Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Criminal Law > Core Principles > Flashcards

Core Principles Flashcards

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

What is the actus reus?

A

The guilty act/omission

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

What are the key elements of criminal liability?

A

Actus reus + mens rea + absence of valid defence

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

What are the 4 types of AR?

A
  1. Conduct - offences only require certain acts to be committed
  2. Result - action must lead to specified consequence e.g. death
  3. Circumstances - need for particular surrounding circumstances e.g. property belonging to another
  4. Omissions - some exceptions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the difference between factual and legal causation?

A
  • Factual = acts/omissions of accused were the cause of the consequence
  • Legal = acts/ommissions were a legal cause of that consequence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How is factual causation proved?

A

The but for test i.e. relevant consequence would not have occurred the way it did but for D’s conduct

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

What happens if you peform an act (e.g. poisoning) but they die of something else (e.g. heart failure)?

A
  • No factual causation; no causal link between action and consequence
  • But accelerating death can be a cause e.g. throwing child with meningitis down the stairs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

How is legal causation proved?

A

Operating and substantial cause…

  • D’s acts are the substantial cause of prohibited harm
  • Consequence must be caused by D’s culpable act
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Does D’s act need to be the only cause of the prohibited consequence?

A

No

E.g. woman pulls gun on a man who runs into road and is hit by a van and dies = woman can still be a substantial cause even though not just her

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

What must ‘substantial cause’ re legal causation be more than?

A

De minimis - esp when more than several causes

E.g. woman pulls gun on a man who runs into road and is hit by a van and dies = more than de minimis so can still be legal cause

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

What is a novus actus interveniens?

A

A subsequent event/act of either victim or TP which renders D’s part in consequence small and breaks chain of causation = D not criminally liable

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

Can medical negligence break the chain of causation?

A

Very unlikely - unless negligent treatment was so independent of his acts and in itself so potent in causing death

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

Will acts of third parties break the chain of causation?

A

If actions of TP were ‘free, deliberate and informed’

E.g. Pagett - D shot at police first, used pregnant girlfriend as shield who was shot by police and died (police’s response of self-preservation were not free nor deliberate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Will the victim break the chain of causation in ‘fright and flight’ cases?

Where under attack from D and V tries to escape

A

Only if victim’s act was so ‘daft’ that no reasonable person could have foreseen it; must be proportionality between gravity of threat and action in seeking to escape from it - but consider particular characteristic of the victim and that in agony of moment he may have acted without thought/deliberation

I.e. victim can do wrong/stupid thing and still not break chain

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

If the victim refuses medical treatment, does this break the chain of causation?

A

No - Ds must take victims as they find them in both mind and body; did not matter whether wound instantly mortal or later became cause of death due to refusal of treatment

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

Will the victim’s suicide break the chain of causation?

A

If it was reasonably foreseeable/D’s unlawful act was significant and operating cause of death e.g. removing pianist’s fingers, paralysing sports person - but not if it was a voluntary and informed decision on victim to act of injuries from D healed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is the effect of the thin skull rule?

A

As D must take victim as they find them, they cannot escape liability if the victim suffers greater harm than usually expected owing to a pre-existing infirmity/peculiarity

Hayward - chased wife into road who collapsed and died from abnormal thyroid condition = had to take condition as he found it

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

Will natural events break the chain of causation?

A

Only if they are ‘extraordinary’ and not reasonably foreseeable e.g. D knocks V unconscious on beach, tide drowns V = D legally caused V’s death

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

What is the general rule on omissions?

A

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

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

What is a legal duty to act and what are the duties?

A

Necessary to secure conviction based upon a failure to act
1. Statutory duty e.g. less serious offences like failure to provide specimen of breath in Road Traffic Act
2. Special relationship
3. Voluntary assumption of DOC
4. A breach of contractual duty
5. D creates dangerous situation
6. Legal duty to act - public office holder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

When will a special relationship make a D liable for omission?

Legal duty to act

A

Doctors/patients, parents/children, spouses

  • Husband liable for failing to summon medical assistance for wife after fall
  • Starving own child
  • Might be guilty by failing to separate conjoined twins who could both die
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

When will a voluntary assumption of a DOC make a D liable for omission?

Legal duty to act

A
  • Failing to execute assumed responsibility of infant, mentally ill etc.
  • Failing to summon medical assistance/care for a deteriorating family member (for whom they have assumed responsibility)
  • Failing to summon medical assistance for a friend you have taken drugs with after trying to revive them

Must be substantial

E.g. putting blanket over face of someone you have just hit with your car is not enough to assume care (MCQ)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

When will a breach of contractual duty make a D liable for omission?

Legal duty to act

A

Pittwood - being under contractual duty to close a gate when train was coming; result is death

23
Q

When will a creation of a dangerous situation make a D liable for omission?

Legal duty to act

A

If they do not take reasonable steps to counteract danger e.g. summoning help, warning occupants

  • Setting a room on fire and only moving to another room to avoid
  • Supplying drugs to someone and then not calling ambulance when they are dying

Not expected to risk life to save others

24
Q

When will a legal duty to act make a D liable for omission?

Legal duty to act

A

As a policeman, witnessing an attack and not trying to stop

25
Q

What is mens rea? Does it mean someone is guilty?

A

Means guilty mind, but only means that in law D had required mental element for crime

26
Q

What are the different types of mens rea?

A
  1. Intention (direct or oblique)
  2. Recklessness - unjustifiable risk and appreciates but went ahead anyway
  3. Knowledge and belief - aware of existnece of circumstances or at least possibly aware e.g. theft
  4. Dishonesty - mostly do with theft
  5. Negligence - actions fall below standard of reasonable person (disregard for life and safety of others)
MR must in practice be linked to a specific act/consequence required for the AR (simple as putting 'as to (AR)' on the end)
27
Q

What is direct intention?

A

If the consequence is D’s purpose, D intends it even if chances of success are slim

Should be given ordinary meaning

28
Q

What is oblique intention? Is it a different type of intention?

A
  • Where consequence is not D’s purpose but is virtually certain to happen (objective) and D appreciates this (subjective)
  • Is not a different type of intention, but rather evidence of intention (a way of finding it)

Is not desired and might even regret

the ‘a’ is later on in both the word ‘virtuAlly’ and ‘certAin’ - how to remember that Appreciates is second part (subjective is second part)

29
Q

When should oblique intention be used?

A

Where intention is the only form of MR for the murder e.g. if offence allows MR in form of intention or recklessness you should not refer to oblique intent

30
Q

Is intention the same thing as motive?

A

Can intend both ends but they are not the same
E.g. D puts bomb in airplane he has insured: his motive in placing bomb comes from intention to claim on insurance. The destruction of airplane is his direct intention and the death of the pilot is his oblique intention

31
Q

Can motive be used as evidence of intention

A

Yes

32
Q

What guidance to the meaning of ‘intention’ should be given?

A

Its ordinary use in everyday language; leave it to common sense of jury

33
Q

What is the test for recklessness?

When a person sees the risk but goes ahead anyway and harm results

A
  1. D foresaw risk of harm and went ahead anyway (subjective) and
  2. in circumstances known to D it was unreasonable to take risk (objective)

Unintentional but blameworthy

“That was S(ubjective)O(bjective) reckless!”

34
Q

When would a risk taken be justifiable?

A

If there is social utility/value to the activity against amount of harm that might happen

Russian roulette = no social utility = slightest possibility of harm is enough

Surgical operation = high social utility = high probability of grave harm necessary

35
Q

What degree of risk is necessary and how carefully must D consider the risk re subjective part of the test (foreseeing the risk of harm)?

A
  • The degree of risk; foresight of any risk is sufficient
  • How carefully D considers presence of risk; some foresight of risk all that is required, however fleeting it might be
36
Q

Whose mind foresees the risk?

D or reasonable person?

A

The D, not reasonable person

I.e. D with schizophrenia made fire and may not have been aware of risk

37
Q

What will the jury consider when deciding if D’s risk was unreasonable?

A

The social utility of D’s conduct; if no social utility at all = tiny risk is unjustified

38
Q

What circumstances should jury ignore when considering the reasonability of taking the risk?

A

Those unknown to D e.g. bin contains flammable fluid put there by someone else and D throws lit cigarette into it

39
Q

Should D have the relevant MR at the precise moment he commits the AR?

Must there be a ‘coincidence’ of AR and MR?

A

Generally yes, but there are 2 interpretations to get around this:
1. Continuing act theory
2. The one transaction principle

40
Q

What is the continuning act theory?

A

D can be guilty of the offence if they fom the MR at some point during the AR continuing

Fagan - D refused to move car after driving onto policeman’s foot; formed MR after doing this not when doing it

41
Q

What is the one transaction principle?

A

Is enough for D to have MR at some point during a series of acts which make up one single transaction

I.e. did not have MR at time of doing exact thing but did overall

Thabo Meli - appellants hit V over head with intent to kill, rolled body over cliff thinking V was dead, later discovered V died from exposure at foot of cliff = appellants had MR for murder when they hit V but not when they did the act that caused his deat, but because acts performed in pursuance of antecedent plan to kill him, the series of acts could not be divided up; formed single transaction and was enough that MR existed at some point

42
Q

What is the difference between the continuing act theory and one transaction principle?

A
  • Continuing act = MR formed at some point during AR continuing
  • One transaction = did not have MR when doing exact thing but did overall
43
Q

Is the one transaction principle limited to cases where there is prior planning?

Prior planning like Thabo - hit V over head with intent to kill, rolled body of cliff etc…

A

No - can view first act (done with MR) as the cause of subsequent acts (not done with MR but caused by the act done with MR)

Le Brun - D assaulted wife and knocked unconscious, then dropped her and fractured skull killing her - unlawful act and act causing death were all part of same transaction

44
Q

What happens in the one transaction principle when it is not clear which of D’s acts is the AR?

E.g. cut throat and pulls up stairs with rope around neck - stabbing or strangulation??

A

Unnecessary to prove which act caused death - D must have MR for relevant crime when D does each of acts which could constitute MR

45
Q

What is transferred malice?

A

Where D’s MR is transferred from intended harm to actual harm

E.g. D shoots intending to kill X but misses and kills Y instead

MR is joined with AR that causes prohibited harm to Y

46
Q

What can transferred malice not be used for?

A

Where D has MR for one crime and AR for another; D must have MR for crime charged

Pembilton - D threw stone at crowd but missed and broke glass window; could not be charged under criminal damage as MR was intention to injure a person (not damage property)

47
Q

Will ignorance of the law (not knowing it) avoid liability even if ignorance is reasonable?

A

No - ignorance no excuse

Bailey - D convicted of offence created by statute when on high seas; could not possibly have known

48
Q

Can a mistake as to element of AR negate MR?

E.g. taking umbrella from restaurant thinking it is theirs

A

Yes - mistake does not have to be reasonable (but may be claim in civil)

Unless MR requirement is negligence meaning mistake must be reasonable

49
Q

What does a valid defence to to D’s liability?

A

Renders the D not criminally liable

50
Q

Are all defences available for all crimes?

A
  • General defences available to almost any crime (e.g. self-defence, intoxication)
  • Some defences only operate re specific crimes (e.g. loss of control and diminished responsibility both only available for murder)
51
Q

Is intoxication a valid defence?

With drugs or alcohol

A

Drunken intent is still intent but…
* Defence more likely if involuntarily intoxicated i.e. drugged
* If voluntarily intoxicated, D can be deemed reckless if they would have foresaw risk of harm if sober

52
Q

Is consent a valid defence?

A
  • If ABH or above, consent is not available unless public interest exception applies (medical treatment, sport, tattooing)
  • If offence is assault or battery, consent available if (D honestly believed that) V consented
53
Q

When will self-defence be a successful defence?

A

If
1. D honestly believed full force was necessary and
2. The force used was objectively reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be

54
Q

What is the difference between a strict liability and absolute liability offence?

A
  • Strict = do not require proof of MR (e.g. do not need to prove D was reckless in breaking speed llimit)
  • Absolute = no MR required at all, so long as no valid defence (state of affairs crimes; set of circumstances exist)

Criminal Law (7 decks)

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