Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law > Core Principals > Flashcards

Core Principals Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What three elements must there be for criminal liability to attach?

A
  • actus reus
  • mens rea
  • absence of a valid defence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the actus reus?

A

The acts of the defendant that are prohibited by law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What actus reus is required for conduct offences?

A

The offences will require certain acts to have been committed by the defendant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What actus reus is required for result offences?

A

Act of defendant must lead to a specified consequence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What actus reus is required for surrounding circumstances?

A

The actus reus will include the need for some particular circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What actus reus is required for omission offences?

A

Rather than an act, defendant must have failed to take or do a certain action

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Causation is relevant for proving what part of the offence?

A

The actus reus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is factual causation?

A

Jury must be satisfied that the acts or omissions of the accused were in fact the cause of the relevant circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is legal causation?

A

Must be established that the acts or omissions of the accused were a legal cause of that consequence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is the test for factual causation?

A

‘But for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, would the relevant consequence occurred in the way it did?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is necessary for legal causation to be satisfied?

A

Defendant’s act is the operating and substantial cause of the prohibited consequence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

For legal causation, what guidance is there for determining where the defendant’s act is the operating and substantial cause of the prohibited consequence?

A
  • substantial means more than de minimis/minimal
  • consequence must be caused by the defendant’s culpable act
  • defendant’s act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is a novus actus interveniens?

A

Subsequent event or act of either the victim or a third party which renders the defendant’s part in the consequence very small, breaking the chain of causation and meaning that the defendant is not criminally liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

When will medical negligence be deemed to be a novus actus interveniens?

A

Very rarely

When it is so severe, so independent of D’s acts, and so potent in causing death, that D’s act are insignificant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What three categories of acts of third parties may be deemed to be a novus actus interveniens?

A
  • fright and flight cases
  • refusing medical treatment
  • suicide
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

When will ‘fright and flight’ by victims be deemed to be a novus actus interveniens?

A

Question whether act by victim was reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances?

If not, then will break chain of causation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

When will an act of a victim not be reasonably foreseeable so break the chain of causation?

A

Where it is so daft that no reasonable person could have foreseen it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

When will refusal of medical treatment by victims be deemed to be a novus actus interveniens?

A

Very very rarely

Defendant’s must take their victims as they find them, body and soul.

Refusal of medical treatment even if severely detrimental will not break the chain of causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

When will suicide by victims not be deemed to be a novus actus interveniens?

A
  • when they nonetheless die from the original wound
  • the act was reasonably foreseeable
  • D’s unlawful act was a significant and operating cause of death and at the time of the attach it was reasonably foreseeable that the victim would die by suicide as a result of injuries
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

When will suicide by victims be deemed to be a novus actus interveniens?

A
  • the injuries inflicted by D have healed, but the victim goes on to die by suicide
  • it was a voluntary and informed decision of the victim to act
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Will someone independently taking drugs and then subsequently overdosing break chain of causation for murder/homicide offences?

A

Yes

22
Q

What is the thin skull rule?

A

Defendant must take the victim as they find them.

Person who inflicts harm on another cannot escape liability if the victim, owing to some-pre-existing infirmity or peculiarity, suffers greater harm than would otherwise be expected as a result of what the accused has done

23
Q

When will natural events break the chain of causation?

A

When they are so extraordinary and not reasonably foreseeable

24
Q

What is the general rule in relation to omissions and criminal liability?

A

Defendant cannot be criminally liable for failure to act, as there is no general duty to prevent harm

25
Q

What must the prosecution prove to secure conviction for an omission?

A
  • the crime is one which is capable of being committed by an omission.
  • the accused was under a legal duty to act
  • the accused breached that legal duty
  • the breach caused the actus reus of the offence to occur
  • should the offence so require, that the accused had the required mens rea
26
Q

Where might there be a duty on the defendant to act?

A
  • statutory duty imposed
  • special relationship with victim
  • voluntary assumption of duty for victim
  • contractual duty
  • creating a dangerous situation
  • public office
27
Q

What special relationships will impose duty to act and are therefore of relevance for criminal liability in relation to omissions?

A
  • doctors and patients
  • parents and their children
  • spouses
28
Q

When will someone be criminally liable for an omission when through voluntary assumption?

A

Person must voluntary assume a duty towards that person, and the law will hold them liable if they fail to carry out the duty

29
Q

When will someone be criminally liable for an omission through a contractual duty?

A

Where they breach a contractual duty to the other party or third party

30
Q

When will someone be criminally liable for an omission when they create a dangerous situation?

A

When they create dangerous situation, under positive duty to take reasonable steps to counteract dangerous situation.

Steps need only be reasonably such summoning help, minimising harm to others etc

31
Q

When will someone be criminally liable for an omission through holding public office?

A

Where they hold a public office and have duty to public but fail to act

Eg police officer failing to prevent harm that they can see and know about

32
Q

What is mens rea?

A

Mens rea means guilty mind - defendant must have required mental element for the crime

33
Q

What is direct intention?

A

Direct intention is the aim or purpose of the defendant’s act

Subjective test

34
Q

What is oblique intention?

A

Where defendant does something manifestly dangerous and someone dies or is seriously injured but that was not the primary aim of the defendant

35
Q

When are juries entitled to find oblique intention?

A

Where they feel sure that:

  • death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s action (objective element)
  • the defendant appreciated that (subjective element)
36
Q

What is recklessness?

A

When some takes an unjustifiable risk, aware if the danger that the prohibited harm may occur on taking that risk

37
Q

When will a risk be justifiable ie not reckless?

A

Where there is social utility or value to the particular activity more likely to be justifiable.

Must be weighed against likelihood and amount of harm that may happen

38
Q

How is the unreasonable requirement for recklessness to be assessed?

A

Objective test considering the unreasonableness.

The risk in question though is the risk as seen by the defendant (subjective element)

39
Q

What is the effect of the word maliciously in relation to the mens rea for a crime?

A

Means actus rea can either be committed with mens rea of intention or recklessness

40
Q

What is gross negligence in criminal law?

A

Where defendant has shown such disregard for life and safety of others that it amounts to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment

41
Q

What is the interaction between motive and intention?

A

Motive or desire is different from intention.

Motive/desire can be used as evidence for intention

42
Q

What is the requirement for coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?

A

Defendant must have the relevant mens rea for the offence at the precise moment when D commits the actus reus.

43
Q

How can the continuing act theory avoid the need for coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?

A

It is okay as long as D forms the mens rea for the offence at some point during the actus reus continuing

44
Q

How can the one transaction principle avoid the need for coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?

A

Courts will view D’s criminal acts as one series of acts in one transaction.

Enough that D had the mens rea at some point during that transaction.

Can be used where there has been no premeditation

45
Q

What can be done if it isn’t clear which of D’s acts was the actual act that caused the crime (ie killed a person for murder) in terms of requirement for mens rea?

A

D must have the mens rea for the relevant crime when D does each of the acts which could constitute the actus reus

46
Q

What is transferred malice?

A

Is when D’s mens rea is transferred from the intended harm to the actual harm

47
Q

What limitations are there on the doctrine of transferred malice?

A
  • can only operate where the intended harm and the actual harm caused had the same mens rea
  • so will not assist where the defendant has the mens rea for one crime and the actus reus for another
48
Q

Is ignorance of the law any excuse for criminal liability?

A

No - ignorance of the law is no excuse

49
Q

Will a mistake operate to negate mens rea?

A

Yes sometimes will prevent D from having mens rea.

50
Q

What must a mistake be to negate mens rea in case of mens rea requirement for negligence?

A

Mistake must be reasonable

51
Q

Must a mistake be reasonable if mens rea requirement is intention or recklessness?

A

No

Criminal Law (21 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions