Criminal Law Flashcards
Strict Liability Offence
When an individual breaks the law without intending to and still be prosecuted eg: by selling items to somebody under age
List of some crimes
Theft Robbery Murder Manslaughter Fraud Bribery Blackmail Rape/Sexual Assault Sexual exploitation of children Prostitution Assault Drug dealing Piracy Vandalism
Criminal Law
A body of rules and statutes that defines conduct prohibited by the government because it threatens and harms public safety and welfare and that establishes punishment to be imposed for the commission of such acts
Retributive Justice
Focus on the punishment for the crime
Corrective justice
Liability rectifies the injustice inflicted by one person to another
Statute Law
Laid down by parliament
Common Law
Laid down by judges
Actus Reus
Refers to the alleged act itself
Mens Rea
The mental element of the act of the degree of intent
what factors can defendant’s use as a form of defence to later change the verdict to ‘not guilty’
Insanity Intoxication Duress Necessity Automatism
What happens when the defendant raises a defence
Responsibility shifts and defendant must prove that defence
Standard Burden of Proof
In criminal cases needs to be by ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the actus reus and mens rea were both there when the offence was committed.
Rules that relate to standard burden of proof in English law
It is up to the prosecution to prove the case
Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
Any reasonable doubt can be raised from either the prosecution or the defence
These rules apply to all criminal cases and must be applied to all criminal courts
Automatism
Where you are not in control of your actions via an external source
Duress
Threat and violence against someone to pressure them into doing something eg: held at gunpoint to kill someone else or you die
Necessity
Where in order to avoid a serious outcome the law is broken
Woolmington v. DPP
the problem in this case is that whereas the prosecutor is expected to prove D guilty in this case D was used to prove the killing of his wife had been an accident. Therefore woolmington was acquitted
Conduct Crime
Is where the actus reus is the prohibited conduct itself. There does not have to be a consequence
Marchant and Muntz (2003)
Not an offence because:
He had the right to be on the road with a tractor
The death was an accident
There was no action on the part of the driver that lead to the accident
State of affairs
Is where the actus reus is simply the act in itself. The mens rea does not need to be considered
R v. Larsonneur (1933)
Is a case where the defendant involuntarily enters the state of affairs
R v. Mitchell (1983)
In Mitchell we can see that there must be a chain of events where somebody is responsible for a starting point
Omission
Where you fail to do something or you can fail to act in a certain way
Statutory Duty
When an Act of Parliament creates liability when there is an omission on offence can be given for ‘failing to do something’
Examples of Statutory Duty
Failing to stop or report a traffic incident
Failure to submit a breath test
Failure to provide necessities for a child under your control
Contractual Duty
where you have a duty of care in your job eg. a lifeguard leaving his post causing someone to drown
Relationship Duty
Where either a parent or child relationship operates or the other way round such as a child caring for an elderly relative
Cases where duty has been taken on voluntarily
R v. Steve and Dobinson (1977)
R v. Evans (2009)
Dytham Case (1979)
Contractual duty as an officer to serve
R v. Miller (1983)
Had a duty to stop the fire
DPP v. Santa-Bermudez (2003
Failure to tell officer about the needle in his pocket
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)
Contractual duty as a doctor to heal and tend to the case of the patients
Factual Cause
The consequences would not have happened but for the actions of the defendant eg R v. Pagette
Legal Cause
Where there may be more than one factor involved meaning all of them have to be investigated in order to determine if there was more than a minimal case
Multiple Causes
The defendant can be guilty even if their conduct was not the only cause of the consequences
The ‘thin skull’ rule
If the victim suffers an even greater injury to their physical or mental state. In other words they suffer more than a normal person would, the defendant is liable for the injury
R v. Pagette
But for Ds actions the girlfriend wouldn’t have been shot by the police
R v. Hughes
Court decided the victim though driving under the influence of heroin was more of a cause in his own death than the driver without a full drivers license
R v. Kimsey
It was Ds driving that was the main cause of death
Intervening Acts
If something superset happens between the defendant’s conduct and the end consequence this is called the ‘break in the chain of causation’
D Injures V -> V injured in ambulance crash -> V dies
Cases relating Medical Treatment
R v. Smith (1959)
R v. Chestshire (1991)
R v. Jordan
R v. Smith
2 soldiers had a fight and 1 was stabbed. The medical staff conducted CPR on him lowering his survival rate by 75%
Proves the intervening act would not be held liable because it would not have happened but for the original act that initiated the chain of events
R v. Chestshire
V was shot by D causing him to have breathing problems requiring to have a tracheotomy. V dies from the complications.
The decision held the defendant guilty for the original act meant that it only had to be proven that D had contributed to the victims death
R v. Jordan
Victim stabbed in the stomach and the antibiotic he was given gave him an allergic reaction resulting in his death. The medical care was poor hence why it was judged as the main cause of death
Victim’s Own Act
Liability applies here when the defendant causes the victim to act In such a way that they injure themselves
R v. Roberts (1972)
A girl jumped out the car to escape Robert’s sexual advances
R v. Marjoram (2000)
Several people including D shouted abuse and kicked Vs door down. V saw no other option but to leap out of the room window resulting in severe injury
Unreasonable Reaction
If the victim reacts in a disproportionate or unreasonable way to a threat and in doing so injures or kills themselves then the chain of causation may be broken eg. R v. Williams and Davis (1992)
