Core Principles of Criminal Liability

Question 1

Actus Reus: when is someone criminally liable for an omission?

Answer 1

1. Statutory Duty
2. Contractual duty
3. Special relationship (doctor-patient, parent-child, spouse-spouse)
4. Assumption of responsibility (infantcy, mental illness, taking drugs and try to revive someone)
5. Creation of dangerous situation (drugs, starting fire)
6. Public office

Question 2

What are the two types of mens rea?

Answer 2

1. Intention (may be direct or indirect/oblique)
2. Recklessness

Question 3

What is direct intention?

Answer 3

D intended a specified result and this was the aim or purpose of Ds act.

Question 4

What is oblique intention?

Answer 4

Where the consequence is not Ds purpose but rather a side effect that D accepts as an inevitable accompaniment to his intention.

• Can only be used for specific intent crimes
• Objective: jury feels sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of Ds action
• Subjective: D appreciated that this was the case.

Question 5

What is recklessness?

Answer 5

• D is aware of a risk that exists;
• in the circumstances known to D, it is unreasonable to take that risk
• Taking risk is unjustifiable (consider social utility vs risk of harm).

Question 6

What are the 2 elements of causation?

Answer 6

1. Factual causation (but for)
2. Legal causation (no novus actus interveniens).

Question 7

What is the test for factual causation?

Answer 7

But for the actions or omissions of the accused, the relevant consequence/result would not have occurred in the way that it did.

Question 8

What is the test for legal causation?

Answer 8

Ds act or omission must be the operating and substantial cause (i.e substantial is more than de minimis).

Question 9

What are types of novus actus interveniens?

Answer 9

**1. Medical neglience **which was so independent of Ds acts, and itself so potent in causing death, that it renders the contributions of D irrelevant;
2. Act of third party which was free, deliberate and informed;
3. Act of victim which was so daft as response to D that no reasonable person could have foreseen it.
4. Natural events which are extraordinary and unforeseeable.

Question 10

When will an act of the victim break the chain of causation?

Answer 10

When it is so daft and disproportionate as a response to the actions of the defendant that no reasonable person could have foreseen it.

• Not refusing medical treatment
• Not suicide, unless victim’s injuries have healed or it was voluntary, informed decision of victim.

Question 11

What is the rule of coincidence of actus reus and mens rea? What are the exceptions?

Answer 11

D must have the mens rea at the time he commits the actus reus EXCEPT:

1. Continuing act: if D forms actus reus at some point whilst act continuing.
2. One Transaction: Court recognises series of acts as making up one transaction and D has the mens rea at some point during this.

Question 12

What is the doctrine of transferred malice?

Answer 12

If D has mens rea for crime but targets the wrong person, intention is transferred to actual victim.

Does not work with mens rea for one crime and actus reus for another (e.g aiming to hit person with stone but smashes window).