CRIME Criminal Rules Flashcards
What is Actus Reus?
Guilty act of the defendant
What is conduct crimes?
To prove the AR is not necessary for any consequence to be proved
Examples for conduct crimes
Drink driving
Theft
Battery
What is consequence crimes?
To prove the AR the prohibited conduct must also result in a consequence
Examples for consequence crimes
Assault causing actual bodily harm
Murder
What is a state of affairs crimes?
To prove the AR there must be a state of affairs the D is responsible for
Examples of state of affairs crimes
Possession of offensive weapon in a public area- D does not need to do anything with the weapon and it does not need to be visible
Possession of a controlled drug - doesn’t matter if D is going to use the drug
Voluntary Nature of AR
Act or omission must be voluntary, If D has no control over his actions then he has not committed AR
Hill v Baxter
Involuntariness of AR
Where D can be convicted even though he didn’t act voluntarily - usually involve state of affairs crimes
R v Larsonneur
General Rule
Usually a person is not liable for omissions (failure to act) as there would be no AR - guilty act
Exceptions where there is a duty to act are….
A statutory duty
A contractual duty
A duty because of a relationship
Omissions - A statutory duty
An act of parliament can create liability for an omission
Example for a statutory duty …
S.170 Road traffic act 1988
Omissions - A contractual Duty
D will have a duty to act if it is part of his contract, if he fails to act this could form the AR of an offence
R v Pittwood
Omissions - A duty because of a relationship
D will have a duty to act if it is part of a relationship with V, if he fails to act this could form the AR of the offence
R v Gibbins and Proctor
Omissions - A duty which has been taken on voluntarily
D will have a duty to act if he voluntarily takes in a duty, if he fails to act to fulfil that duty properly ; this could form the AR of an offence
R v Stone and Dobinson
Omissions - A duty through an official position
D will have a duty to act when it is part of his public position, if he fails to act this could form the AR of an offence
Omissions - A duty by creation of a dangerous situation
D will have a duty to act when he becomes aware of a dangerous situation that he has created, if he fails to act this could form the AR of the offence
R v Miller
Problem of causation
For consequence crimes, we have to show that D’s act CAUSED a particular consequence
Factual Causation
D is only guilty if the consequence would not have happened “but for “ his act
White & Pagett
Legal Causation
Link between D’s act and the consequence is the “chain of causation” and must remain unbroken
D’s act must be the “operating and substantial cause” of the consequence
R v Smith
Novus Actus interveniens of Third Party
A third party does something which causes the outcome - to be an NAI by 3rd party - the new act needs to be sufficiently different than the actual cause of the outcome
R v Jordan - it must be palpably wrong
Cato
D need not have been the only cause of death but was more than a minimal cause
Benge
D’s action need not be the sole cause of the resulting harm, but it must be more than minimal
Novus Actus Interveniens by Victim
Sometimes v’s actions can count as a NAI and break the chain of causation but if V acts in a foreseeable and reasonable way in circumstances, then v’s act will not break the chain of causation
Chain of causation will be broken if v does something daft or so unexpected that the reasonable man could not be expected to foresee it
R v Roberts
R v Williams
The “Thin Skull” rule
General principle is that you have to take your victim as you find them
If victim has an underlying mental health or physical condition or religious belief that will make injures worse, D is still liable for full extent of injures
R v Blaue
Coincidence of Men’s Rea and Actus Reus
General Principle
AR and MR must occur at the same time, in the same place and by the same person
Coincidence of Men’s Rea and Actus Reus - Continuing Acts
He did form the MR when he refused to move it and the act of placing the car on the foot (AR) remained
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Coincidence of Men’s Rea and Actus Reus - series of connected events
MR continued throughout as there was a series of connected events - Thabo Meli
MR continued throughout the series of connected events, so included her drowning - Church
Mens Rea
Guilty mind
Direct intent
D’s aim purpose or motive
Direct intention in the decision to bring about the criminal consequence - Mohan
Oblique Intent
D’s aim is something different to the actual consequence
The consequence had a virtually certain result and D knew that - Woolin
Matthew’s abs Alleyne - jury may decided there is intention but they don’t have to
Subjective Recklessness
Lower level of mens Rea than intent, D must know there is a risk of the consequence but takes the risk deliberately
D MUST foresee the risk and take it anyway - Cunningham
Negligence
Person fails to reach the standards of the reasonable man - objective test
2 exceptions for negligence ….
Some road traffic offences
Gross negligence manslaughter
Transferred Malice
D can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different V - when d’s MR is transferred to the intended V to the actual V
MR transferred to actual V from his intended V as the offence was of the same type as he originally intended - Latimer
Even though there was no direct contact between D and V, she was injured as a direct result of his actions, and MR was transferred to V - Mitchell
If the offence on the net V is different to that which intended, there is no MR - Pembilton
