Core Principles Flashcards
What is Actus Reus?
Actus reus refers to the guilty act or omission that must be established for any crime.
What components are required for criminal liability?
Criminal liability requires actus reus (guilty act/omission), mens rea (guilty mind), and absence of a valid defence.
Is motive required for criminal liability?
No, motive is not required for criminal liability (Chandler v DPP).
What are the four types of actus reus?
The four types of actus reus are: Conduct, Result, Circumstances, and Omissions.
What are conduct offences?
Conduct offences require certain acts to have been committed by the defendant to satisfy actus reus.
Example: In blackmail under s21 Theft Act 1968, making a demand with menaces is sufficient.
What are result offences?
Result offences require the defendant’s action to lead to a specific consequence, which must be proved to have caused the result.
Example: In murder, the defendant’s actions must cause the death of the victim.
What does actus reus include in terms of circumstances?
Actus reus can include the need for particular surrounding circumstances, such as property belonging to another in theft under s 1 Theft Act 1968.
What is the general rule regarding omissions?
The general rule is that there is no liability for failure to act, unless a legal obligation to act is imposed.
What is causation in result crimes?
Causation in result crimes consists of factual causation and legal causation.
What is factual causation?
Factual causation is established by the ‘but for’ test, proving that ‘but for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, the consequence would not have occurred.
What is legal causation?
Legal causation requires that the defendant is the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the prohibited consequences.
What is novus actus interveniens?
Novus actus interveniens refers to a subsequent event or act that breaks the chain of causation, rendering the defendant not criminally liable.
What are the contexts in which novus actus interveniens can occur?
Novus actus interveniens can occur in contexts such as medical negligence, acts of a third party, acts of the victim, the thin skull rule, and natural events.
Will medical negligence break the chain of causation
Not if Ds act are a substantial and operating cause
Smith was convicted of murder because his actions remained a substantial and operating cause of the victim’s death despite medical negligence.
What was held in R v Cheshire (1991)?
The Court held that poor medical treatment did not break the chain of causation, as the original wounds were still a substantial cause of death.
What did R v Padgett (1983) establish about acts of third parties?
The case established that the chain of causation may only be broken if the actions of the third party were ‘free, deliberate and informed.’
Can a victims escape break the chain of causation
Yes but In Roberts, the court held that the victim’s reaction to escape was foreseeable and did not break the chain of causation.
What was the ruling in R v Blaue (1975)?
The court ruled that defendants must take their victims as they find them, including their beliefs, which did not break the chain of causation.
What happened in the case of R v Holland?
The deceased ignored a surgeon’s advice to amputate a severely cut finger, leading to tetanus and death. The defendant argued that the refusal of treatment broke the chain of causation.
The court held that the cause of death was the wound, not the refusal of treatment.
What was the outcome of R v Dear?
The appellant slashed the victim, who later died after reopening his wounds. The court held that the defendant’s actions were a significant cause of death, despite the victim’s suicide.
The jury could find that the defendant’s conduct contributed to the death.
What did the Court of Appeal decide in R v Wallace?
The court held that the jury could find that the victim’s voluntary euthanasia did not break the chain of causation, and the defendant’s actions were a significant cause of death.
The court posed questions regarding the foreseeability of the victim’s suicide.
When might a victim’s suicide break the chain of causation?
The victim’s suicide may break the chain if the injuries have healed or if the decision to act was voluntary and informed.
Refer to R v Kennedy for the principle regarding voluntary actions.
What is the ‘thin skull’ rule?
The ‘thin skull’ rule states that a defendant is liable for the full extent of a victim’s injury, even if the injury is greater than expected due to a pre-existing condition.
The defendant must take the victim as they find them.
What was the ruling in R v Hayward?
Hayward was held liable for his wife’s death due to her pre-existing condition, as he caused her distress that led to her death.
The court emphasized that he must take her condition as he found it.
What breaks the chain of causation regarding natural events?
Natural events only break the chain if they are extraordinary and not reasonably foreseeable.
An example is if a victim drowns after being left unconscious on a beach.
What is required to establish criminal liability for omissions?
To establish liability, the prosecution must prove that the crime can be committed by omission, the accused had a legal duty to act, breached that duty, and that breach caused the actus reus of the offence.
The accused must also have the required mens rea.
What establishes a legal duty to act?
Legal duties can arise from statutes, special relationships, voluntary assumption, contracts, or if the defendant creates a dangerous situation.
Examples include duties of care between parents and children.
Can you be found guilty through contractual duties
Pittwood was held liable for manslaughter due to his failure to close a level-crossing gate, which resulted in a death.
His contractual duty to close the gate was central to the ruling.
What did R v Miller establish regarding dangerous situations?
Miller established that a person who creates a dangerous situation has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate that danger.
Failure to act can result in criminal liability.
Can omissions be criminal liable in familial relationships
Yes.
Evans was held liable for her sister’s death after failing to seek medical help during an overdose, despite knowing the signs.
The court emphasized the duty of care in a familial context.
What was the cause of Carly’s death?
The cause of death was heroin poisoning.
What did Evans and Townsend decide to do instead of seeking medical assistance for Carly?
They put Carly in bed with the hope that she would make a miraculous recovery.
What was the outcome of Evans’s appeal against her conviction?
The appeal was based on the argument that the Crown failed to establish that Evans owed the victim a duty of care.
On what basis was the mother convicted of gross negligence manslaughter?
The conviction was based on her familial duty or responsibility to summon assistance for her critically ill daughter.
Did the court consider Evans as having a familial duty towards Carly?
No, the court decided that Evans, as an older half-sister, did not come within the purview of the familial duty doctrine.
