1B - Introduction to Criminal Liability and Actus Reus Flashcards
Where does our law come from?
- Statutory Law (created by parliament and the gov)
- Case Law (created by judges using precedent)
What is the definition of criminal offences
Criminal offences are perceived to be harmful to the state and the only appropriate way to deal with such offences is through punishment
What does the case syntax - R v (surname) mean
R indicates that case is brought by the Crown or State
What does the case syntax - DPP v (surname) mean
Serious case or involves an important point of law. The Director of Public prosecution has brought the case
What does the case syntax - AG Reference Case (Number… and the year heard) mean
A point of law which requires clarification by the CA or Supreme Court. D may have been acquitted and the Attorney General (government solicitor) is asking the courts to check whether the trial judges interpretation is correct – ie is the ratio correct (the acquittal would still stand).
This will enable later courts to apply the correct ruling.
What does the case syntax - B v DPP mean
Case is regarded as too sensitive for the defendants surname to be included – usually involves children
Burden of proof definition
Who must prove the case
Burden of proof - criminal cases
Guilt must be established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt
Burden of proof - civil cases
Liability is determined on the balance of probability (standard of proof)
What is a crime
An act that is forbidden by the state for which there is punishment
Elements of a crime
(1) actus reus - a prohibited action- the guilty act
(2) mens rea - a guilty mind
actus reus + mens rea = offence
Strict liability offences
The mens rea is not needed. The actus reus is sufficient
Actus reus - physical element of a crime
- conduct - act or omission
- consequence/result
- circumstance/state of affairs
Actus reus - physical element of a crime - conduct
The act or omission itself forms the actus reus. It does not matter is it results in an outcome. Eg. a person lying under oath has the actus reus for perjury - it does not matter if the lie is believed or not
Actus reus - physical element of a crime - consequence/result
Some crimes require the actus reus to have a result or a consequence. Eg. murder/manslaughter - the D act or failure to act must have caused the death
Actus reus - physical element of a crime - circumstances
For ‘state of affairs’ crimes the actus reus consists of ‘being’ rather than ‘doing’. The offence is committed because of a state of affairs for which they are responsible - rare
Actus reus - physical element of a crime - voluntary
The act or omission must be voluntary on behalf of the defendant. If the D has no control over his actions/omissions then no offence has been committed
Omission as actus reus
An omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence ie we are not usually criminally liable for doing nothing. In the UK there is no good samaritan law
Doctor’s duties
A person is generally not guilty for failing to act, but there are exceptions (both under statute and common law). An omission is only sufficient for the actus reus where there is a duty to act and there are 6 ways in which a duty can exist
Duty to act - give 2 examples of a statutory duty
- S (1) Children’s and Person’s act 1933 - duty to feed etc
- Failing to stop/report a road traffic accident - Road Traffic Act 1988
Duty to act - a contractual duty
R v Pittwood
Duty to act - a duty because of a relationship
R v Gibbins and Proctor
Duty to act - a duty which has been taken voluntarily
R v Stone and Dobinson
Duty to act - a duty through ones official position
R v Dytham
Duty to act - a duty because the defendant is set in motion of a chain of events
R v Miller
For result crimes:
- Act or omission (actus reus) must have caused the consequence. Eg. for GBH the act of the D (punching the V) must have caused the serious injury (V suffered 3 broken ribs)
- Prosecution must prove that (1) D’s conduct was the factual case of that consequence (look here first) (2) D’s conduct was the legal case of the consequence (3) there were no intervening acts that broke the chain of causation
Factual causation
The D can only be found guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the D’s conduct. For factual causation the prosecution will use the but for test to prove the D was the factual cause. But for the D’s actions the V would not have suffered the consequence
***R v Pagett
Legal causation
Starts with the de minimis principle from the key case of ***R v Kimsey and was confirmed in R v Hughes that says the D does not have to the only cause of the consequence suffered by the victim (eg. injuries or death) but they must be more than a minimal cause
Legal causation - multiple causes
There may be more than one act contributing to the consequence. Some of these acts may be carried out by other people than the defendant. D can be found guilty if his conduct was more than a ‘minimal’ or ‘slight or trifling link’ to the consequence. R v Kimsey
Intervening acts
There must be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence. This is known as the chain of causation. They play a role in legal causation as they may break the chain of causation and if so the D will not be the significant cause
The chain of causation can be broken by
- an act of a third party
- victims own act
- an unforeseeable event (not expected to know)
If there is a novus actus interveniens (new intervening act) the chain of causation may be broken
What happens if an intervening act is reasonably foreseeable?
It will not break the chain of causation.
Intervening acts - medical treatment
This is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the D’s acts and in itself so potent in causing death that the D’s acts are insignificant. The original injury must still be an ‘operative and substantial cause’
Intervening acts - medical treatment - D is still the cause
R v Cheshire or R v Smith
Intervening acts - medical treatment - D is not the cause
R v Jordan
Intervening acts - medical treatment - life support
Switching off a life support machine by a doctor was it has ben decided that the victim is brain dead doesn’t break the chain of causation and therefore the D should be convicted
R v Malcherek
Intervening acts - V’s own actions
Key test developed in R v Roberts said that if the actions of the victim are reasonable then they will not break the chain of causation
Intervening acts - Thin skull rule
R v Blaue
The D must take the V as he finds them. This means that if the V has a special characteristic that makes the harm worse then the V is still guilty for the worse harm.
