AR & MR

Question 1

Which party has the legal burden?

Answer 1

Prosecution

Question 2

Which party has the evidential burden?

Answer 2

Prosecution

Question 3

What is the standard of proof?

Answer 3

Beyond reasonable doubt

Question 4

What is the difference between conduct crimes and result crimes?

Answer 4

Conduct crimes just requires action in a certain way, whereas result crimes require certain consequences from actions

Question 5

What is the general rule regarding criminal liability for omissions?

Answer 5

No criminal liability

Question 6

For result crimes, what 2 types of causation need to be established?

Answer 6

Factual
Legal

Question 7

For result crimes, why and how is factual causation established?

Answer 7

Defendant cannot be considered cause of the event if it would have happened in precisely the same way within defendant’s act or omission

The “but for” test

Question 8

What is the test for establishing legal causation for result crimes?

Answer 8

Defendant’s conduct must be a substantial and operating cause of the consequence:

o The consequences must be attributable to a culpable act or omission
o The culpable act must be a more than minimal cause of the consequence
o The culpable act need not be the sole cause
o The accused must take their victim as they find them
o The chain of causation must not be broken

Question 9

What can constitute an intervening act or event in relation to causation?

Answer 9

Victim’s acts - must be “free, deliberate and informed”, excl attempted escape unless “daft”

Third party intervention

Medical negligence - must be severe

Intervening acts, e.g. natural disaster with foreseeability being determining factor for liability

Question 10

What is the test from Woollin for indirect intention?

Answer 10

1. Was the consequence virtually certain to occur from act / omission?
2. Did defendant appreciate consequences were virtually certain to occur?

Question 11

What is the relevant threshold for recklessness?

Answer 11

Risk must have been unjustifiable or unreasonable to take

Question 12

Must the defendant have been aware of a risk in order to establish recklessness?

Answer 12

Yes, must have had awareness, but of any risk no matter how small the risk was

Question 13

If the mens rea only requires negligence, what is the objective standard the defendant will be tested on?

Answer 13

1. Failed to foresee a risk a reasonable person would have foreseen
2. Foresaw the risk but did not take steps to avoid it
3. Foresaw the risk but too inadequate steps to avoid it

Question 14

What are strict liability offences?

Answer 14

Offences where there is no need to prove mens rea - aim is to discourage incompetence and unsafe actions

Question 15

What is transferred malice?

Answer 15

Where defendant had mens rea for a different offence, this can then be transferred to the offence which actually occurred

Question 16

What are the limitations on transferred malice?

Answer 16

It only applies where the actus reus committed is the same type of crime as the defendant originally intended

Question 17

What two principles can be applied if there was a delay between the actus reus and the mens rea?

Answer 17

Continuing act - sufficient that the defendant had mens rea during continuance of the act despite not having the mens rea at its commencement

Single transaction - defendant will be guilty of the offence provided they have the mens rea for the offence at some point in the transaction