Crime - AR and MR

Question 0

Omissions

Answer 0

Criminal liability for failing to act is limited to specific situations:

• family ties (Gibbons and Proctor)
• assumption of care (Stone and Dobinson)
• contractual duty (R v Pittwood)
• dangerous situation of own making (R v Miller)
• statutory duties (RTA 1988)

Question 1

Woolmington v DPP

Answer 1

Burden of proof rests with P to prove D’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Question 2

Possession

Answer 2

Offences of possession only require the existence of a culpable state of affairs, e.g. presence in country without permission despite absence of volition (Larsonneur)

Question 3

Causation

Answer 3

Causation must operate:

• in law (significant contribution and substantial, not sole, cause)
• in fact (sine qua non)

Question 4

R v Cheshire

Answer 4

Legal cause must be substantial cause, e.g. medical care must be palpably wrong

Question 5

R v Pagett

Answer 5

Legal cause must contribute significantly to the cause of death (provided it is reasonably foreseeable)

Question 6

Novus actus interveniens

Answer 6

NVIs may break the chain of causation if:

• reaction of victim is extreme/unforeseeable (R v Roberts)
• a third party interference is more than de minimis (R v Smith)
• medical practitioner has been grossly negligent (R v Cheshire)

Question 7

R v White

Answer 7

‘but for’ test is used ton establish factual causation

Question 8

R v Blaue

Answer 8

‘eggshell skull’ rule applies, meaning physical condition/beliefs of victim that exacerbate injury will not amount to an NVI

Question 9

R v Mohan

Answer 9

Direct intent is a decision to bring about particular aim/the commission of an offence, regardless of whether or not D desired the consequences

Question 10

R v Nedrick (confirmed in R v Woollin)

Answer 10

D obliquely intended an outcome if the consequences of his actions are virtually certain, provided D had foreseen them

Question 11

Cunningham

Answer 11

Test for recklessness is a subjective one, i.e. did D foresee the risk, and nevertheless go on and take it

Question 12

R v G

Answer 12

Test for recklessness is a subjective one (for criminal damage only), i.e. did D foresee risk, but neverthess go on to take it

Question 13

R v Le Brun

Answer 13

AR and MR must coincide, UNLESS

• AR and MR can be seen as occurring in a single transaction (R v Church)
• AR occurs first, but can be seen as a continuing act up to point of MR (R v Fagan)

Question 14

R v Latimer

Answer 14

Where D has intention or recklessness towards committing a crime against one person, this malicious may be transferred against another, unintended V

Question 15

R v Pembilton

Answer 15

Doctrine of transferred malice will only apply if crimes are of the same type

Question 16

Sweet v Parsley

Answer 16

No presumption of a strict liabilty offence exists where the act is silent on the requirement for MR