

Must be the operating and substantial cause: only broken if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound insignificant
R v Smith (stabbed, inadequate medical treatment)

No break in the chain unless the treatment was so independent of the D’s acts and in itself so potent that the ad’s conduct no longer made a significant contribution
R v Cheshire (shot, tracheotomy, died from complications)

Chain broken by ‘palpably wrong’ medical treatment
R v Jordan (stabbed, healing, antibiotics, allergic, died)

Switching of life support machine when patient is brain dead doesn’t break the chain of causation
R v Malcherek (causes V to be brain dead, unplugged life support)

Chain of causation not broken if the actions of the third party were reasonably foreseeable
R v Pagett (pregnant woman, shield, returned fire, shot)

Question 24

breaks in the chain: victim

2 cases

Answer 24

Vs actions must be reasonably foreseeable
R v Roberts (D made sexual advances, jumped out of car)

Vs actions must be in proportion to the threat (not ‘daft’)
R v Williams (though D was going to rob him, jumped out of car)

Question 25

think skull rule

include case

Answer 25

D must take victim as he finds him (being more susceptible to injury doesn’t break the chain of causation)

R v Blaue (Jehovahs witness, refused treatment: not unreasonable)

Question 26

mens rea

Answer 26

D’s state of mind - ‘guilty mind’

Question 27

two types of mens rea

highest level?

Answer 27

intention (highest level of MR)

recklessness

Question 28

two types of intention

Answer 28

direct

indirect (oblique)

Question 29

direct intention

include case

Answer 29

highest level of men’s rea

the Ds aim objective purpose to bring about the certain criminal consequence

Mohan (drove into police officer)

Question 30

Oblique intent (indirect)

include 2 cases

Answer 30

D may not have desired the certain results but because of his actions it was a virtual certainty and he appreciated this

R v Woollin (threw baby into pram to stop crying)

R v Matthews & Alleyne (pushed into river, didn’t check if okay, couldn’t swim)

Question 31

Recklessness

include case

Answer 31

lower level of MR compared to intention

D has foreseen an unjustifiable risk and gone on to take it (conscious risk taking)

subjective test: tested against what the D believed - depends on Ds state of mind

R v Cunningham (tampered w has meter, went next door)

Question 32

transferred malice

include 2 cases

Answer 32

Ds MR is transferred from intended V to actual V

R v Latimer (swing belt at X, hit Y)

R v Mitchell (pushed man into woman, died)

Question 33

when cant malice be transferred?

include case

Answer 33

when the MR is for a completely different type of offense

R v Pembliton (threw stone to disperse crowd, hit window)

Question 34

Coincidence of AR and MR

Answer 34

the AR and MR just occur at the same time (coincide) to find the D guilty

OR

continuing acts

OR

series of events (transaction theory)

Question 35

continuing acts theory

include case

Answer 35

D is guilty as long as MR happened at some point during the AR

R v Fagan (stopped car on policeman’s foot, defused to move)

Question 36

series of events/ transaction theory

include case

Answer 36

if the AR is a series of events it is sufficient that the MR happened at some point during the series of events

R v Thabo Meli (thought was dead, threw over cliff, died later)

Question 37

strict liability

include 5 cases

Answer 37

seperate category of offenses: don’t require MR

as long as D has committed the act AR and the conduct is voluntary they will be guilty

often used to deal with issues of social concern in order to regulate behaviour

no due diligence defence (doesn’t matter if all necessary procedures taken)

Callow v Tillstone (butcher sold unfit meat)

Alphacell Ltd v Woodward (waste into river, storm) - pollution of environment

Smedleys v Breed (caterpillar in peas) - Food safety

Shah v Harrow LBC (sold underage lottery ticket)

Presumed that men’s rea is needed unless the law states otherwise

R v Gammon (If an act is silent)

Question 38

when wont strict liability be used

include case

Answer 38

when an offence is ‘truly criminal’ and should require MR to be proven

Sweet v Parsley (managing a property used for cultivating drugs, didn’t know)