3 - General elements of liability Flashcards
Actus reus
Physcial element of the crime -
* An voluntary act, or
* Failure to act (an omission)
* A state of affairs (very rare)
A voluntary act
The act must be voluntary- must mean to do the act (or failure to act)
Hill v baxter
Stung by bees while driving, didnt mean to cause harm and did so unvoluntraily
State of affairs
Can commit a crime without doing - for example having a weapon in a public place
Larsonneur 1933 –
had been ordered to leave the UK so went to Ireland where the Irish Police put her back on the plane to Uk. She did not want to go back to the UK but she was still charged
State of affairs case
Failure to act
an ommision usually doesnt make a person liable, no actus reus
6 Circumstances where a duty is created and an Omission can form actus reus
- statutory duty to act (stop at a road collision)
- contractual duty
- a duty via relationship
- a duty undertaken voluntarily
- a duty through ones official position
- A duty which arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain of dangerous events
Gibbons v proctor 1918
Father and his mistress failed to feed the child and it died of starvation
owed a duty of care as her dad
Miller 1983
Squatter accidently started a fire. When he realised he went to sleep in another room
started the chain of events
What must be proven to make a D liable
prove mens rea, actus rea and causation
Causation
Causation is the link between the D’s actions and the consequence
must prove factual and legal causation/ no intervening act
Factual causation
would not have happened “ but for” the defendants conduct
Legal causation
more than a “minimal cause” but it need not be a substantial cause
Pagett 1983
– the defendant uses his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at the police. The police fired back and killed the girlfriend. She would not have died “but for” the defendants actions
Factual causation
Think skull rule
Take the V as you see them
Blaue 1975
women was stabbed by the defendant and needed a blood transfusion. She was a Jehovah witness so refused and died. The defendant was guilty because he had to take the victim as he found them.
Thin skull rule
Intervening act
Although you may have proven factual and legal causation there maybe no liability if the chain is broken by an intervening act
Types of intervening act
1) Act of a 3 party
2) Victims own act
3) Natural but unpredictable event – storm, earthquake, flooding etc
Medical intervention
Normally medical treatment will not break the chain unless “extraordinary”
Jordan 1956
Stabbed in the stomach but was healing well in hospital. Victim died from an allergic reaction to antibiotics. The allergy was initially spotted but then another doctor ordered a larger dose. This was deemed to be an intervening act and the defendant was not guilty
Was an intervening act
Victims own acts
If the defendant causes the victim to act in a foreseeable way then they will be liable for the consequence
if the victim acts in an unreasonable way then it will break the chain of causation and the defendant won’t be liable
robert 1971
v jumped from the car as the d assaulted her
d liable as she stated reasonably in trying to escape him
Victims own acts
Natural but unpredictable event
storms, erathquakes ect can break the chain of causation
Mens rea
The mental element of a crime
direct intent
there was aim and purpose to bring about the consoquence
oblique intent
2 parts:
1) the prohibited consequences are a virtual certainty
2) the D realises this
Recklessness
The defendant must either intend the consequence or realise that there was a risk of the consequence happening and decide to take the risk anyway.
Lower level of mens rea than intention
Cunningham 1957 –
the defendant tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty house to steal the money. This caused gas to seep into the house next door and injure her. He was held to be not guilty as he did not realise the risk of gas escaping nor had he intended to cause harm
recklessness
Woolin 1998 –
Threw his 3 month year old baby towards a pram 3 or 4 feet away and the baby hit the wall and died. The consequence must be a virtual certainty and the Defendant must realise this
oblique intent
Negligence
failure to meet the standards of a reasonable person, raely sufficient for mens rea
transfered malice
If the defendant intends to commit a similar crime but against a different victim
Gnango 2011
in a shootout but shot the wrong person, still liable
Transfered malice
Pemblinton 1874
mens rea can only be trasnfered between actus reus that is the same, not onto objects. rock hit a window not a person
general malice
Where the defendant may not have a specific victim in mind – eg. A terrorist
strict liability
only exception to the rule that there must be mens rea and actus reus
Strict Liability is where you are guilty if you have the actus reus
There is no need to prove the mens rea
coincidence rule
Both actus reus and mens rea has to be evident at the same time for there to be liability
continuing act
exception to the coincidence rule
Church 1965 –
After a fight he threw her in the river thinking she was dead. However she actually drowned
Justirication of stirct liability
Helps protect society
Promotes greater care over matters of public safety
Encourages higher standards eg. Food hygiene
Easier to enforce as no need to prove mens rea
Saves time as generally people plead guilty
Arguments against strict liability
Makes people who are not blameworthy guilty – Shah - even when they take every reasonable precaution
Presumption of mens rea
Problems occur when Act of Parliament aren’t clear if it is a strict liability offence
The judges will presume that all criminal cases require mens rea
The only situation where there presumption is changes is where the statute involves an issue of social concern.
This generally occurs in offences which are regulatory in nature and therefore not truly criminal
Creation of stirct liability
most are laid out in statute but some are in common law such as public nuisance
Absolute liability
no mens rea required at all
