Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

CRIMINAL LAW > ACTUS REUS > Flashcards

ACTUS REUS Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MPRE flashcards MBE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

what is the formula for criminal liability?

A

mens rea (guilty mind) + actus reus (guilty act) - valid defence = criminal liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

define actus reus

A
  • guilty act
  • external element of an offence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what’s AR for sexual assault?
under which act?

A

s. 78 Sexual Offences Act 2003
- D’s conduct must be “Sexual” “because of its nature” –> i.e. according to Reasonable Person
- circumstances/purpose of D make the conduct sexual
(here guilty act + guilty mind overlap)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what is AR for Dishonesty for Theft/Fraud etc.
which case test?

A

Ivey case Dishonesty Test
- Ascertain D’s state of mind in relation to facts + circumstances (internal/MR)
- in that regard, determine Dishonesty of D’s conduct by standards of Ordinary Decent people (external/AR)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what is conduct element of AR?

A
  • D’s physical acts/omissions required for Liability
  • movement/lack of (omissions)
  • can sometimes be unspecified to criminalise harmful results regardless of how caused –> e.g. Murder
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what are the requirements for Omissions under Conduct AR element

A
  • must be a recognised offence
  • duty to act in certain way
  • breach of said duty (falling below standard)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what are the other 2 things under Conduct AR element
case?
legislation?

A
  1. Possession
  2. State of Affairs –> being found in particular situation
    - Winzar v CC of Kent 1983 –> D found drunk on Highway
    - Section 12 of Licencing Act 1872
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what is Circumstance element of AR?

A
  • facts surrounding D’s conduct required for Liability
  • must be relevant to Liability

e.g. V = under 18
e.g. for Murder, V was alive under King’s peace

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

circumstance element for rape?

A

D penetrates V with penis w/o Consent
- mental state circumstance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what is Result element of AR?

A
  • effect of D’s conduct required for liability
    i.e. what’s caused by D’s conduct
  • only need results relevant to offence you’re discussing
  • not all offences need Result–> e.g. Perjury
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what’s the AR elements example for Criminal Damage?

A

conduct = D completed certain acts/omissions
circumstance = to property belonging to another
element = which causes damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what is the 1st Causation Test Stage?

A

causation IN FACT
- logical connection in fact
- IF result would have occurred Regardless of D’s conduct = NO Factual Causation
(BUT FOR TEST)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what’s 2nd Causation Test Stage

A

causation IN LAW
- had substantial effect
- blameworthy
- NOT Superseded by Subsequent Events

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what does causation test do?

A

finds causation between conduct + result

causation ONLY FOUND IF BOTH stages satisfied

causation = part of AR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

why can separation of AR elements be Problematic when expanding Conduct element?

A
  • if we expand conduct element beyond movement of D’s body = hard to know where to stop
  • e.g. from “moving a finger” –> “shooting” –> “shooting a person”
  • undermines separation of AR elements
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

why can separation of AR elements be Problematic when expanding Result element?
which scholarly views?

A
  • temptation to include circumstance with result
  • Michael Moore –> “Moral Criterion”, adds detail –> e.g. Result for SA = “Sexual Contact with a Person” vs. just “Sexual Contact”
  • similar to Glanville Williams’ view
  • lacks separation between AR elements
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what are Conduct crimes?

A
  • category of offence
  • have NO result element –> e.g. Perjury, Attempts liability –> thus, NO NEED TO APPLY CAUSATIOn
  • AR complete when D performs certain conduct in certain circumstances
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

what are Result crimes

A
  • category of offence
  • need result element –> e.g. Murder, Criminal Damage
  • AR complete when D performs conduct in certain circumstances causing proscribed result
  • CAUSATION TEST APPLIES –> result MUST be caused by D’s conduct
  • exact conduct can be irrelevant, e.g. Murder, just has to result in unlawful death
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

when is D liable for an omission?
reasoning for this?

A
  • ONLY IF D’s has legally recognised duty to act

reason: Respect for D’s autonomy w/o Undue Interference from Law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

requirements for Omissions Liability
examples of offences for this?

A
  • offence must be capable of commission by Omission (no general rule for this)
  • D must have Legally Recognised Duty to Act
  • D must have Unreasonably failed to Act on that Duty

e.g.:
- Murder + Manslaughter committed by Omission where Parent fails to feed Child
- Non-fatal offences against the person
- property offences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

discuss R v Miller 1983 case facts + its relation to Omissions for Property Offences
case facts?

A
  • D was out drinking + went back to house + fell asleep with lighted cigarette in hand
  • woke up + saw it started small fire, went to another room to sleep + fire got bigger
    Question = is D liable for Omission?
  • Held: D created dangerous situation + Owed Duty to call fire brigade
    **Established Duty to Act based on Endangerment
    *seems to be trend to accept omissions liability, but expansion remains controversial
22
Q

discuss R v Miller 1983 case facts + its relation to Omissions for Property Offences
case facts?

A
  • D was out drinking + went back to house + fell asleep with lighted cigarette in hand
  • woke up + saw it started small fire, went to another room to sleep + fire got bigger
    Question = is D liable for Omission?
  • Held: D created dangerous situation + Owed Duty to call fire brigade
    **Established Duty to Act based on Endangerment
    *seems to be trend to accept omissions liability, but expansion remains controversial
23
Q

when is there a duty to act?

A
  • offence specific duties –> e.g. Section 170(4) Road Traffic Act 1988, offence to fail to report motor accident D involved in
  • contractual duties –> e.g. says D must protect V
  • familial duties –> but uncertainties as to who it encompasses
  • duties based on assumption of care –> unclear where it arises + ends
  • duties created through Endangerment –> D to prevent harm
    (Duty = to do what’s Reasonable)
24
Q

discuss R v Pittwood 1902 and how its facts relate to contractual duties to act

A
  • D employed to operate train track gates
  • lifted gate but failed to put back down before lunch-break
  • horse + cart driver crossed track + hit by train –> both died
    Question = did Omission to close gate = AR for Murder, can Liability be based on breach of contractual duty?
  • Held: D under contractual duty to close gate + the Omission = AR for Murder, contractual duty sufficient grounds, Gross Negligence Manslaughter
25
Q

discuss R v Gibbins and Proctor 1918 and how its facts relate to familial duties to act

A
  • Dad gave money to step-mother for provisions for his 7 y/o daughter
  • Daughter starved to death
    Held: Both convicted of Murder, Dad didn’t do anything himself to provide for her, left partner to Neglect her
26
Q

discuss how cases Nicholls 1874 + Instan 1893 relate to duties to act based on Assumption of care

A

Nicholls = Duty to act arises when promise of care = EXPLICIT
Instan = when IMPLICIT

27
Q

discuss R v Evans 2009 and how its facts relate to duties created through Endangerment
what 2 “rules” were est.

A
  • D bought heroin + gave to sister to Self-Administer
  • V showed signs of overdose
  • D stayed with her but did not tell Authorities
  • V died + D charged with Gross Negligence Manslaughter
    Question = did D supplying drugs create duty?
  • Held: conviction upheld, Duty arose from D’s Contribution to Dangerous situation, familial duty here unclear
    **R v Miller Princple Clarified + Extended
    1. D only needs to contribute to danger, not necessarily be its cause
    2. Duty can arise where D Objectively should have realised danger
28
Q

how does R v Stone and Dobinson 1977 highlight the confusion on the duty to act Reasonably?
case facts?

A
  • D1 (low IQ man) + D2 (ineffectual + inadequate) took in D1’s sister (V)
  • V had Anorexia + eventually confined to bed
  • D’s made incompetent efforts to feed, clean V + contact doctor BUT eventually stopped
  • V died in appalling conditions + D’s charged with Gross Negligence Manslaughter
    Question = was there duty of care?
  • Held: Duty created by Voluntary Assumption of Care, upheld conviction
    **Seems to be OBJECTIVE Reasonable Person Test
  • but issue of D’s subjective Reasonableness not discussed in this case, in future could change
29
Q

what is the Law’s approach to causation for Omissions?

A
  • unless Omission Causally contributed to Result, No Liability for Result crime
  • apply Causation Rules for Result Crimes due to Omissions
  • MUST be duty of care
30
Q

what does Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1969 say about Acts vs. Omissions?
case facts?

A

*Act vs. Omissions decided on case-by-case basis
- D accidentally drove onto officer’s foot + turned off engine intentionally
- convicted of assault
Question = was this Omission, meaning MR requirement = lacking
- Held: D’s conduct = Interpreted as criminal Act of driving onto foot, rather than Omission to move off foot, continual act of battery, AR + MR present

31
Q

what does Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1992 say about Acts vs. Omissions?
case facts?

A
  • Bland in vegetative state
  • Doctora got approval to remove feeding tube
    Question = was turning off machine an Act or Omission?
  • Held: stopping treatment = omission EVEN IF involves act of turning off machine, doesn’t breach D’s duty to act where V’s best interests NOT served by further treatment
32
Q

what’s causation in FACT

A

did result come about due to D’s conduct?
- But For Test –> if NO = D is the Factual Cause
- D still factual cause where their conduct contributes/causes to Result, alongside other things that could cause it OR if it would have occurred w/o D’s involvement
- need NOT be sole cause

33
Q

state White [1910] case facts

A
  • D poisoned mum’s drink + intent to kill
  • facts unclear if V drank, but she died
  • regardless evidence said V died of unrelated heart condition

Crown Court found D Not Guilty of Murder, as Result crimes need Causation
- BUT Guilty of Attempted Murder, Conduct crimes don’t need Causation
- NOT Murder due to lack of causation link between D’s conduct + Result

CoA upheld

34
Q

state Benge [1865] case facts

A
  • D (railway foreman)
  • misreads train timetable when taking up sections of track
  • train arrived whilst track was up + V killed
  • D said Result could have been avoided IF flagmen were proper dist. from worksite + IF train driver kept better look out

Court held D GUILTY of Gross Negligence Manslaughter
- although Flag men could be actors that were “But For” causes to Result, D was still Factual Cause

35
Q

what is causation in LAW

A

D’s conduct was:
- Substantial –> need not be sole cause, more than trifling
- Blameworthy –> (usually link between Result + Blameworthy conduct)
- Operating cause

36
Q

what’s the causation in LAW test?
which case was 1st to recognise it?

A

Prosecution MUST prove:
a) D performed Blameworthy conduct
b) D caused Result
c) Blameworthiness of D’s conduct = CENTRAL to Causation

Dalloway [1847] –> A + B = satisfied, NOT C

37
Q

Dalloway [1847] case facts

A
  • D driving horse + cart, negligently wasn’t keeping control of reins (blameworthy conduct)
  • V/small child ran into road + was killed
  • even if D controlled reins, could NOT have stopped in time to save V. would have died regardless (thus, C not satisfied)

Court found D NOT Guilty of Gross Negligent Manslaughter

38
Q

R v Hughes [2013] case facts
which case reaffriemd

A
  • D driving w/o insurance or full licence
  • involved in fatal collision with V
  • V was fully responsible, veered into wrong side of road, under influence of drugs
  • D charged with causing death when uninsured + w/o full licence –> Section 3ZB Road Traffic Act 1988

Crown Court held D did NOT Cause Death

BUT CoA found liability under above act^, said NO MR or Blameworhtiness needed as to causing of death

FINALLY SC restored Crown Court decision, Offence requires MORE THAN Minimal Fault/Blameworthiness causing Result

39
Q

what does “the legal cause must be Operative” mean?

A
  • must be Substantial/more than trifling
  • D’s conduct must still be significant cause of Result at the time it comes about

i.e. Chain of Causation between Conduct + Result must be UNBROKEN

40
Q

what can break the chain between D’s Conduct + Result?

A
  • intervention from D (rare)
  • intervention from Naturally occurring Events
  • intervention from Victim
41
Q

how is foreseeability involved in intervention by V in chain?
links to which case?

A
  • V’s acts must be foreseeable to Not break chain
  • not daft

Roberts [1972] –> courts rarely say V’s conduct is daft

42
Q

Roberts [1972] case facts
what type of approach by Courts does this demonstrate?

A
  • D driving V home after a party + made unwanted sexual advances, threatened her + touched her coat
  • V jumped out of moving car + suffered bodily harm
  • D charged with assault occasioning ABH –> s.47 OATP Act 1861

Crown Court found D Guilty

CoA upheld

Demonstrates BROAD Interpretation of Foreseeability Test
- Test varied due to V’s age, mental capacity + other circumstances

43
Q

how is voluntariness of V’s actions affect the Chain?

A
  • Free, Voluntary + Informed acts by V = BREAK Chain + D NOT Legal Cause
44
Q

Kennedy No.2 [2007] case facts
what does this case help with?

A
  • D + V lived together in hostel
  • D supplied V with prepared syringe of Heroin
  • V self-injected + died
  • D charged with Manslaughter due to their unlawful conduct causing death

Crown Court found D Guilty of Constructive Manslaughter

CoA upheld

HoL Quashed, D NOT Legal Cause, V’s act was Voluntary + Informed

Case indicated borderline between acts than can + cannot break Chain
- Broad Interpretation of what’s Free, Voluntary + Informed

45
Q

how can Vulnerabilities affect the Chain?

A
  • D must “take Victim as he finds him”
  • Eggshell skull rule
46
Q

R v Blaue [1975] case facts
how is it linked to Vulnerabilities/V’s character?

A
  • D stabbed V
  • V needed blood transfusion BUT refused, Jehovah’s Witness
  • V died + D charged with Manslaughter

Crown Court found D Guulty

CoA upheld, V’s Refusal Did NOT Break Chain

Refusal of Medical care seen as part of V’s Character
- see notes for issues here

47
Q

Wallace [2018] case facts
conflicts between principles concerning Chain

A
  • D attacked V with corrosive substance, D had catastrophic injuries + suffering
  • V moved to Belgium + decided to end their life via Euthanasia

Crown Court held Causation could NOT be found in facts

CoA held Causation Found, retrial ordered

seemed correct as we would want to find Causation in such cases, but can be problematic

Retrial held D’s acts made V’s choice somewhat Involuntary
- D NOT Guilty of Murder, BUT of Non-Fatal Offence (requires NO Causation of Death)

48
Q

how can Intervention from 3rd parties affect Chain?

A
  • 3rd party’s acts MUST be Unforeseen by D + Reasonable Person
  • 3rd party’s acts MUSt be Free, Voluntary + Informed (see Micahel [1840])
  • status of 3rd party, e.g. Doctor (see Cheshire [1991])
49
Q

Michael [1840] case facts

A
  • mother of V wanted to kill him
  • gave X (nurse) large dose of poison + told her it was medicine
  • Y (small child living in house) gave V dose

NO Break in Chain –> 3rd party’s acts NOT Free, Voluntary or Informed

50
Q

Cheshire [1991] case facts

A
  • D shot V
  • V treated in hospital + wounds ceased to be life threatening
  • BUT Dcotor performed negligent Tracheotomy + narrowed V’s windpipe, died

Crown Court held D was Guilty of Murder

CoA upheld, D still Legal Cause of V’s death
- Policy reasons (see notes)

BUT Doctors still able to be Liable, despite it being Narrow

51
Q

Pagett [1983] case facts
what does this show about status of 3rd party?

A
  • to resist lawful arrest, D held V in front of them as human shield + shot at police
  • police returned fire, killing V
  • D charged with manslaughter of V

Crown Court found D Guilty of Constructive Manslaughter

CoA upheld, D still Legal Cause of Death
- policy reasons
- police fire back seen as instinctive + duty to prevent crime CANNOT break Chain

CRIMINAL LAW (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions