Actus Reus; Causation; Omission Flashcards
The Harm Principle
- Power can be rightfully exercise over another, against his will if to prevent harm
- An Activity that causes harm or threatens to cause harm
Retribution System
Punishment is imposed on an individual only on the ground that he has committed a wrong doing
(opposite is Reductionism; to reduce crime)
Strict Liability Offence
A crime where no Mens Rea is needed to prove guilt; just need a prohibited action.
Actus Reus
Involves a Wrongful Action. If no Action, then No crime can be committed (unless Omission involved)
R v Campbell
Omission Definition
Not Acting; No commission occurs the Prosecution must only prove:
1) A duty to Act
2) A breach of that Duty
3) A resulting Harm
A Duty To Act (4 types)
1) Special Relationship between the Parties
r v Downes
2) Contractual Duty
r v Pittwood
3) Voluntary Assumption of care
Instan, Stone & Dobinson
4) Duty to Remedy a Dangerous situation that you create
r v Miller
r v Evans
Act vs a Duty
An Act involves a bodily movement;
Airendale v Bland (persistant vegetative state; was removing him from life-support an Act?)
Continuing Act Principle
R v Fagan
The Action and the moment of mens Rea don’t necessarily need to coincide; a continuous act.
Breach of Duty not possible if:
1) No breach of duty if D’s conduct is justified
R v Smith
2) No breach of Duty if Causation can’t be established; the Prosecution must be able to establish that the D’s breach of a duty Caused the harm
Omissions and Freedom/Autonomy
How far can we impose a duty to act without limiting ones Freedom/Autonomy….We can see someone drowning and do nothing and we are fine.
Ashworth: proposes a general duty of easy rescue. If it wouldn’t cause you any danger, then you should be responsible for the consequences of not doing something.
Causation
Where a person voluntarily initiates a causal sequence which results in harm that person will normally be held accountable if he was initially at fault unless an act or event later transpires which rids the initial act of all causal potency.
R v Pagett
Causation; Cause of Harm
1) Factual (but for) cause; and
2) Legal Cause (its appropriate to attribute harm)
Factual Cause
prosecution must prove that but for D’s wrongful conduct the consequence would not have occurred. Making the first link in the chain, initiating a causal sequence of events.
R v White
Factual Cause; Wrongful Act
To be the factual cause of a criminal harm the consequence must result from a wrongful act of the D
R v Dalloway
Factual Cause: Direct causal connection
The causal connection does not have to be direct; The Causal Connection just has to be Substantial and Operative
r v Mitchell
Legal Cause
D’s act or omission is a factual cause it will usually be also the legal cause so long as it is a substantial cause
R v Benge
R v Adams
Legal Cause; Act of 3rd Parties
If a third party contributes to the harmful result this will not break the chain of causation if the accused’s original act was still an operative cause of the harm.
People v Clark
R v Smith (59)
Legal Cause: Acts of the Victim exacerbating
Acts of the Victim producing or exacerbating the harm will not break the chain of causation simply because they are prejudicial, or unexpected if the accused’s act is still an operative cause
r v Holland
Legal Cause; V injures themselves escaping from attack
If V injures themselves while trying to escape from an unlawful attack D is liable if the reaction taking by the V is foreseeable and Appropriate
R v Roberts
Eggshell Skull Rule
D’s responsibility for Harm is not deflected if V suffers from a condition that renders him vulnerable
R v Blaue
Novus Actus Interveniens
1) New Intervening Acts of the Victime if Voluntary can break the chain:
R v Kennedy
2) Independent and Voluntary Acts of 3rd parties can break the chain:
r v Jordan
Medical Intervention
Medical intervention will rarely break the Chain of causation
R v Cheshire
But it CAN:
R v Jorden
