Core Principles Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What are the key elements of criminal liability?

A

Criminal liability = 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 are the four types of actus reus?

A
  • Conduct
  • Result
  • Circumstances
  • Omissions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are conduct offences?

A

In some cases, offences will only require certain acts to have been committed by the defendant to satisfy the actus reus.

E.g. Fraud by false representation - only the conduct of making the false representation is required, it does not matter that the victim is actually deceived by the representation.
Blackmail
Theft

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

What are result offences?

A

The actus reus of result crimes require more than just the defendant’s action. Here, the action must lead to a specified consequence. In such cases it must be proved that the action actually caused result.

E.g. murder, manslaughter, criminal damage, assault occasioning actual bodily harm

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

What are circumstance offences?

A

The actus reus can also include the need for some particular surrounding circumstance.

E.g. theft - the surrounding circumstance the prosecution must prove is that the property belonged to someone other than the thief.

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

Actus reus: omissions

A

A defendant can be held to have committed the actus reus of an offence despite taking no action at all. Although the general rule that there is no liability for failure to act, the criminal law will, in certain circumstances, impose a legal obligation to act which if breached could result in criminal liability.

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

What are the two aspects to causation?

A

Factual Causation: the jury must be satisfied that the acts or omissions of the accused were in fact the cause of the relevant consequence

Legal Causation: it 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
8
Q

What is the test for factual causation?

A

The ‘but for’ test.

Factually it must be proved that ‘but for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, the relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did.

In other words, if you eliminate the act of the defendant would the prohibited harm have occurred anyway?

Note: any action which accelerates death is cause e.g. throwing a terminally ill person down the stairs would still be murder

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

What is legal causation?

A

The law checks the culpability of the defendant before imposing liability and it will require that the defendant is the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the prohibited consequence.

  • The defendant’s 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: where there are multiple causes it must be more than de minimis
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What are intervening acts (and what are they)?

A

An intervening act is 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.

  • Medical negligence
  • Acts of third parties
  • Acts of the victim
  • Thin Skull rule
  • natural events
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Intervening acts: Medical Negligence

A

Courts are reluctant to allow medical malpractice to break the chain.

Will not break the chain if the original wound is still an operating and substantial cause of death. The second cause must be so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history.

Must be so independent and itself so potent in causing death that they regard the contribution made by his acts as significant.

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

Intervening acts: Acts of third parties

A

Actions of third parties must be free, deliberate and informed to break the chain of causation.

E.g. police returning fire is not free nor deliberate

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

Intervening acts: acts of the victim

A

Three types:
- fright and flight cases
- refusing medical treatment
- suicide

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

Acts of the victim: fright and flight

A

Is it foreseeable (to a reasonable person) as to whether the victim might try to escape from the attack or threat? If yes, held responsible, if not = breaks the chain.

Also ask: was the victims conduct proportionate to the threat? (within the ambit of reasonableness)

E.g.
- guilty for injuries that were the result of jumping out of a car to get away from unwanted sexual advances
- jumping out of a moving vehicle after being threatened at knife point

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

Acts of the victim: refusing medical treatment

A
  • Refusing medical treatment on religious grounds will not be an intervening act (eg blood transfusion) - whole in person in both mind and body
  • Does not matter if the wound is instantly mortal, still guilty where wound became infected and the defendant refused amputation and died.
  • if died from same injuries even after they had been stitched up and the reopened later - still guilty.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Acts of victim: suicide

A

Victim’s suicide is unlikely to break the chain of causation and the defendant is still likely to be the legal cause if:
- dies from original wound
- the act was reasonably foreseeable (causes brilliant pianist to lose her fingers, or keen sportsman to be paralysed)
- D’s unlawful act was a significant and operating cause of death and at the time of the attack it was reasonably foreseeable that the victim would die by suicide as a result of V’s injuries.

May break the chain where:
- injuries inflicted have healed
- it was a voluntary and informed decision of the victim to act (a person who supplies drugs to another has not caused that drug to be administered when the other injects it.

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

Intervening acts: think skull rule

A

Provides that a 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 have been expected as a result of what the accused has done.

Defendant must take the victim as they find them.

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

Intervening acts: natural events

A

Must be extraordinary and not reasonably foreseeable.

Use common sense.

19
Q

What is the general rule regarding criminal liability and omissions?

A

The general rule is that a defendant cannot be criminally liable for a failure to act, as there is no general duty to act to prevent harm.

20
Q

What must be proven for someone be criminally liable for an omission?

A
  1. the crime is one which is capable of being committed by an omission (some offences require an act)
  2. the accused was under a legal duty to act
  3. the accused breached that duty
  4. the breach cause the actus reus of the offence to occur
  5. should the offence so require, that the accused had the required mens rea
21
Q

When might a defendant be under a legal duty to act?

A
  • Statute/statutory duty
  • Special relationship
  • Voluntary assumption of responsibility
  • Contract
  • Defendant created a dangerous situation
  • Public office
22
Q

Legal duty to act: statutory duty

A

There are lots of offences that can be committed by an omission.

  • eg offence to fail to provide a specimen of breath
23
Q

Legal duty to act: special relationship

A
  • doctors and patients
  • parents and children
  • spouses
24
Q

Legal duty to act: assumption of a duty of care

A

Once a person voluntarily assumes a duty to another, the law will hold that person liable if they fail to carry out that duty.

  • once you start caring for someone you can’t stop
25
Q

Legal duty to act: contractual duty

A

Duty can be owed by the defendant either to the party with whom he contracts or to a third party.

e..g failing to close a level-crossing gate (was his job) and a man died - guilty!

26
Q

Legal duty to act: creating a dangerous situation

A

For example, starting a fire - there is a duty to take reasonable steps to counteract the situation.
Case: where helped to create the dangerous situation of self-injecting drug (by supplying it)?

27
Q

Legal duty to act: public office holders

A

Police officer on duty found guilty for not intervening and stopping a man being beaten who ended up dying from his injuries.

28
Q

What is mens rea?

A

Mens rea means guilty mind. Most offences require that the defendant not only commits the act, but also in some way has a guilty mind.
- intention
- recklessness
- knowledge and belief
- dishonesty
- negligence

29
Q

Mens rea: knowledge and belief

A

Under the theft act, a person is guilty of handling stolen goods, if knowing or believing them to be stolen, that person receives those goods.

These words have been held to allow for the defendant who is absolutely certain as to the existence of a particular circumstance, or is at least possible aware that the particular circumstance exists.

30
Q

Mens reas: dishonesty

A

Ivey test:
a) what was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts; and
(b) was his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?

31
Q

Mens rea: negligence

A

Negligence is when the defendant’s standards fall below the standard of a reasonable person.

Although important in tort, it does not feature prominently in the criminal law. There are a number of statutory offences in which negligence is the basis for liability, eg careless driving.

Some criminal law offences have negligence as an element of mens rea: eg gross negligence manslaughter. BUT must be gross: exceptional

32
Q

What are the two types of intention?

A

(a) Direct intent: aim or purpose of the defendant’s act

(b) Oblique intent: used in rare cases where the defendant does something manifestly dangerous and someone dies or is seriously injured but that was not the primary aim of the defendant.

33
Q

What is direct intention?

A

Where the consequence is what the defendant aims to happen. This is wholly subjective from the defendant’s point of view.

This is something for the jury to decide and its meaning should not be elaborated on, other than it differs from desire and motive - it is the aim or purpose of their act.

Motive is different from intention but can be used as evidence of intention.

34
Q

What is oblique intent?

A

Is where the consequence is not the defendant’s purpose but rather a side effect that D accepts as an inevitable or certain accompaniment to D’s direct intention. The consequence here does not have to be ‘desired’ - the defendant may even regret that this incidental consequence will occur.

1) Was the death or serious bodily harm a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen event) as a result of the defendant’s action and
2) that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.

Rare and only used where intention is the only form of mens rea e.g. murder, s18

e.g. putting a bomb on a plane with the intention of blowing it up and claiming insurance. Passengers that die may not be the direct intent but their death is a virtual certainty = oblique/indirect intent

35
Q

What is recklessness?

A

When a person does not intend to cause a harmful result but sees a risk of harm and goes ahead anyway. In order to be criminally liable for reckless behaviour, the risk taking must be unjustifiable. If risk taking is justifiable, there is social utility or value to the activity against the likelihood and the amount of harm that might happen.

36
Q

What is the test for recklessness?

A
  • The defendant foresaw a risk of harm and went ahead anyway; and
  • in the circumstances known to the defendant, it was unreasonable to take the risk
37
Q

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

A

The defendant must have the relevant mens rea for the offence at the recise moment when D commits the actus reus.

  • Continuing Act theory
  • One transaction principle
38
Q

What is the continuing act theory?

A

A defendant can be guilty of an offence using the continuing act theory if they form the mens rea for the offence at some point during the actus reus continuing.

39
Q

What is the one transaction principle?

A

Where the court categorises the actions of the accused as a series of acts, making up one transaction - in certain circumstances it is enough for the defendant to have the mens rea at some time during the transaction.

Can also view the first act as causing subsequent acts.

Also works where it isn’t clear which act actually caused death - it is not necessary to prove which act caused death.

e.g. hitting someone over the head to kill them and then rolling the body off the cliff where they actually die of exposure. even though they didn’t have the intention to kill when the rolled the body off the cliff the court held it was one transaction.

40
Q

What is transferred malice?

A

Transferred malice is when D’s mens rea is transferred from the intended harm to the actual harm.

Must be for the same crime - cannot match the mens rea for different crimes.

e.g. throwing a stone at someone and breaking a window instead would not work

41
Q

Is it a defence if the accused is ignorant of the law?

A

No - it does not matter if the defendant does not know they are breaking the law. This is the case even if the ignorance is reasonable and even if it is impossible for the defendant to know of the prohibition.

42
Q

What are the defences?

A
  • Intoxication
  • Consent (not available for ABH and above)
  • Self-defence
  • Mistake (of fact or civil law) may mean escape of mens rea
43
Q

Which question will the court ask to establish whether an involuntarily intoxicated defendant can avoid criminal liability?

A

Did D form the mens rea even though intoxicated?