Chapter 1

Question 1

3 parts of the Actus Reus

Answer 1

Conduct: vol acts or omissions

Circumstances- elements that are neither conduct nor consequences

Consequences: result crimes require a consequence

Question 2

Criminal liability for omissions

2 ways

Answer 2

1. Crime defined in such a way that an omission will Suffice ie: s170 RTA 1988- failure to stop after accident
2. duty to act (5 main duties)

(i) special relationship
Gibbins and Proctor 1918. Father had Duty
ii) contractual
Pitwood 1902. Train gates manslaughter
Yaquoob 2005. Cab MOT
iii)vol assumption of responsibility
Stone and Dobinson 1977. Anorexic bedsores death
iv) creation of a dangerous situation
Miller 1983. Tramp and cigarettes
Gemma Evans 2009. Drug overdose of sister
v) Public office
Dytham 1979. Police no action, beating to death.

Question 3

What are the 3 elements of criminal liability?

Answer 3

The actus Reus

The Mensa rea (blameworthy state of mind in relation to the AR)

Absence of any defence

Question 4

Definition of “circumstances” in the Actus Reus

Answer 4

The elements that are neither conduct, nor consequences

Question 5

Consequences in the AR

Answer 5

In result crimes, there must be a consequence

Question 6

Breaks in chain of causation (1)

Refusal of treatment and or aggravation of injuries

Answer 6

Blaue 1976 blood transfusion
If v worsens injuries by neglect/maltreatment, D causes whole of those injuries

Kennedy 2007: description
a free and vol act will always break chain.

Question 7

Definition of “circumstances” in the Actus Reus

Answer 7

The elements that are neither conduct, nor consequences

Question 8

Consequences in the AR

Answer 8

In result crimes, there must be a consequence

Question 9

2 parts to causation.

Answer 9

1. Causation in fact
   But for test
   White 1910 poisoned mother👎
   Pagett 1983 human shield 👍🏻
2. Causation in law
   - more than minimal (Cato 1976)
   - not necessarily sole cause (Cheshire 1991)
   - significant contribution to consequence
   “Substantial and operating cause” Smith 1959
   - where intervening acts, establish whether reasonably foreseeable: Pagett 1983
   Cheshire 1991 “…only if so independent of Ds acts and so potent in causing death”

Question 10

Breaks to chain of causation (2)

Thin skull rule
“D must take his victim as he finds him”

Answer 10

Blaue 1976. Blood transfusion

Dhaliwal 2006

Question 11

Breaks to chain of causation (5)

Injuries resulting from attempted escape

Answer 11

Chain not broken if actions reasonably foreseeable

Roberts 1971 foreseeable jump from car 👍🏻

Corbett 1996 ran into car when escaping👍🏻

Marjoram 2000. Test is objective

Question 12

Breaks to chain of causation (5)

Negligent, poor or inappropriate medical treatment

Answer 12

Usually does not

As long as D made a significant contribution, he is liable (Mellor 1996)

Cheshire 1991 “only if so independent of Ds acts and so potent in causing death” 👎

Jordan 1956 wrong injection “palpably wrong”
(Not followed v often) 👍🏻

Question 13

Causation flow chart

Answer 13

In fact/ but for ------no-----👎
        l
        l
 Legal cause (significant contribution)
        l
        l
Break in chain? (5)
-acts of v
-thin skull 
- attempted escape    --->yes? No causation 
- medical treatment 
-joint enterprise 
          l
          l
        No?
          l
Causation proved

Question 14

Test for foreseeability

Answer 14

Marjoram (2000) test is objective- what would a reasonable person in Ds circumstances have forseen?

Question 15

Intervening events

Answer 15

Refusal
Blaue 1976

Thin skull
Blaue 1976 ( whole man)
Dwahli?

Attempted escape
Roberts 1971- foreseeable/ daftness

Medical
Jordan “palpably wrong” and Cheshire “so independent of Ds acts and so potent in causing death”

Joint enterprise
Rafferty (Andrew Paul) 2007