Causation + Actus And Mens Rea Flashcards
What is causation
When a offence requires that a particular result is brought about, the prosecution must prove the defendant CAUSED that result
What are the three elements of causation
Factual causation
Legal causation
New and intervening acts
Outline the first element of causation
The defendant must be the factual cause of the end result
- established through the ‘but for’ test
- R v White
Outline the second element of causation
Legal causation - D must be the operating cause of the result (R v Smith)
- D need only be more than a minimal cause of the result
- D need not be the only cause but must be the substantial one (Kimsey)
Outline the third element of causation
- D is not liable if there is a break in chain of causation
- acts by the victim, medical treatment, act of god
What is intention
Highest standard of men’s Rea requires for serious offences
(Murder + GBH 18)
Meaning has been established in common law
What are the two types of intention
Direct intention
Indirect (oblique) intention
What is direct intention
Where it is D’s aim or purpose to bring about a prohibited result
(Moloney)
Most common in real life
What is indirect intention
- where it is not D’s aim to bring about a prohibited result, but it is a virtual certainty to occur
What is the key case for indirect intent
Set out by Lord Steyn in (woollin)
What is recklessness
A possible men’s rea
- concerned with unjustifiable risk taking
When is recklessness applicable
When the jury is certain of 2 things:
Awareness of risk
Unjustifiable taking of the risk
What is negligence
Judged to the standard of a ‘reasonable’ person unlike recklessness and intention
‘Accused unknowingly creates a risk of harm’
What is the chain of causation
The link between the defendants actions and their criminal consequence
For causation to be proven, the chain must be unbroken
Outline ‘acts of the victim’
R v Roberts - this is not applicable if D causes the victim to react in a reasonably foreseeable way
Outline the ‘thin skull rule’
d must take his victim as he finds them
R v Blaue
Outline how medical treatment can break the chain of causation
- R v Jordan - can only break the chain of causation if it is given ‘palpably wrong’
Outline how ‘an act of god’ can break the chain of causation
A naturally occurring incident may break the chain
This must be unforeseeable
What is transferred malice
Men’s rea transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim
Can only occur if actus reus is the same
(R v Latimer)
What is ‘general malice’
Where D may not have a specific victim in mind
E.g a terrorist planting a bomb
In this case, the D’s men’s tea is held to apply the the victim
What is an omission
‘A failure to act
- does not generally make a person guilty of an offence, they are only blameworthy if D had a duty to act
What is the contemporaneity rule
Modified version of the coincidence rule, whereby a series of linked acts or omissions can be treated as a single continuing act
R v Church
