Criminal Conduct Flashcards
offences of strict liability
do not require proof of any mens rea
How can the actus reus be committed?
General rule: via positive act
Exception: via an omission to act - but only where there is a breach of a duty of care
Voluntary actions only
The actus reus must be committed voluntarily, i.e. the act or omission must be under a person’s own free will.
Involuntary actions
No liability
A physical compulsion to act
A pushes B and B accidentally clashes head with C - breaking C’s nose. B will not have committed assault
A sudden lose of control
A loss of self-control that is both sudden and unexpected, e.g. cramp, blackout
Forseeable involuntary acts
no defence
Consequences if an involuntary act is forseeable?
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
Establishing a causal link
prove a causal link between the act/omission and the relevant consequrnce
The “but for” test
“But for the defendant’s act or omission would the consequence have arisen?”
Does the act/omission need to be the sole cause of the consequence?
No, it just needs to be the operating and substantial (main) cause of the consequence
The Eggshell Skull Rule
Take the victim as you find them
R v Harvey (2010)
Threw remote > ruptured weak neck artery > death
R v Watson (1989)
Burglary > Frail - 87 > Heart attack > Death
R v Mckechnie (1992)
Stomach ulcer > Brain damage in assault - preventing surgery on the ulcer > stomach ulcer ruptures > death
When will an intervening act break the chain of causation?
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
Breaking the chain of causation
initial act/omission>intervening act relevant consequence
Accepted medical practice for treating injuries - chain not broken
R v Smith (1959) - Assault causing injuries > accepted treatment > injuries from attack cause death
Treatment that is wholly inconsistent with accepted medical practice - chain is broken
Treat will break the chain of causation. R v Jordan (1956): stabbed > drug treatment>drug caused death
Anticipated actions by the victim
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
Daft voluntary actions by the victim
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))
Will a victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment on the grounds of their religious beliefs breaks the chain of causation?
No. R V Blaue (1975): Assault causing injuries> Transfusion refused on religious grounds> Injuries from attack cause death
Addict self-administers - addict breaks the chain of causation - No manslaughter
R v Kennedy (2007): Dealer supplies> Addict self administers (main cause of death> chain broken > addict overdoses
Dealer helps to administer - chain present - manslaughter
R v Dias (2001): Dealer supplies > Dealer helps to administer (main cause of death) chain present > Addict overdoses
WHEN WILL AN INTERVENING ACT BREAK THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION
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.
Voluntary self-administration post supply
Will break the chain of causation. R v Dalby (1982) & R v Kennedy (2007)
Assisting in the administration of the drug
No break in the chain of causation - chain of causation is maintained and liability established. R v Dias (2001) & R v Rogers (2005)
Tricking the victim as to the purpose of providing the intoxicant
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.
The court of appeal, distinguished the case of R v Kennedy.
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.
CAN AN ACT OF GOD CONSTUTUTE AN INTERVENING ACT?
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.
When will liability for an omission to act arise?
Liability for omissions will arise where a person is both under a duty to act and they have voluntarily failed to act
Involuntary omissions
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.
Circumstances in which a duty to act will arise
SOCPAD
SOC
Duty act under:
Statute
Public Office
Contract
Duty to act under statute
Failing to stop a vehicle at the scene following a damage or injury accident - Section 170 RTA 1988
Duty to act under public office
R v Dytham (1979): A public official (police officer) turned a blind eye to an assault
Duty under contract
R v Pittwood (1902): A level crossing operator breached the terms of his contract by failing to shut a manual crossing
P - Parental Relationship
An omission to care for a child in one’s care will breach the parental duty of care
A - Assumption of a duty of care
R v Stone (1977). A mentally ill relative was taken into Stone’s home specifically to be cared for and was neglected.
D - Dangerous situations created by the defendant
R v Miller (1983)
Distinguishing Principals & Accessories
A person can attract criminal liability for an offence as either principal and accessory.
Principal
The person who has carried out both the actus reus and the mens rea of the crime.
Accessory
The person who can either aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of the offence.
How will a court deal with principals and accessories?
The same.
Aiding
Aiding includes either helping, supporting, giving assistance at the scene.
Abetting
Abetting includes either encouraging, inciting or instigating at the scene.
Merely passing by and watching the commission of an offence?
No. R v Coney (1882).
Presence at the scene by virtue of an agreement in respect of the principle offence?
Yes
Counselling
Counselling includes either advising or instructing the principal - prior to the commission of the offence
Is a causal link required between the act of counselling and the commission of the offence?
No
3 steps to proving counselling
- An act of counselling took place
- The place principal was aware of the counselling
- The principal went on to commit the crime
What if the counselling has no effect on the principal’s decision whether to commit the crime?
Irrelevant - still guilty of counselling if the 3 steps are proven
What is the principal had already decided to go ahead and commit the crime prior to the act of counselling?
Irrelevant - still guilty of counselling if the 3 steps are proven
Procuring
Procuring involves the accessory assisting the principal in bringing about the offence - prior to its commission
Is a causal link required between the act of procuring by the accessory and the commission of the offence by the principal?
Yes. Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975)
Proving the causal link when the procurer is not present at the time of the commission of the offence by the principal (4 steps)
- Accessory carried out an act which in fact assisted the principal to commit the offence.
- At the time of providing their assistance - the accessory contemplated that the principal would go on to commit the offence.
- The accessory deliberately provided their assistance - being aware that their actions were capable of assisting in the commission of the offence by the principal.
- Accessory intended their actions to assist the principal to commit the principal.
CAN AN ACCESSORY BE FOUND GUILTY EVEN THOUGH THE PRINCIPAL IS NOT GUILTY OF THE PRINCIPAL OFFENCE?
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
STATE OF MIND OF ACCESSORIES
2 mental elements must both be present
National Coal Board v Gamble (1959)
- Intention to assist the principal.
- Knowledge of the essential matters that constitute the offence.
Can an accessory ever withdraw from a joint venture before the principal commits the offence to avoid liability?
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.
WHO CANNOT BE AN ACCESSORY TO A PRINCIPAL OFFENCE?
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)
Joint Enterprise
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
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?
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
What are the consequence of the principal going beyond what was agreed or anticipated by the accessory?
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
