Criminal Conduct Flashcards
If a person was shoved into a shop window and they caused damage due to an involuntary act. Can they be convicted
No
Can cramp or sleepwalking render actions involuntary
Yes
If a person is prove to blackouts and they drive - Will a blackout in this case be an unvoluntary action
No - A willed action as they are aware they are prone to blackouts.
If X posiens Y with the intent to kill them, will it alter their liability if they later change their mind and do everything they can to save them
No - The completed the actus reas with the required mens rea
If a person is told to pull over by a Police officer, and accedntly runs over his foot. However on realising decides to leave the vehicle parked on his foot - Is this an assault
Yes at the point where he decides to leave the vehicle parked on his foot, the required Mens Rea catches up with the (at the time - accidential) Actus Reas
Criminal Conduct is often associate with actions but occasionally liability is brought by failure to act - When are those cases
DUTY
D - Dangerous Act - i.e a person started a fire in a house to keep warm - When the fire got out of control the person failed to act leaving to go into the next room.
U - Under Statute - i.e a crossing guard failing to close the gate on a level crossing - which cause injury.
A Police officer failing to intervene during an assault.
A driver in an injury RTC failing to stop.
T - Taken it upon themselves. i.e a person volunteered to be the carer for a disabled person. Then upon volunteering could not be bothered leaving the disabled person to die.
Y - Youn person i.e the person is in a parental responsibility for a young person they have an obligation to look after the health and welfare of the person but they fail to do so.
Whether or not there is a sufficient proximity between the defendant and the victim will be a ……
question of law
in relation to an omission what must the prosecution prove about the act..
That there was a failue to act.
An ommision because someone else prevented it (kidnap) or a limitation on their behalf (they can’t swim so therefore coulnd not stop someone drowning)
In order to prove a causual link - what is it important to prove. That the offence would not have occured ….
but for the act
i.e driver collides with vehicle pushing it onto a level crossing. The train driver then hits the vehicle killing the driver.
The train would not have hit the vehicle but for the inital collision.
If a person drops a friend off at a house knowing that he was going to shoot someone and then some 13 hours later the person goes on to shoot that person.. is there a a chain of causation
yes
The chain of causation can be broken by a new act as long as the new act is
free , deliberate and informed.
If a drug dealer supplied a user drugs - the drug user then went on to self administer and overdose - would the dealer be liable for the murder/manslaughter of the user
No - The supply of drugs is a criminal offence - However, the user went on to complete a free, deliberate and informed act of taking the drugs.
If medical treatment is the new act that causes death - Will this normaly be recorded as an intervieining act
No - unless the medical treatment amounts to malpractice.
If a person has a very thin skull and the defendant only flicks the persons head - put causes a bleed which results in death. Could they be liable for manslaughter
Yes - This is the defendants bad luck.
The defendant must take the victim as they find them
Will it break the causal link if the victim of an assault refuses a blood transfusion on religious grounds
No
