Chapter 6 (general elements of criminal liability) Flashcards
chapter 6
Types of Crime/ what is a Conduct crime?
The guilty act itself is criminal, irrespective of the consequence. Examples: Rape, theft, ABH
For example the offence of drink- driving is a criminal offence merely driving with excess alcohol in your bloodstream is the offence. No consequence, such as causing an accident is required.
Types of Crime/ what is a consequence crime?
The guilty act itself may not be criminal, but the consequence is. For example, the offence of ABH, there must be an assault, but there must also be a consequence of actual bodily harm
Example- swinging an axe isn’t illegal but murder is
Types of crime/ what are state of affairs crimes?
There are some rare instances in which the defendant has been convicted even though the act was not desired by the defendant, but occurred through actions against his will. These situations involve what is known as state of affairs cases such as (R V Larsonneur 1933)
Example: possessing an offensive weapon in a public place.
Voluntary acts
The act or omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant. If the defendant has no control over their actions, then they have not committed the actus reus.
(R V Hill V Baxter 1958) -the defendant ignored a road sign that said halt and carried on, causing his van to crash. The court gave examples of where a driver could not be said to be doing the act of driving voluntarily such as losing control of the vehicle while being stung by the swarm of bees, being struck on the head with a stone or having a heart attack while driving. Rule-if something happened out of your control that has made you commit the crime, the act is involuntary
Can an omission make a person guilty of an offence?
The normal principle is that the actus reus must be a positive act. Therefore, an omission( a failure to act) can not make a person guilty of an offence. There is no requirement on a person to go to the aid of another in danger. However, there are situations where an omission, can give rise to liability in criminal law- 6 exceptions
1st exception- Statutory omissions
An act of parliament creates an offence involving an omission. Many of these statutory offences are regulatory and concern matters such as prevention of pollution and public safety. These offences often require proof of an actus reus to establish guilt. These offences are known as offences of strict liability.
Example: S170 Road Traffic Act 1988- it is an omission to fail to report a road traffic accident
2nd exception- Duty arising from a special relationship
A duty because of a relationship could be, for example that between a parent and child. This was shown in Gibbins and Proctor.
Case: R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)- The child’s father and his mistress failed to feed the child so that it died of starvation. They had a duty to feed the child as a result of the relationship of parent to child, so had a duty to act. Their omission to act formed the actus reus of the offence and they were guilty of murder.
3rd exception- Assumption of care
A duty which has been taken on voluntarily can give rise to actus reus where the duty is not carried out.
Case: R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)- Stones elderly sister came to live with the defendants. She became ill and unable to take care of herself. She died and the two defendants were convicted of manslaughter. As the deceased was stones sister, he owed her a duty of care to her. Dobinson had undertaken some care of her and so also owed her a duty of care. Their duty was to either help her themselves or get help from other sources. Their failure to do so meant they were in breach of their duty. This formed the actus reus of the crime.
4th exception- Contractual duty
This is when a contractual duty to act exists.
Case- R v Pittwood (1902)- A railway- crosser keeper omitted to shut the gates so a person crossing the line was struck and killed by a train. The keeper was guilty of manslaughter, by virtue of a contractual duty, because of his failure to close the gate.
5th exception- Duty arising from public position
The official position can give rise to a duty to act, and failure to act can then become the actus reus of a crime.
Case- R v Dytham (1979)- Dytham,a police officer, witnessed a violent attack on the victim but took no steps to intervene or summon help; instead he drove away from the scene. The officer was guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty.
6th exception- creating a dangerous situation
A duty towards the victim arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events. The concept of owing a duty and being liable through omission was created in the case of Miller (1983)
Case- R v Miller (1983)-The defendant, a squatter, fell asleep in an empty house. His lit cigarette fell onto his mattress and a fire started. When he realised this he left the room and went to sleep in another room. He did not attempt to put out the fire or summon for help. He was found guilty of Arson.
Duty of doctors, are they criminally liable for the ending of treatment?
There can be cases where doctors decide to stop treating a patient or withdraw life support, knowing they will die as a result. Logistically speaking, this would be an omission, which could form the actus reus of an offence but…
Case- Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1983)- Mr Bland had no quality of life. fed through a tube for 3 years. Hospital had to go to court to get permission from a judge to excuse them from prosecution. The doctors withdrew the treatment .
Rule: This is not excusing doctors from medical negligence or malpractice, only excludes them if it is in the best interests of the patient.
What is causation?
When a defendant is charged with a result crime, it is not enough to prove that the defendant had the actus reus and the mens rea of a crime. He must have also caused the outcome. This is known as causation.
Where a consequence must be proved, the prosecution must show that the defendants conduct was the factual cause of the consequence and the legal cause of that consequence.
What is the chain of causation?
The chain of causation is the link between the defendants actions and their criminal consequence. The chain must remain unbroken for causation to be proven.
The chain of causation can be broken by:
-an act of a third party
-the victims own act
-a natural but unpredictable event
What is factual causation?
Factual causation requires the defendant to have caused the outcome as a fact. This is referred to as the ‘But for’ test: but for the defendants actions, the harm would not have occurred.
Case 1- R v Pagett (1983): The defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield while he shot at an armed policeman. The police fired back and the girlfriend was killed. Pagett was convicted of her manslaughter. She would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield in the shoot-out.
Case 2 - R v White (1910): The defendant put cyanide in his mother’s drink, intending to kill her. She died of a heart attack before she could drink it. The defendant was not the factual cause of her death; he was not guilty of murder, though he was guilty of attempted murder.
What is Legal Causation?
-Legal causation checks that the defendant remains the substantial and operative cause of the harm suffered. As seen in R v Smith (1959)
-Substantial- The actions of the defendant must be more than de minimis to the end result (more than a slight or trifling link) Seen in R v Kimsey (1996)
-Operative- there must be no novus actus interveniens (new act intervening) which breaks the chain of causation
What is Novus Actus Interveniens ?
Means new act intervening and include…
-Acts of the victim
-Thin-skull rule
-Acts of a third party (medical treatment)
-Naturally occurring events
These could break the chain of causation but even if there is a novus actus interveniens it does not mean the chain of causation will break automatically
Intervening acts - Acts of the victim
If the defendant causes the victim to react in a reasonably foreseeable way, then any injury to the victim will be considered to have been caused by the defendant.
Case- R v Roberts (1971)- A girl jumped from a car in order to escape from sexual advances. The car was travelling at between 20 and 40 mph and the girl was injured through jumping from the car. The defendant was held to be liable for her injuries.
If the defendants reaction is daft and unforeseeable then the chain of causation will be broken and the defendant will not be liable for the injuries suffered.
R v Williams and Davis (1992)- A hitch hiker jumped from Williams car and died from head injuries caused by his head hitting the road. The car was travelling at about 30 mph. The prosecution alleged that the driver had attempted to steal the victims wallet and that was the reason for jumping out the car. The court stated that the victims act had to be foreseeable and also had to be in proportion to threat and so the injury to the victim was not caused by the defendant.
What is the thin- skull rule?
The defendant must take the victim as he or she finds them. This is known as the thin-skull rule. If the victim has something unusual about their physical or mental state which makes an injury more serious, then the defendant is liable for the more serious injury
Example Case- R v Blaue (1975): A young woman was stabbed by the defendant. She was told she needed a blood transfusion to save her life but she refused to have one as her religion forbade blood transfusions. She died and the defendant was convicted of her murder. Despite the fact that her religious belief made the wound fatal, the defendant was still found guilty because he had to take the victim as he found her.
Novus Actus interveniens- An act of the third party -medical treatment
There are a number of cases where it was asked whether poor medical treatment was the operating or substantial cause of the injuries. Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the defendants acts and ‘in itself so potent in causing death’. Medical treatment will only break the chain of causation where the treatment given is ‘palpably’ wrong- as seen in R v Jordan (1956) as the defendants actions were not the significant cause of death.
Case1- R v Smith (1959): two soldiers had a fight and one was stabbed in the lung by the other. The victim was carried to a medical centre but was dropped on the way. At the medical centre, the staff gave him artificial respiration. This made the injury worse and he died. If he had been given the proper treatment his chances of recovery would have been as high as 75%. Despite this, the original attacker was still guilty of his murder. This was because the stab wound was the overwhelming cause of death- it was the operative and substantial cause of death. This means that the significant cause, the stabbing, was more than a minimal contribution to the death.
Case 2:R v Cheshire (1991) :The defendant shot the victim in the thigh and the stomach. The victim had problems breathing and was given a tracheotomy. The victim died from rare complications, which was not spotted by the doctors. By the time he died, the original wounds were no longer life- threatening. The defendant was still held to be liable for his death.
Novus actus interveniens- naturally occurring events
A naturally occurring incident may occurring incident may which breaks the chain of causation. The incident must be unforeseeable. Example, where the injury or loss was caused by an earthquake or a flood.
What is mens rea?
Mens rea refers to the guilty mind. When looking at mens rea, a defendants motive or reason for committing an act is irrelevant. Mens rea is not the same as motive- we are only looking at what they were thinking when they did the act, not why.
What is direct intention?
In the case of Mohan (1975), the court defined intention as “ a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the defendant’s power, the criminal consequence”
It must be the defendants main aim or purpose for the consequence to occur.
Case- R v Mohan (1975): The defendant refused to stop when a policeman signalled for him to do so. Instead, he drove towards the officer. This shows direct intention to scare or injure the policeman.
