Core Principles Flashcards
What must the prosecution prove the D had in order to establish criminal liability?
Actus reus (guilty action) and mens rea (guilty mind).
What are the four types of actus reus?
- Conduct offences
- Result offences
- Circumstances
- Omissions
What are the two aspects to criminal causation?
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 consequence.
What is the factual causation test, refer to R v White (1910)?
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.
R v White (1910): the D put poison in a drink intending to kill his mother but medical evidence showed she had died from heart failure not from poisoning. The D was therefore acquitted because there was no causal link between the consequence and his act-he was guilty of attempted murder.
What is the test for legal causation?
The law will check the culpability of the D before imposing liability and it will require that the D is the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the prohibited consequence: R v Pagett (1983).
What are the three possible intervening acts?
-Medical negligence
-Acts of third parties
-Acts of the victim
Will medical negligence be an intervening act and break the chain of causation, refer to R v Smith (1959)?
The medical negligence must be so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that death does not follow from the wound.
R v Smith (1959): the D stabbed the victim during a fight at their barracks and pierced his lung. On his arrival to the hospital, the victim received positively harmful treatment and died a couple of hours later.
The D was convicted of murder, because it was held that his actions remained a substantial and operating cause-the medical negligence was not a sufficient cause to sever the chain of causation.
Will acts of a third party be an intervening act and break the chain of causation, refer to R v Pagett (1983)?
The actions of a third party will only break the chain if they are free, deliberate and informed.
R v Pagett (1983): using his pregnant girlfriend as a shield, the D shot at police who returned fire and killed the girl. The jury convicted the D, whose appeal was rejected. The police officers’ actions were neither free nor deliberate-it was a reasonable act performed for the purpose of self-preservation.
What are the three types of acts of the victim that could break the chain of causation?
-Fright and flight cases
-Refusing medical treatment
-Suicide
What is the test for a fright and flight case as to whether it will break the chain of causation?
If the escape was foreseeable by the reasonable person, the chain of causation will not be broken. If it is not, then the D is entitled to an acquittal.
R v Roberts (1972): the victim was a passenger in the Ds car. Terrified by his unwanted sexual advances, she jumped out of the moving car suffering injuries in the process. The D was convicted of ABH as the victim’s reaction was reasonable and would only break the chain of causation if it were an act that was so ‘daft’ that no reasonable person could have foreseen it.
Will refusing medical treatment break the chain of causation?
No, the thin skull rule applies here.
What is the test for whether a victim’s suicide has been caused by the D?
R v Wallace (2018): the Court of Appeal held that it was open to the jury to find that the acts of the victim and doctors were not voluntary acts. The questions posed were:
(a) Are you sure that the D’s unlawful act was a significant and operating cause of the death?
(b) If yes, are you sure at the time of the acid attack it was reasonably foreseeable that the victim would die by suicide as a result of his injuries?
When will natural events break the chain of causation?
Natural events will only break the chain of causation if they are ‘extraordinary’ and not reasonably foreseeable.
What are examples of special relationships in which criminal liability for omissions can arise?
Doctors and patient
Parent and child
Husband and wife
Can a voluntary assumption of responsibility result in criminal liability for omissions?
Yes, if a person voluntarily assumes a duty towards another, the law will hold that person liable if they fail to carry out that duty.
What is the mens rea?
Mens rea means ‘guilty mind’. The state of mind that the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction will vary from crime to crime.
What is direct intention?
This is where the consequence is what the D aims to happen-it is the purpose or objective of D’s act.
If the consequence is D’s purpose, D intends it even if D’s chances of success are slim.
R v Moloney (1985): direct intent is where the consequence is what the D, subjectively, aims to happen.
What is indirect/oblique intention?
Indirect or oblique intention is a legal concept that describes when a D’s actions lead to a harmful outcome that the D foresaw as virtually certain, even if it wasn’t their primary goal.
In what circumstances are juries entitled to find oblique intent?
Juries are not entitled to find oblique intent unless they feel sure:
-death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of the D’s action (objective element); and
-the D appreciated that (subjective element): R v Woollin (1999)
What is recklessness?
Recklessness is when someone intentionally takes an unjustified risk that causes harm or damage. It’s more blameworthy than carelessness but less so than malice.
What is the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?
As a general rule, the D must have the relevant mens rea for the offence at the precise moment when D commits the actus reus.
What is the continuing act theory, refer to Fagan v MPC (1969)?
A D 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.
Fagan v MPC (1969): the D formed the mens rea when he realised that his vehicle was on the police officer’s foot and did not move it. At the moment he formed the mens rea, the actus reus was still continuing.
What is the one transaction principle, refer to the case of Thabo Meli (1954)?
The Court will categorise the actions of the accused as a series of acts, making up one transaction in certain circumstances.
Thabo Meli (1954): the Ds series of acts in striking the victim over the head intending to kill him, and then rolling him over the edge of a cliff even though he was still alive, were held to be a series of pre-planned acts that constituted one transaction-it was enough that the mens rea existed at some point during the transaction.
What is the doctrine of transferred malice, refer to R v Latimer (1886)?
This is when the D’s mens rea is transferred from the intended harm to the actual harm.
R v Latimer (1886): the D aimed a blow at C with a belt, which then recoiled and hit the V in the face wounding her severely. D’s appeal was dismissed and the doctrine of transferred malice was applied.
What is the limit to the doctrine of transferred malice, refer to R v Pembliton (1874)?
It will not assist where the D has the mens rea for one crime and the actus reus for another-the D must have the mens rea for the crime charged.
R v Pembliton (1874): the accused threw a stone at a crowd of people which missed but broke a glass window behind them-he had intended to hit the people but not the window. The Court quashed his conviction for criminal damage since that was an offence with a different mens rea-his intention was to injure a person which was insufficient.
