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.
Common types of Mens Rea
Intention
Recklessness
Two definitions of intention
Direct intention- V death aim or purpose (Moloney)
Indirect / Oblique intention - V death is not D aim or purpose but certain to occur if D achieves their primary aim or purpose (Nedrick)
Two types of unjustified risks for recklessness
Objective recklessness- obvious risk (criminal damage only)
Subjective recklessness - D believed unjustified (G and another)
NB 2003 recklessness now only subjective
House of Lords recklessness definition
Recklessness involves the conciliatory taking of an unjustified risk. D will have given thought to and will have recognised the risk but will have still proceeded.
Can transferred malice apply
Yes providing mens rea can be transferred to the victim - D meant to hurt X but accidentally hurt V. D intent tk hurt X is enough to find D guilty
LATIMER
Can transferred malice apply to recklessness
Yes, providing actus Reus is the same crime. case or MITCHELL two old people in queue at post office
Does actus and mens need to coincide
Yes, mens does not need to be at the same time. It can come later if the crime continues (FAGAN accidentally drove over police foot but remained on the foot when realised what he did)
What is a strict liability offence
An offence which is general public concern and doesn’t require mens rea
It’s statutory and will not have the words intentionally or knowingly in the stat as mens rea needs to be proven in those instances
Strict liability offence 2 examples
Damage to environment/ pollution
Adulterating food or drink
Selling food unfit for human consumption
Road traffic offences such as speeding
Breach health and safety regs
Breach planning and building construction requirements
Misdescribing quality and price of goods
Privy counsel guidelines to establish if an offence is strict liability
- severity of punishment (lower is likely to be strict)
- if an offence applies only to specific members of the public or activity (will be strict lib)
- of an offence deals with issues of social concern or public safety (will be strict lib)
- court will consider if offence is strict lib whether it will promoter greater vigilance to prevent offence being committed
Justification for strict lib offences
- people comply with rules so makes it easier to abide by
- minor nature of strict libs means little stigma is attached to the offence
- proving fault would be difficult and take up a lot of the court time
- disproportionate time and effort would be necessary to establish D possessed mens rea
Imposing arguments for strict Lib
Parliament doesn’t make it clear
Corporations often at fault and the strict lib doesn’t act as a deterrent
Mens rea makes D blameworthy. Uncomfort comes from D being ‘non fault’ of the crime
