Criminal Law

Question 1

What are the three elements required to establish criminal liability?

Answer 1

• Actus reus
  -Mens Rea
• Absence of defence

Question 2

Actus Reus

“The actus reus of a crime comprises conduct, with or without a designated result, including the presence of any circumstances necessary for that conduct to be criminalised.”

Answer 2

Actus Reus
“The actus reus of a crime comprises conduct, with or without a designated result, including the presence of any circumstances necessary for that conduct to be criminalised.”

Question 3

Mens rea

The state of mind which is __________

Answer 3

blameworthy

Question 4

The Moral Principle of Retribution states that punishment must be _________

Answer 4

deserved.

Question 5

Utilitarian theory which states that punishment is never deserved because punishment equates to harm and two wrongs do not make a right.

Answer 5

Utilitarian theory which states that punishment is never deserved because punishment equates to harm and two wrongs do not make a right.

Question 6

Most common states of mind:

K BIRD

Answer 6

Knowledge

Belief
Intention
Recklessness
Dishonesty

Question 7

Strict Liability

Crimes which require no_____________

Answer 7

fault element

Question 8

Strict liability offences are justified as not being contrary to the principle of retribution because they are:

Answer 8

• Not social stigmatic crimes
• Cannot lead to imprisonment

Question 9

Defences

Defences block _________ even though actus reus and mens rea (the elements of the offence) are present
e.g. self-defence, insanity, consent, duress, necessity

Answer 9

criminal liability

Question 10

The two moral claims to avoid criminal liability:

__________

The act of punishing the accused would be _________ because they were deprived of “the capacity or a fair opportunity to conform” to the prohibition” (Hart, Punishment and responsibility, 1968)
e.g. duress and insanity

Answer 10

Excuses……. unfair

Question 11

The two moral claims to avoid criminal liability:

______________

Special circumstances block the accused from criminal liability even though the definition of the act is satisfied
e.g. self-defence, necessity

Answer 11

Justifications

Question 12

For a defence to be valid, not only must the accused have a good reason to act in the particular way, they must also be ______________

Answer 12

acting for that reason

Question 13

The Golden thread rule was establish in what case?

Answer 13

Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462

Question 14

Explain the Golden thread rule established in Woolmington V DPP

Answer 14

There is a “golden thread” running through English common law which presumes the innocence of the accused until proven guilty by the prosecution. This burden of proof remains the onus of the prosecution even for disproving defences raised by the accused- the accused need only raise a defence of excuse or justification, they need not prove it.

Question 15

When analyzing an offence for the criminal elements, which element should you look for first?

Answer 15

Consider first what is the mens rea, the blameworthy state of mind- what ever is left is the actus reus

Question 16

Actus Reus- conduct

Identifies the conduct which the criminal law considers ________

Answer 16

harmful

Question 17

Actus Reus

• Prohibits certain___________
• Defines any _______ necessary to render that conduct wrongful
• Prohibits causing certain __________ under certain circumstances

Answer 17

conduct…….. circumstances…. results..

Question 18

True or false?

England has no general duty to act

Answer 18

True

Question 19

Duty to act arises only very specific set of circumstances:

1. The conduct element of the crime in question must be capable of commission by omission.
2. The circumstances must be such as to create a legal duty for the defendant to act.
3. The defendant’s failure to act must be in breach of that duty.
4. The defendant’s failure to act must be voluntary.
5. The harm must be caused by the omission.

Answer 19

Duty to act arises only very specific set of circumstances:
1. The conduct element of the crime in question must be capable of commission by omission.
2. The circumstances must be such as to create a legal duty to act.
3. The defendant’s failure to act must be in breach of that duty.
4. The defendant’s failure to act must be voluntary.
5. The harm must be caused by the omission.

Question 20

When duty to act arises?

• Statutory duty e.g. s1, Children and Young Persons Act 1933
• Continuing acts
  e.g. fagan
• Creating a dangerous situation
  E,g, Miller
• Voluntary assumption of duty
  e,g, Stony and Dobinson Instan
• Contractual
  e.g. Pittwood
• Public Office/Medical duty
  e.g. Dytham
• Special relationship e.g. Lowe

Answer 20

When duty to act arises?

• Statutory duty e.g. s1, Children and Young Persons Act 1933
• Continuing acts
  e.g. fagan
• Creating a dangerous situation
  E,g, Miller
• Voluntary assumption of duty
  e,g, Stony and Dobinson Instan
• Contractual
  e.g. Pittwood
• Public Office/Medical duty
  e.g. Dytham
• Special relationship e.g. Lowe

Question 21

Legal and moral duties?

Conventional view

• Primary aim of criminal law to prevent wrong doing – imposing duty to act extends fundamental scope of criminal law
• Active wrongdoing is morally more culpable than failure to act
• Autonomy and liberty infringed by imposition to act

Answer 21

Legal and moral duties?

Conventional view

• Primary aim of criminal law to prevent wrong doing – imposing duty to act extends fundamental scope of criminal law
• Active wrongdoing is morally more culpable than failure to act
• Autonomy and liberty infringed by imposition to act

Question 22

Legal and moral duties?

Social responsibility view

• No practical difference between consequences of acts /omissions
• Wider issues on how we relate to each other
• Collective good outweigh the imposition on liberty

Answer 22

Legal and moral duties?

Question 23

Three types of causation?

Answer 23

Causation in fact
Causation in law
Novus actus interveniens

Question 24

But for test

R v White 1910

Would the result have occurred ‘but for’ the conduct of the accused?

Answer 24

But for test

R v White 1910

Would the result have occurred ‘but for’ the conduct of the accused?

Question 25

Causation

Was D’s act/omission a ‘substantial and operating’ cause of V’s death?:

Benge (1865) 4 F & F 504

Answer 25

XX

Question 26

Causation

D’s act/omission need not be the sole cause, as long as it ‘contributes significantly’:

Pagett (1963) 75 Cr App R 279

Answer 26

xx

Question 27

Novus actus interveniens (NAI) or new intervening acts can be divided into

• Third party interventions
• Victim interventions
• Naturally occurring events interventions (rare)

Answer 27

xx

Question 28

NAI Medical Interventions

Key case: R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844

Intervening medical treatment could only be regarded as excluding the responsibility of the defendant if it was so independent of the defendant’s act and so potent in causing the death, that the jury regarded the defendant’s acts as insignificant.

Answer 28

xx

Question 29

Victim interventions

The victim can break the chain of causation if the act breaking the causation is unforeseen by D and unforeseeable by a REASONABLE person n

(R v Roberts [1972] 5 Cr App R; Dear [1996] Crim LR 595

If the victims actions are voluntary, i.e. free, deliberate, and informed, unlike to amount to an intervention

Answer 29

xx