Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

NIE Volume 2 > Criminal Conduct > Flashcards

Criminal Conduct Flashcards

1
Q

offences of strict liability

A

do not require proof of any mens rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

How can the actus reus be committed?

A

General rule: via positive act
Exception: via an omission to act - but only where there is a breach of a duty of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Voluntary actions only

A

The actus reus must be committed voluntarily, i.e. the act or omission must be under a person’s own free will.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Involuntary actions

A

No liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

A physical compulsion to act

A

A pushes B and B accidentally clashes head with C - breaking C’s nose. B will not have committed assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

A sudden lose of control

A

A loss of self-control that is both sudden and unexpected, e.g. cramp, blackout

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Forseeable involuntary acts

A

no defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Consequences if an involuntary act is forseeable?

A

if the onset of the impairment could reasonably be foreseen or anticipated due to a pattern or previous similar incidents - then the actions will be deemed voluntary despite the inability to control the impairment of the defendant’s actions, e.g. diagnosed narcoleptic falling asleep at the wheel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Establishing a causal link

A

prove a causal link between the act/omission and the relevant consequrnce

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

The “but for” test

A

“But for the defendant’s act or omission would the consequence have arisen?”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Does the act/omission need to be the sole cause of the consequence?

A

No, it just needs to be the operating and substantial (main) cause of the consequence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

The Eggshell Skull Rule

A

Take the victim as you find them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

R v Harvey (2010)

A

Threw remote > ruptured weak neck artery > death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R v Watson (1989)

A

Burglary > Frail - 87 > Heart attack > Death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v Mckechnie (1992)

A

Stomach ulcer > Brain damage in assault - preventing surgery on the ulcer > stomach ulcer ruptures > death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

When will an intervening act break the chain of causation?

A

The chain of causation can be broke by a new intervening act - provided the new act both: is free, deliberate and informed - R v Latif (1996) or becomes the operating and substantial cause of the death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Breaking the chain of causation

A

initial act/omission>intervening act relevant consequence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Accepted medical practice for treating injuries - chain not broken

A

R v Smith (1959) - Assault causing injuries > accepted treatment > injuries from attack cause death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Treatment that is wholly inconsistent with accepted medical practice - chain is broken

A

Treat will break the chain of causation. R v Jordan (1956): stabbed > drug treatment>drug caused death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Anticipated actions by the victim

A

The actions of a victim will not break the chain of causation - if they are those which might reasonably be anticipated from a victim placed in such a situation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Daft voluntary actions by the victim

A

The actions of the victim will break the chain of causation - they are both: voluntary i.e. not a forced response to the situation they were placed in; and daft (R v Williams (1992))

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Will a victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment on the grounds of their religious beliefs breaks the chain of causation?

A

No. R V Blaue (1975): Assault causing injuries> Transfusion refused on religious grounds> Injuries from attack cause death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Addict self-administers - addict breaks the chain of causation - No manslaughter

A

R v Kennedy (2007): Dealer supplies> Addict self administers (main cause of death> chain broken > addict overdoses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Dealer helps to administer - chain present - manslaughter

A

R v Dias (2001): Dealer supplies > Dealer helps to administer (main cause of death) chain present > Addict overdoses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

WHEN WILL AN INTERVENING ACT BREAK THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION

A

If an action occurs after the initial act or omission of the defendant - you must ask yourself what is the main cause of the consequence?

If the main cause is still the defendant’s initial act or omission - then the chain of causation is not broken and the defendant will have committed the actus reus of the offence.

If events have been overtaken by the subsequent intervening act so that the intervening act becomes the main cause of the consequence - then the chain of causation is broken, and the actus reus of the offence will not have committed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Voluntary self-administration post supply

A

Will break the chain of causation. R v Dalby (1982) & R v Kennedy (2007)

27
Q

Assisting in the administration of the drug

A

No break in the chain of causation - chain of causation is maintained and liability established. R v Dias (2001) & R v Rogers (2005)

28
Q

Tricking the victim as to the purpose of providing the intoxicant

A

Field v R (2021). The defendant , provided their elderly partner with sleeping pills and tricked him into also consuming strong spirits with the underlying intent that the combined effect would kill him. The victim was unaware of this underlying intention.

29
Q

The court of appeal, distinguished the case of R v Kennedy.

A

Where the defendant gives a victim an intoxicant, with the intent that the intoxicant shall kill the victim then provided the victim is unaware of the underlying intent, the chain of causation is maintained, even if the victim agreed to consume it because they have been tricked as to the purpose of consuming. If however, the victim was aware of the defendant’s intention that the intoxicant was intended to cause their death and they proceed to consume then because they would not be tricked as to the purpose of consumption their voluntary action will break the chain of causation.

30
Q

CAN AN ACT OF GOD CONSTUTUTE AN INTERVENING ACT?

A

IT DEPENDS ON THE FORSEEABILITY OF THE NATURAL EVENT

Totally Unforeseeable Natural Event

The chain of causation will be broken by a totally unforeseeable “act of God”. e.g. A assaults B and leaves B injured on the floor – if B was struck by a totally unforeseeable bolt of lightning which overtook events and became the main cause of death – the chain of causation regarding a homicide offence would be broken.

Foreseeable Natural Event

The chain of causation will not be broken by a foreseeable natural event. e.g. A assaults B and leaves B injured – if B’s exposure to the cold (an entirely foreseeable natural event) became the main cause of death – the chain of causation would not be broken in respect of the homicide offence.

31
Q

When will liability for an omission to act arise?

A

Liability for omissions will arise where a person is both under a duty to act and they have voluntarily failed to act

32
Q

Involuntary omissions

A

There will be no liability for an omission to act where either: the defendant is unable to act - because they are being stopped from acting by another against their will or they are incapable of acting - due to illness, lack of capacity etc.

33
Q

Circumstances in which a duty to act will arise

A

SOCPAD

34
Q

SOC

A

Duty act under:

Statute

Public Office

Contract

35
Q

Duty to act under statute

A

Failing to stop a vehicle at the scene following a damage or injury accident - Section 170 RTA 1988

36
Q

Duty to act under public office

A

R v Dytham (1979): A public official (police officer) turned a blind eye to an assault

37
Q

Duty under contract

A

R v Pittwood (1902): A level crossing operator breached the terms of his contract by failing to shut a manual crossing

38
Q

P - Parental Relationship

A

An omission to care for a child in one’s care will breach the parental duty of care

39
Q

A - Assumption of a duty of care

A

R v Stone (1977). A mentally ill relative was taken into Stone’s home specifically to be cared for and was neglected.

40
Q

D - Dangerous situations created by the defendant

A

R v Miller (1983)

41
Q

Distinguishing Principals & Accessories

A

A person can attract criminal liability for an offence as either principal and accessory.

42
Q

Principal

A

The person who has carried out both the actus reus and the mens rea of the crime.

43
Q

Accessory

A

The person who can either aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of the offence.

44
Q

How will a court deal with principals and accessories?

A

The same.

45
Q

Aiding

A

Aiding includes either helping, supporting, giving assistance at the scene.

46
Q

Abetting

A

Abetting includes either encouraging, inciting or instigating at the scene.

47
Q

Merely passing by and watching the commission of an offence?

A

No. R v Coney (1882).

48
Q

Presence at the scene by virtue of an agreement in respect of the principle offence?

A

Yes

49
Q

Counselling

A

Counselling includes either advising or instructing the principal - prior to the commission of the offence

50
Q

Is a causal link required between the act of counselling and the commission of the offence?

A

No

51
Q

3 steps to proving counselling

A
  1. An act of counselling took place
  2. The place principal was aware of the counselling
  3. The principal went on to commit the crime
52
Q

What if the counselling has no effect on the principal’s decision whether to commit the crime?

A

Irrelevant - still guilty of counselling if the 3 steps are proven

53
Q

What is the principal had already decided to go ahead and commit the crime prior to the act of counselling?

A

Irrelevant - still guilty of counselling if the 3 steps are proven

54
Q

Procuring

A

Procuring involves the accessory assisting the principal in bringing about the offence - prior to its commission

55
Q

Is a causal link required between the act of procuring by the accessory and the commission of the offence by the principal?

A

Yes. Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975)

56
Q

Proving the causal link when the procurer is not present at the time of the commission of the offence by the principal (4 steps)

A
  1. Accessory carried out an act which in fact assisted the principal to commit the offence.
  2. At the time of providing their assistance - the accessory contemplated that the principal would go on to commit the offence.
  3. The accessory deliberately provided their assistance - being aware that their actions were capable of assisting in the commission of the offence by the principal.
  4. Accessory intended their actions to assist the principal to commit the principal.
57
Q

CAN AN ACCESSORY BE FOUND GUILTY EVEN THOUGH THE PRINCIPAL IS NOT GUILTY OF THE PRINCIPAL OFFENCE?

A

Hui Chi-mind v The Queen (1992): Yes! An accessory can be convicted - even where the principal either cannot be put on trial e.g. the principal cannot be traced) or is acquitted at trial e.g. where the principal has a defence for the principal offence

58
Q

STATE OF MIND OF ACCESSORIES

A

2 mental elements must both be present

National Coal Board v Gamble (1959)

  1. Intention to assist the principal.
  2. Knowledge of the essential matters that constitute the offence.
59
Q

Can an accessory ever withdraw from a joint venture before the principal commits the offence to avoid liability?

A

It depends…

Yes: If there is a clear withdrawal from the common purpose - before the offence is committed by the principal

No: If the accessory just bottles it at the last moment and then flees.

60
Q

WHO CANNOT BE AN ACCESSORY TO A PRINCIPAL OFFENCE?

A

Any person the law is intended to protect.

For example - a person under the age of 16 cannot be an accessory to an offence of underage sexual intercourse.

R v Tyrell (1894)

61
Q

Joint Enterprise

A

2 or more people have the common goal of embarking on the commission of an offence by either one of them, both of them or all of them, then all parties to the joint enterprise will commit the offence

62
Q

Will all members of the joint enterprise be guilty if one member mistakenly commits the offence to which the common purpose relates against the wrong victim?

A

Yes

For example: If A and B agree to assault C - and A mistakenly assaults D instead - B will still be guilty as an accomplice to the assault committed by A

63
Q

What are the consequence of the principal going beyond what was agreed or anticipated by the accessory?

A

R v Jogee (2016) & Ruddock v The Queen (2016)

Facts: A and B agree to a joint enterprise to commit a burglary. During the course of the burglary the occupier - C confronts them. A produces a knife and stabs the occupier C.

Liability of the principal A

  • A - by stabbing the victim has committed the offence of GBH

Is B liable as an accessory to the offence of GBH

  • It depends of the state of mind of B

Circumstances in which B will not be guilty of GBH

  • B will not be guilty of GBH if both: B had no idea that A had a knife and B had never contemplated that A would use violence.

Circumstances in which B will be guilty of GBH

  • B will be guilty of GBH if:
    >B knew that A had a knife
    >B had contemplated that A would use the knife
    >B encouraged A to use the knife
    >B intended to encourage A to commit the wounding offence

NIE Volume 2 (29 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions