Core principles

Question 1

What are generally the three elements of a crime?

Answer 1

• actus reus
• mens rea
• absence of a valid defence

Question 2

What are the types of actus reus?

Answer 2

• conduct
• result: caused specific consequence
• circumstances: need for particular circumstances
• omissions

Question 3

Which crimes will require causation?

Answer 3

Result crimes

Question 4

What are the two elements of causation?

Answer 4

• factual causation
• legal causation

Question 5

What is the test for factual causation?

Answer 5

But for test

Question 6

Where a person is likely to die anyway, could an act of harm be factual causation?

Answer 6

any action which accelerates death is a cause

Question 7

What are the keyp principles for legal causation?

Answer 7

• more than minimal
• caused by culpable act
• need not be only cause

Question 8

What is a novus actus interveniens?

Answer 8

subsequent event that breaks the chain of causation

Question 9

What are the types of novus actus interveniens?

Answer 9

Medical negligence
Acts of a third party
Acts of the victim
Thin skull rule
Natural events

Question 10

In what circumstances may the court break the chain of causation for medical negligence?

Answer 10

Rarely - so independent and overwhelming compared to original harm

Question 11

In what circumstances may the court break the chain of causation for acts of a third party?

Answer 11

actions of third party were ‘free, deliberate and informed’

Question 12

In what circumstances may the court break the chain of causation for acts of the victim?

Answer 12

Fight and flight - if foreseeable by reasonable person/proportionate
Refusing medical treatment - take victim as you find them/injuries still operating and significant cause
Suicide -
- injuries healed
- victim made voluntary and informed decision

Question 13

What is the think skull rule?

Answer 13

Can’t escape liability if someone with pre-existing infirmity suffers greater harm than would have been expected

Question 14

When might natural events break the chain of causation?

Answer 14

extraordinary and not reasonably foreseeable

Question 15

To secure conviction for a failure to act, what must the prosecution prove?

Answer 15

1. Crime capable of being committed by omission
2. Legal duty
3. Breach of duty
4. Causing the actus reus of the offence
5. Mens rea (if required)

Question 16

What are the common situations where a defendant will be under a legal duty to act?

Answer 16

Statutory duty
Special relationship
Voluntary assumption
Contractual
Creation of a dangerous situation
Public office

Question 17

What are examples of special relationships where there is a legal duty to act?

Answer 17

• doctor and patient
• parent and child
• spouse

Question 18

What must happen to prevent committing an offence when someone creates a dangerous chain of events?

Answer 18

take reasonable steps to counteract

Question 19

How does causation work for omissions?

Answer 19

Cannot cause by omission but can fail to uncause where there is a duty to

Question 20

What are the types of intention?

Answer 20

Direct intention – aim or purpose of act
Indirect/oblique intention – D does something dangerous/someone harmed but not primary aim of D

Question 21

What is recklessness?

Answer 21

Unjustifiable risk and aware of danger that may occur

Question 22

How will the jury decide whether a risk is unjustifiable for recklessness?

Answer 22

Social utility

Question 23

What does knowledge and belief mean?

Answer 23

Absolutely certain or at least possibly aware

Question 24

When can oblique intention be used?

Answer 24

Where facts require it and intention is the only mens rea

Question 25

What is coincidence?

Answer 25

Must have mens rea at precise moment when committing actus reus

Question 26

How have the courts developed a flexible interpretation of coincidence?

Answer 26

• continuing act theory
• one transaction principle

Question 27

What is continuing act theory?

Answer 27

mens rea formed at some point during actus reus continuing

Question 28

What is the one transaction principle?

Answer 28

actions as a series of acts making up one transaction – enough to have mens rea at some time

Question 29

What is transferred malice?

Answer 29

Mens rea transferred from intended harm to actual harm

Question 30

What is the limit of transferred malice?

Answer 30

Mens rea must be for same type of crime charged

Question 31

Can someone avoid liability if they are ignorant of the law?

Answer 31

No

Question 32

When will a mistake that negates mens rea need to be reasonable?

Answer 32

Where MR is intention/recklessness = no
Where MR is negligence = yes

Question 33

What are the four common defences?

Answer 33

Intoxication
Consent
Self-defence
Mistake

Question 34

Can consent be a defence to assault or battery?

Answer 34

if V consented or D honestly believed V consented

Question 35

Can consent be a defence to ABH or above?

Answer 35

No unless public interest exceptions apply

Question 36

What is the test for whether there is a defence for involuntary intoxication?

Answer 36

whether D formed mens rea even though intoxicated

Question 37

What is the test for whether there is a defence for voluntary intoxication?

Answer 37

where basic intent, deemed reckless if would have foresaw risk of harm if they were sober

Question 38

What can self defence be used for protection of?

Answer 38

Yourself, another or property

Question 39

What is the defence of self defence?

Answer 39

• D honestly believed that use of force was necessary and
• Level of force was objectively reasonable in circumstances as D believed them to be