Core Principles Flashcards
What is the actus reus?
The guilty act/omission
What are the key elements of criminal liability?
Actus reus + mens rea + absence of valid defence
What are the 4 types of AR?
- Conduct - offences only require certain acts to be committed
- Result - action must lead to specified consequence e.g. death
- Circumstances - need for particular surrounding circumstances e.g. property belonging to another
- Omissions - some exceptions
What is the difference between factual and legal causation?
- Factual = acts/omissions of accused were the cause of the consequence
- Legal = acts/ommissions were a legal cause of that consequence
How is factual causation proved?
The but for test i.e. relevant consequence would not have occurred the way it did but for D’s conduct
What happens if you peform an act (e.g. poisoning) but they die of something else (e.g. heart failure)?
- 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 is legal causation proved?
Operating and substantial cause…
- D’s acts are the substantial cause of prohibited harm
- Consequence must be caused by D’s culpable act
Does D’s act need to be the only cause of the prohibited consequence?
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
What must ‘substantial cause’ re legal causation be more than?
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
What is a novus actus interveniens?
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
Can medical negligence break the chain of causation?
Very unlikely - unless negligent treatment was so independent of his acts and in itself so potent in causing death
Will acts of third parties break the chain of causation?
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
Will the victim break the chain of causation in ‘fright and flight’ cases?
Where under attack from D and V tries to escape
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
If the victim refuses medical treatment, does this break the chain of causation?
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
Will the victim’s suicide break the chain of causation?
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
What is the effect of the thin skull rule?
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
Will natural events break the chain of causation?
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
What is the general rule on omissions?
D cannot be criminally liable for a failure to act as there is no general duty to prevent harm
What is a legal duty to act and what are the duties?
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
When will a special relationship make a D liable for omission?
Legal duty to act
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
When will a voluntary assumption of a DOC make a D liable for omission?
Legal duty to act
- 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)
When will a breach of contractual duty make a D liable for omission?
Legal duty to act
Pittwood - being under contractual duty to close a gate when train was coming; result is death
When will a creation of a dangerous situation make a D liable for omission?
Legal duty to act
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
When will a legal duty to act make a D liable for omission?
Legal duty to act
As a policeman, witnessing an attack and not trying to stop
What is mens rea? Does it mean someone is guilty?
Means guilty mind, but only means that in law D had required mental element for crime
What are the different types of mens rea?
- Intention (direct or oblique)
- Recklessness - unjustifiable risk and appreciates but went ahead anyway
- Knowledge and belief - aware of existnece of circumstances or at least possibly aware e.g. theft
- Dishonesty - mostly do with theft
- Negligence - actions fall below standard of reasonable person (disregard for life and safety of others)
What is direct intention?
If the consequence is D’s purpose, D intends it even if chances of success are slim
Should be given ordinary meaning
What is oblique intention? Is it a different type of intention?
- 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)
When should oblique intention be used?
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
Is intention the same thing as motive?
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
Can motive be used as evidence of intention
Yes
What guidance to the meaning of ‘intention’ should be given?
Its ordinary use in everyday language; leave it to common sense of jury
What is the test for recklessness?
When a person sees the risk but goes ahead anyway and harm results
- D foresaw risk of harm and went ahead anyway (subjective) and
- in circumstances known to D it was unreasonable to take risk (objective)
Unintentional but blameworthy
“That was S(ubjective)O(bjective) reckless!”
When would a risk taken be justifiable?
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
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)?
- 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
Whose mind foresees the risk?
D or reasonable person?
The D, not reasonable person
I.e. D with schizophrenia made fire and may not have been aware of risk
What will the jury consider when deciding if D’s risk was unreasonable?
The social utility of D’s conduct; if no social utility at all = tiny risk is unjustified
What circumstances should jury ignore when considering the reasonability of taking the risk?
Those unknown to D e.g. bin contains flammable fluid put there by someone else and D throws lit cigarette into it
Should D have the relevant MR at the precise moment he commits the AR?
Must there be a ‘coincidence’ of AR and MR?
Generally yes, but there are 2 interpretations to get around this:
1. Continuing act theory
2. The one transaction principle
What is the continuning act theory?
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
What is the one transaction principle?
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
What is the difference between the continuing act theory and one transaction principle?
- Continuing act = MR formed at some point during AR continuing
- One transaction = did not have MR when doing exact thing but did overall
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…
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
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??
Unnecessary to prove which act caused death - D must have MR for relevant crime when D does each of acts which could constitute MR
What is transferred malice?
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
What can transferred malice not be used for?
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)
Will ignorance of the law (not knowing it) avoid liability even if ignorance is reasonable?
No - ignorance no excuse
Bailey - D convicted of offence created by statute when on high seas; could not possibly have known
Can a mistake as to element of AR negate MR?
E.g. taking umbrella from restaurant thinking it is theirs
Yes - mistake does not have to be reasonable (but may be claim in civil)
Unless MR requirement is negligence meaning mistake must be reasonable
What does a valid defence to to D’s liability?
Renders the D not criminally liable
Are all defences available for all crimes?
- 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)
Is intoxication a valid defence?
With drugs or alcohol
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
Is consent a valid defence?
- 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
When will self-defence be a successful defence?
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
What is the difference between a strict liability and absolute liability offence?
- 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)
