Core Principles Flashcards
Basic Intent Crime
This means that the D either intended or was reckless as to causing harm
Recklessness
A defendant is reckless if they
1. see a risk of that their actions will cause the victim to apprehend immediate / unlawful personal violence.
- In circumstances known to the D unreasonable to take thee risk.
Subjective Recklessness
ADD more ! Must be established for any assault charge based upon recklessness.
This test required the prosecution to prove that the accused had foreseen the risk themselves. objective recklessness as established by R v Caldwell. This test required the prosecution to prove that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person.
Basic Intent Crimes
- Assault
- Battery
Causation
Causation is part of the Actus Reus of Result Crimes.
There are 2 aspects to causation both must be proved by the prosecution.
Factual Causation + Legal Causation
Result Crimes
Result crimes require that h the defendant’s conduct cause a particular result.
Result crimes include;
1. Murder.
2. Manslaughter
3. Criminal Damage
4. Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
Factual Causation
the jury must be satisfied that the act or omission of the accused were in fact the cause of the relevant consequence.
’ But for test’ ( R v White).
but for the acts or omissions of the accused the relevant consequence would not have occurred.
- causal link between consequence and act.
- any action which accelerates death is a cause.
Legal Causation
It must be established that the acts or omissions of the accused were a legal cause of the consequence.
The law will check the culpability of the defendant before imposing liability. It will require that the defendant is the : OPERATING AND SUBSTANTIAL cause of the prohibited consequence.
What are the key legal causation principles?
The defendants act must be the substantial cause of the prohibited harm.
The consequence must be caused by the defendant’s culpable act.
The defendant;s act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence. It must be a cause that is more than minimal.
Must be due to a culpable element.
A defendant can still be liable even when the other causes were present.
If through a defendant’s negligence they caused an accident. It is irrelevant that it might have been avoided if the other persons had not been negligent.
What is the definition of a result crime?
A result crime requires that the conduct of thee defendant causes a particular consequence.
What part of the criminal liability equation does result crimes relate to?
Whether the defendant has caused a particular result is part of the actus reus of a crime
What is the test for factual causation?
The test for factual causation is :
But for the acts or omissions of the defendant, the relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did.
But for test.
What is the key authority for factual causation ?
The ‘but for’ test is the key authority for factual causation.
What is the key authority for legal causation?
The defendant’s act must be substantial cause of the prohibited harm.
R v Hughes - the case clarified that the defendant’s act need not be the only or principle cause ( more than de minimis)
R v Pagett - operating and substantial cause of the prohibited consequence.
Legal Causation - intervening acts
Considering whether the chain of causation has been broken.
A novus actus intereveniens is a subsequent event / act of either the victim or third party which renders the defendant’s part in the sequence very small -
breaking the change of causation = no intervening act.
absence of a nous actus interveniens
- medical negligence
- Acts of a third party.
- Acts of the victim
- Think skull rule
- natural events.
What are the 3 core principles a prosecution must prove ?
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt ;
1. The defendant committed a guilty action
(AR)
2. While having the relevant guilty mind
(MR)
3. No valid defence
Summary only offences are ….
Are tried in the Magistrates Court. They include the least serious crimes;
Assault
Criminal Damage
Punishment imposed is subject to the maximum the magistrates have ( 6 months in prison or 12 months imprison for reoccurring offence. Or 5,000 fine)
What are the magistrates sentencing capacity ?
6 months imprisonment.
12 months imprisonment for sentences running consecutively on two or more offences.
£5,000
Indictable only offences are…
The most serious offences.
They can only be tried by a judge and jury in the crown court.
Examples include murder / manslaughter / GBH with intent / Robbery
Either way offences can be tried…
In either the Magistrates Court or the Crown Court.
If an offence is indictable ( either way ) where is it tried and who decides ?
It can be tried in either Magistrates or Crown Court.
The decision to which court should try the offence is initially made by the Magistrates in which ALL criminal cases commence.
What sentence can the Magistrates impose ?
6 months
12 months for repeat / consecutive offences ( triable either-way )
£5,000
Where do all criminal cases commence?
Magistrates court
Are the classification of offences relevant to only adults?
Yes. Classification is only relevant to adults. For youths the potential sentences determines where the trial is held
What is the purpose of sentencing ?
Sentencing Act 2020 ;
S.57(2) sets out the purpose
A) the punishment of offenders
B) the reduction of crime
C) reform and rehabilitation of offenders
D) protection of the public and
E) the making of reparation by offenders to persons affect by their offences.
What standard do crimes need to be proved ?
It is for true prosecution to prove every element of the crime ‘ beyond reasonable doubt’.
( Woolmington v DPP)
What requirements of proof are on the defendant ?
The only requirement placed on the defendant would be to raise the possibility that self-defence applies. Once the defendant raising the prosecution must disprove it.
What happens once the defendant raising the possibility of self defence
The prosecution must disprove it
What are the occasions when the defendant has to prove the burden of proof ?
Defence of diminished responsibility in murder.
Standard of proof that the defence must meet is lower on the balance of probabilities
What are the elements of criminal liability
- actus Reus ( guilt act )
- Mens rea ( guilty mind )
- Absence of a valid defence
The actus reus of an offence can be categorised into 4 categories. What are they?
- Conduct Offences - ( fraud by false representation - the victim does not need to have been deceived by the representation).
- Result Offences - action MUST lead to a specific consequence. ( murder - death of victim )
- Surrounding circumstances - ( theft - the property that is appropriated MUST have belonged to another and not the defendant).
- Omissions - the general rule is that there is NO liability for failure to act. There are certain circumstances where there is a legal obligation. ( lifeguard on duty gross negligence manslaughter ).
What is causation in result crimes ?
Factual causation - the but for test ( r v white ) + any action that accelerates death !
Legal causation - substantial cause ( r v hughes ).
Consequence must be caused by culpable act ( r v dalloway )
Defendant’s act doesn’t have to be the only cause of the prohibited consequence - r v benge
In regards to legal causation - what are the NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS ?
It is a subsequent event or act of either the victim or a third party which renders the defendant’s party in the consequence very small.
Breaks the chain of causation.
What is the context(s) that the court must consider in relation to intervening acts ? ( there are 5)
- Medical negligence
- Acts of a third party
- Acts of the victim
4.thin skull rule - Natural events
When medical negligence is an intervening act - what does the court view ?
Courts are generally reluctant to allow medical malpractice to break chain of causation
Poor medical treatment does not break the chain of causation.
In the case of R v Smith - if the original wound is still an operating and substantial cause then the wound is still cause of death - even if another cause.
Only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original would merely part of the history.
Acts of third parties as intervening acts ?
The court of appeal in R v Pagett held that there may ONLY be a break in the chain of causation IF the actions of the third party were
- FREE , DELIBERATE AND INFORMED.
( man convicted using girl friend as shield after firing on officers who returned fire. Found they returned fire in self defence and did not shoot at the woman freely or deliberately. )
When are acts of he victim interviewing acts ( refusing medical treatment ) ?
Refusing medical treatment ; defendants must take the victims as they find them in both body and mind.
It does not matter whether the wound was not instantly mortal. It can become cause of death if V refused treatment.
I.e - wounds reopening - still operative and significant contribution to death.
When are the acts of victim intervening acts ( suicide ) ?
Victim’s suicide may not break the chain of causation if ;
- victim died from original wound.
- act was reasonably foreseeable ( cutting footballers fit off )
- unlawful act significant cause of death ( reasonably foreseeable that the victim would die by suicide ) - telling a vulnerable person to kill themselves.
Victim’s suicide MAY break chain if ;
- Injuries by defendant have healed.
- Voluntary and informed decision of the victim to act. ( person who supplies drug to another has not caused that drug to be administered when the other person injects it ).
What is the thin skull rule ?
Provides that a person who inflicts harm on another cannot escape liability if the victim ( owing to some pre-existing infirmity / peculiarity ) suffers great harm than would have been expected as a result of accused actions.
Defendant MUST take victim as you find them.
When do natural events act as an intervening act to break the chain of causation?
Only if they are extraordinary and break the chain or causation.
Tripping someone up and they fall into a sink hole and die.
Knocking someone unconscious and them drowning from sea coming in is not breaking chain as foreseeable.
What is the general rule with omissions ?
Generally the defender cannot be criminally liable for a failure to act.
“ omission , without duty will not create an indictable offence “
What are the 6 scenarios when an omission can render someone criminally liable ?
- Statutory duty.
- Special Relationship.
- Voluntary Assumption
- Contractual duty
- Creating a dangerous situation.
- Public Offence.
What must the prosecution prove to secure a conviction based on a failure to act ?
- The crime is one which is capable of being committed by an omission. ( eg - unlawful manslaughter )
- The accused was under a legal duty to act
- That duty was breached.
- The breach caused the actus reus of the offence.
- Should the offence require - they accused had the mens rea.
When are people under a statutory duty to act - and an omission is an offence ?
Usually less serious crimes.
E.g it is an offence NOT TO GIVE A breath test whilst driving.
When are people under a special relationship to act?
Special relationship ;
Spouses / doctors and patients / parents and children.
Case law has found this to be WIDER.
- if a person chooses to take care of someone who is helpless ( infancy / mental illness )
- voluntary assumption of care. Taking someone into your house.
- if the victim was in X house and started to revive him. ( if you accept someone into your home - voluntarily accepted responsibility for them ).
When is a breach of a contractual duty an omission to act ?
If a train level crossing gatekeeper fails to close gate when train passing - under a contractual duty.
When a defendant creates a dangerous situation - when are the liable for an omission to act ?
If someone inadvertently sets in motion a chain of events that causes the risk of damage and that person becomes aware of what is happening ( and could prevent further damage ) his inaction can become the actus reus.
Man sleeping in house and his cigaret causes fire. Man went back to sleep in different room. House damaged. Found guilty of ARSON
Familial duty or responsibility marked relationship with the deceased
This applies to Mother / Child. It does not apply to siblings. This applies to not seeking medical care.
In the case of R v Evan - it was established that they created a ‘dangerous situation’ by supplying her younger sister drugs and helping her inject. This is different to her independently taking drugs herself.
Omission from a public duty to act ;
A police officer on duty - walking past someone injured who later died.
Wilfully neglecting to perform duties.
What is the link between omissions and causation ?
The defendant had not acted and had they could have made a causal difference.
Defendant cannot cause by an omission. The defendant can fail to uncause when the d fails to uncause.
Supplying drugs - failure to act ? Criminally liable ?
Supply drugs and not present when taken overdose = not liable.
Assisted in taking drugs and overdose = liable if steps not taken to undo act.
In relation to Mens Rea what are the two types of intention and what do they mean ?
Direct intention - aim or purpose of the defendant’s act.
Indirect / oblique intention - used in rare cases but D does something and it results in death / injury but not D’s primary aim.
What is recklessness ?
When someone takes an unjustifiable risk.
D is aware of the prohibited harm that may occur when taking risk.
What are the common types of mens Rea ?
Intention. ( direct / indirect )
Recklessness. ( for saw risk of harm and went ahead. Risk was unjustified ).
Knowledge and belief
Dishonestly.
Negligence.
What does direct intention mean ?
It was the D’s AIM OR PURPOSE to commit the AR.
It is a subjective test and down to the jury to decide.
When directing on specific intent crimes - intention should be given its ordinary meaning.
What does indirect intention mean ?
It is used in rare cases where the defendant does something dangerous and someone dies / seriously injured but it was not the primary aim of the defendant
Recklessness is …
An unjustifiable risk.
Knowledge and belief mens Rea
This is when a person is aware of a particular circumstance or at least a possibility of it.
Think handling stolen goods
Mens Rea of Dishonesty. What does it mean
The defendant must be found to have dishonestly handled goods.
The test is set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos ;
What is the test for dishonesty.
Ivey v Genting Casinos ;
Mens Rea of negligence is
When the defendant’s actions fall below a certain standard.
Think careless driving or gross negligence manslaughter.
The jury must be convinced they showed a disregard for life AND safety to amount to a crime against state
Negligence in criminal law
This is where you judge them ( jury does ) against a REASONABLE person. Not - the state of their own mind.
There are two types of intention in criminal law ;
- Direct intent
- Oblique intent ( indirect intent )
