Chapter 1- Principles Of Criminal Liability Flashcards
Who enforced criminal law
Criminal law is enforced by the state and most prosecutions are undertaken in the name of the crown
Basic aims of sentencing
Punishment Deterrence Protecting the public Reparation Rehabilitation
Three elements of criminal liability
Actus Reus- guilty act
Mens Rea- guilty mind
Absence of any defence
To prove guilty of an offence ..
To be guilty of an offence D must have committed all elements of Actus reus as well as having the relevant men’s rea
Three elements to actus reus
Conduct
Circumstances
Consequences
Define acts & omissions
Act- D doing something
Omission-D failing to do something (fail to stop/withholding information)
Two ways liability for omission can arise
1- the definition of the crime is written in such a way it makes sense to say an omission will suffice (destroy or damage property for failing to put out a fire)
2- D has a duty to do a positive act and failed to do it
Types of duty
1- special relationship (parent/family)
2- D has contractual duty (employee under contract)
3- voluntary assumption of D responsibility(voluntarily placed themselves in a dutiful position)
4- deliberate or accidental creation of a dangerous situation by D
6- pUblic office (police failing to act)
Vountariness
No criminal liability where the D conduct was involuntary - no proof required unless D conduct was voluntary
4 things prosecution must prove against D
Their actions were voluntary
The circumstances of the offence
That the D caused consequences of the offence (attacking victim etc)
Causation between D conduct and the consequence
Prosecution to prove break in chain of causation?
P to prove that Ds conduct caused a consequence
- cause in fact of the consequence (but for)
- cause in law of the consequence (significant contribution to V injury or damage)
Test for factual causation
White 1910- but for test
Points causation in law
1- D conduct must be more than a trivial cause of the consequence in questions
2- D conduct need not be the sole cause
3- Case of death or less If injuries inflicted by D make a significant contribution towards the consequence then D causes that consequence no matter what had happened after D inflicted injury
4- Alleged intervening events were they reasonably foreseeable consequence of D conduct - Padgett
Examples of break in causation
Refusal of medical treatment or aggravated injury - Blaue
Especially susceptible victim- Thin skull rule Blaue confirmed ‘whole v as a person’ including religious belief to take victim as you find them.
Injuries resulting from V attempted escape- Majoram ‘reasonably foreseeability what would a reasonable person in D position have foreseen?’
Negligent / poor medical treatment- Cheshire states poor medical treatment would be break in causation if it in itself was the sole cause of death.
Drug difficulties causation
If D self injects V then V dies D will be liable. Cato
If D gives drug to V and V self administered it
Dalby case failed to convict D of offence
Kennedy confirmed Free and voluntary act by the V will always break causation.
