1B Elements

Question 1

Define AR

Answer 1

A wrongful act, omission or a state of affairs matter

Question 2

Ratio of Hill v Baxter

Answer 2

D was convicted as there was no evidence to support that he was driving involuntarily. Examples of driving involuntarily include losing control of the vehicle when being stung by a swarm of bees, being struck on the head by a stone or having a heart attack.

Question 3

What is a conduct crime?

Answer 3

Where the AR is the prohibited action e.g. drink driving (section 5a) Road Traffic Act 1988.

Question 4

What is a consequence crime?

Answer 4

Where the crime is dependent on the result e.g. a consequence of stabbing someone could be their death.

Question 5

What is a state of affairs crime?

Answer 5

Where the offence doesn’t require an AR

Question 6

Example of a state of affairs crime

Answer 6

R v Larsonneur- despite her actions being involuntary, she met the AR requirements

Question 7

The 6 omissions

Answer 7

Creating a dangerous situation and failing to rectify it (Miller).
A parental duty to act (Gibbons and Proctor).
An employment/contractual duty (Pittwood).
The duty of carers (Stone and Dobinson).
Duty through an official position (Dytham)
An Act of Parliament requiring attention (s1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933-wilful neglect of a child).

Question 8

Test for factual causation

Answer 8

‘But for’ test decides whether the defendant’s actions caused the consequence

Question 9

Case for factual causation

Answer 9

White- ‘But for’ the defendant’s action (putting cyanide in his mother’s tea), she still would have die from a heart attack so D wasn’t liable.

Question 10

The tests for legal causation

Answer 10

The original injury was an operating and substantial cause of death or injury, the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable, and the ‘thin skull’ test.

Question 11

The original injury was an operating and substantial cause of death or injury

Answer 11

Kimsey- the cause must be ‘more than a slight or trifling link’ (confirmed by Hughes).

Question 12

Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens)

Answer 12

Act of third party, medical treatment, act of victim

Question 13

Intervening acts- act of third party

Answer 13

Pagett-it was reasonably foreseeable that the police would shoot so D was liable

Question 14

Intervening acts- medical treatment

Answer 14

Medical treatment can break the chain of causation in extraordinary cases (Cheshire) however there is medical negligence where the treatment is palpably wrong (Jordan).

Question 15

Intervening acts- act of the victim

Answer 15

Roberts- victim’s actions were reasonably foreseeable as the driver was attempting to sexually assault her.
Williams- victim’s actions were not reasonably foreseeable because the driver only tried to steal their wallet.
Kennedy- victim voluntarily injected the rug so broke the chain of causation

Question 16

What is the ‘thin-skull’ rule?

Answer 16

Take your victim as you find them (Blaue- the stab wound was still the operating and substantial cause of death).

Question 17

Define direct intention

Answer 17

The defendant’s main aim or purpose (Mohan).

Question 18

Define oblique intention

Answer 18

The consequence is a virtually certain result of the act and the defendant knows this (Woollin).

Question 19

Matthews v Alleyne ratio

Answer 19

If death or GBH is a virtual certainty then finding intention is irresistible, the foresight of a virtual certainty= intention

Question 20

Define recklessness

Answer 20

Taking an unjustified risk (Cunningham-the accused foresaw the risk but did it anyway)

Question 21

Define the coincidence rule

Answer 21

The AR and MR must occur at the same time.

Question 22

Coincidence rule- a continuing act

Answer 22

Fagan v Met Police Commissioner- Driving onto the police officer’s foot and staying there was one single continuous act, as long as the defendant had the mens rea at some point during that continuous act, he was guilty.

Question 23

Coincidence rule- a series of events

Answer 23

Thabo Meli-MR formed for the first act continued over a series of acts and a consequence some days later.
Church- the MR occurred during the series of events so D is guilty.

Question 24

Transferred malice

Answer 24

The mens rea from an intended crime to the actual crime can be transferred, the crimes must be the same (Pembliton).
Mitchell- the MR could be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim because the intended and actual crimes were the same.

Question 25

Define strict liability

Answer 25

Where the crime requires no proof of MR, just having the AR is enough.

Question 26

Presumption of MR

Answer 26

The courts presume that an MR is required unless Parliament clarifies that none is required (Sweet v Parsley where the crime did require proof of MR.

Question 27

Why were strict liability offences introduced?

Answer 27

To deal with regulatory and not ‘truly criminal’ cases e.g. issues of public safety (Blake)

Question 28

Examples of strict liability offences (cases)

Answer 28

Gammon v AG of Hong Kong, Callow v Tillstone, Howells, Alphacell v Woodward

Question 29

Examples of strict liability offences

Answer 29

Speeding, selling alcohol to minors, parking on double yellow lines