Actus Reus; Causation; Omission

Question 1

The Harm Principle

Answer 1

• Power can be rightfully exercise over another, against his will if to prevent harm
• An Activity that causes harm or threatens to cause harm

Question 2

Retribution System

Answer 2

Punishment is imposed on an individual only on the ground that he has committed a wrong doing
(opposite is Reductionism; to reduce crime)

Question 3

Strict Liability Offence

Answer 3

A crime where no Mens Rea is needed to prove guilt; just need a prohibited action.

Question 4

Actus Reus

Answer 4

Involves a Wrongful Action. If no Action, then No crime can be committed (unless Omission involved)
R v Campbell

Question 5

Omission Definition

Answer 5

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

Question 6

A Duty To Act (4 types)

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Act vs a Duty

Answer 7

An Act involves a bodily movement;

Airendale v Bland (persistant vegetative state; was removing him from life-support an Act?)

Question 8

Continuing Act Principle

Answer 8

R v Fagan

The Action and the moment of mens Rea don’t necessarily need to coincide; a continuous act.

Question 9

Breach of Duty not possible if:

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Omissions and Freedom/Autonomy

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Causation

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Causation; Cause of Harm

Answer 12

1) Factual (but for) cause; and

2) Legal Cause (its appropriate to attribute harm)

Question 13

Factual Cause

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Factual Cause; Wrongful Act

Answer 14

To be the factual cause of a criminal harm the consequence must result from a wrongful act of the D

R v Dalloway

Question 15

Factual Cause: Direct causal connection

Answer 15

The causal connection does not have to be direct; The Causal Connection just has to be Substantial and Operative

r v Mitchell

Question 16

Legal Cause

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Legal Cause; Act of 3rd Parties

Answer 17

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)

Question 18

Legal Cause: Acts of the Victim exacerbating

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Legal Cause; V injures themselves escaping from attack

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Eggshell Skull Rule

Answer 20

D’s responsibility for Harm is not deflected if V suffers from a condition that renders him vulnerable

R v Blaue

Question 21

Novus Actus Interveniens

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Medical Intervention

Answer 22

Medical intervention will rarely break the Chain of causation

R v Cheshire

But it CAN:
R v Jorden