Criminal Law Flashcards
What is the criminal burden of proof
Beyond reasonable doubt
What is the actus reus of a crime and what are the 4 actus reus’s
The guilty act
An act - eg stealing
A state of affairs - eg possessing a weapon
Result - eg murder
A failure to act- eg an omission
What is the mens Rea of a crime
The guilty mind- intention
What is a key case for ‘ACT’ and its legal principle
HILL V BAXTER 1958
- D drove across junction, ignoring sign, and hit another car. He claimed he was in a confused state of mind and had no recollection of the accident.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: guilty however the judge established that if D was in a state of automatism e.g having a stroke while driving - involuntary - he may have been found not guilty
What is a key case for ‘state of affairs’ and its legal principle
WINZAR V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF KENT 1983
- police were called to remove D who was intoxicated inside a hospital. They placed him outside and then charged him with being intoxicated on the highway.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
Defendant was not voluntarily on highway however offence does not require explanation, just proof of intoxication was enough
What are the 6 types of omissions
Contractual duty
Professional duty
Duty to advert dangerous situation of ones own making
Voluntary care
Duty from special relationship
Statutory duties
What is an omission by contractual duty and give a key case
- if you don’t do what is in your contract and someone is harmed, you are guilty of causing the harm .
KEY CASE: R V PITWOOD 1902
- D was employed by railway company to operate the gate, he opened the gate to allow a cart to pass and failed to close it then went on his lunch break. During this absence, a horse and a cart crossed and were hit and killed by the passing train
What is omission by professional duty and give a key case
If you do not do what is in your professional duty and someone is harmed, you are guilty of causing the harm.
KEY CASE: R V DYTHAM 1979
D was a policeman who stood by while victim was thrown out of nightclub and was subsequently kicked to death. D took no steps to intervene and told a bystander he was going off duty. D was found guilty of misconduct in a public office
What is an omission by voluntary care and a key case for it
If you volunteer to take care of someone the you are liable for any failure to take good care if they are harmed
Key case : R V STONE AND DOBINSON 1917
- stone was 67- blind and partially deaf, low IQ and no sense of smell. Stone’s sister had mental issues and suffered from anorexia nervosa. Stone and dobinson offered to care for her. SS was found dead in bed in appalling conditions.
What is an omission by duty to advert a situation of ones own making and give a case
If you create a dangerous situation the you are liable for any failure to stop the situation you’ve created.
KEY CASE : R V MILLER 1983
D was squatter who spent night drinking then went to his property. He lit a cigarette and fell asleep and when he woke up he ignored the fire and went to sleep in another room. D was convicted of arson
What is omission by duty from a special relationship and give a key case
Parents will be guilty if their failure to car for their children causes harm
KEY CASE: R V GIBBINS AND PROCTOR 1918
Daughter died of starvation. GIBBINS was the father and proctor was the mistress. Proctor hated the child and abused her. G left daughter with P knowing this and paid her for the service of looking after her. He claimed he believed the child was being looked after. They were both convicted of murder
What are the two type of offences
Result crime
Murder, gbh, wounding with intent
Conduct crimes
Theft, speeding, dangerous driving
What is factual causation
Causation using the ‘but for’ test.
But for the defendants action, would the criminal consequence have occurred?
Give two key cases for factual causation
R v white 1910
-defendant attempted to poison mother but she died of an unrelated heart attack.
R v Padgett 1983
-Defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at armed policeman and they fired back and killed the girlfriend
What is legal causation?
Defendants actions must be a significant contribution or have been a substantial and operative cause
-The defendants actions do not need to be the only or main cause of harm- this is known as the ‘ de minimis’ rule (defendants actions were more than minimal cause of the result)
-then needs to be a direct link in the chain of causation from the defendants original act to the resulting injury of the victim
What is novus actus interveniens
A new intervening act which may break the chain of causation and the defendant will not be criminally liable anymore
Give three key cases for legal causation
R v huges 2013
-defendant was uninsured and didn’t have a full driving license. While driving, he crashed into the victim who was under the influence of heroin, the victim leader died of their injuries.
R v jordan 1956
-The victim was stabbed in the stomach. In hospital, he was healing well. He was then given an antibiotic which he was allergic to the doctor then stopped the use of this antibiotic. However the next day another doctor ordered a large dose of the antibiotic. The victim died from allergic reaction and the doctor was the intervening act
What are the five things that can break the chain of causation?
- A third-party intervention.
- Actions of the victim.
- Poor medical treatment.
- Conditions of the victim.
- Natural event or disaster.
How does third party intervention break the chain of causation?
The question to ask is ‘ did the third-party act unreasonably or unforeseeably?’ if yes then chain is broken.
R v pagget
What is actions of the victim in breaking the chain of causation?
-The victim can break the chain of causation if they do something unreasonable or unforeseeable
Key case - r v William and Davis 1992
-The victim was a hitchhiker on the way to Glastonbury. He jumped out of the car due to fear of being robbed and he was killed.
What is poor medical treatment in breaking the chain of causation?
-Hospitals can break the chain of causation only if there is palpably incompetent medical treatment
Key Case- r v Cheshire
-the defendant and victim were involved in a heated argument. The defendant shot the victim twice and the injuries were severe and after extensive surgery, the victim remained in intensive care and then a tracheotomy tube. The victim later died of complications associated with the tracheotomy tube and the gunshot wound was no longer life threatening by this point
What is the conditions of the victim in breaking the chain of causation?
This is referred to as the thin skull rule
If the victim has a pre-existing condition and suffers motivate injuries than the average person, then the defendant is still fully liable . This also includes beliefs of the victim for example refusing treatment due to religious beliefs
Key case- r v Hayward 1908
-Defendant chased wife down the road making threats in an argument she fell and was kicked. She died.
-post-mortem found she had an undiagnosed pre-existing gland condition that was the cause of death following the physical exertion of running away from the defendant
What is natural event or disaster in the chain of causation
-an act of God can intervene and break the chain of causation
-The test is whether it is so significant and unforeseeable that it becomes the operating cause
What are the three types of mens rea
Direct intention
Oblique intention
Recklessness
What is direct intention and give a key case
The defendant intended the specific consequences to occur- it was the defendants aim, purpose or desire
R v Mohan 1975
-defendant was told to stop driving by a police officer, he slowed down but at last minute accelerated.
What is oblique intention and give a key case
Consequence was not the intended result
R v woolin 1998
- d intended to throw his baby into the pram but missed and the baby hit the wall, fractured its skull and died
What is the 2 part test for oblique intention
- Was the consequence a virtual certainty of defendants actions
- Did defendant know it was a virtual certainty
What is recklessness and give an example
Defendant knows there’s a risk of consequence from his actions however continued with his actions nonetheless
R v Cunningham 1957
-d broke into gas meter intending to steal money, gas seeped into neighbouring houses and harmed them
What is transfer malice
The principle of transferred maile applied to cases where a defendant commits the actus reus of a criminal offence against a victim that was not their intended victim.
The principle operates to move the mens rea from the intended victim
What are 2 principles of transfer malice
- Where the defendant commits an offence and no harm comes to the intended victim but an unintended victim is harmed
- Where an additional victim is harmed by the actions of the defendant
Give 4 cases of transfer malice.
R v Mitchell (1983)
The defendant tried to jump the queue at a Post Office. An elderly man took issue with this and challenged him. The defendant pushed him (intended victim. The man fell Jack onto others in the queue includina an elderly lady (unintended victim who tell and broke her leg. She later died. The defendant was found quilty of manslaughter
Legal principle: There was is requirement that the unlawful act be directed at the intended victim.
R v gnango 2011
R v Latimer (1886)
D hit a man in the pub with a belt. The belt bounce off the man and hit a woman in the face.
Guilty
Legal principle: D was guilty of assault to the woman despite intending no harm to her. Transfer of malice.
R v Pembliton (1874)
R was having a fight and threw a stone at the group of people he was fighting with. The stone missed them and broke a window. The intention to hit people could not be transferred to the window.
What is the coincidence rule and what are the two versions of the coincidence rule
The rule that judges use when the AR and MR appear not to occur at the same time
• If judges didn’t use the coincidence rule the D would not be guilty
• The judge is looking for a point when they did coincide
• Continuing act (refers to Actus Reus)
• Series of events (single transaction principle) (refers to mens rea
The continuing act
A defendant may commit an actus reus of an offence without realising. Subsequently they realise and continue regardless.
A defendant in theory could claim that by the time the mens rea kicked in the actus reus had stopped a therefore isn’t guilty of an offence.
This is where the continuing act comes into play. The principle states that the actus reus isn’t complete when it is undertaken but can continue. At some point the mens rea and actus reus will meet (coincide) and this establishes a guilty outcome.
What is a case for continuing act
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968)
Mr Fagan accidentally drove his car onto a policeman’s foot.
When the policeman asked him to move his car, he refused and switched off the engine. He did later reverse.
Series of events and case study
What is a strict liability offence
do not require a mens rea - they are complete when the defendant commits the actus reus. This means that a defendant who did not intend to commit such a crime is still guilty of it no matter how careful he has tried to be. Almost all strict liability offences are statutory in origin.
2 strict liability offences
Callow v Tillstone (1900)
Facts: The defendant was a butcher who asked a vet to check whether or not a carcass was fit for human consumption. The vet said it was fit for sale but he had been negligent and in fact, the meat was unfit.
The supply of medicines is carefully regulated. It is an offence under s58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 that you can’t provide certain drugs without a prescription.
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986)
D was a pharmacist who was given forged prescriptions. He had no idea they were fakes.
Guilty
Legal principle: the actus reus supply drugs without a rescription was met voluntarily by D.
What is absolute liability and give 2 cases
With absolute liability the offence requires no MR and there is no need to prove that D’s AR was voluntary.
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)
Facts: Police were called to removed an intoxicated defendant from hospital. The police placed the defendant outside the hospital and charged him with being drunk on the highway.
Guilty
Legal principle: Whilst the defendant wasn’t voluntarily on the highway (the police put him there). The offence requires proof of drunkeness on a highway as a fact and nothing more.
R v Larsonneur (1933)
Facts: D had been ordered to leave the UK. She went to Ireland but was arrested there and brought back to the UK.
Guilty
Legal principle: Aliens Order 1920 set out that anyone asked to leave and found in the UK was guilty. Alien is a very old fashioned term.
3 strict liability cases
DPP v Collins (2006)
Facts: The defendant left messages on his MPs answer phone using racist language. He was charged under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003 of ‘intentionally sending a grossly offensive message’.
Held: The House of Lords held that the defendant only needed to intend to send the message. The fact that it was ‘grossly offensive’ was strict liability. It did not matter whether the defendant intended the message to be grossly offensive
Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)
Facts: The defendant was a landlord who was accused of an offence under the Licensing Act when he sold alcohol to someone who was already drunk. The defendant did not know that the person was drunk.
Held: It was held to be a strict liability offence. Other parts of the statute included mens rea words but the relevant section did not. The courts therefore presumed that Parliament had not required the defendant to possess mens rea before he could be convicted.
B v DPP (2000)
Facts: The 15 year old defendant was charged under s.1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 of ‘inciting a child under the age of 14 to commit an act of gross indecency. The defendant asked a 13 year old girl to perform oral sex on him. The defendant said he thought the girl was older.
Held: Considering the serious nature of this offence, the House of Lords held that the crime required a mens rea and quashed his conviction.
The Indecency with Children Act 1960 has since been re-drafted in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Many of the sections in the new Act remain strict liability.
What is a regulatory offence
If the offence is not one where a moral issue may be a stake, then the courts are more willing to dispense with the need for a mens rea. Such offences include food regulations where the penalties are small and the removal of the requirement to prove mens rea makes them much easier to enforce.
3 regulatory offences cases
Smedleys v Breed (1974)
Facts: The defendants were convicted when a caterpillar was found in a tin of peas produced in their factory. They had taken all reasonable precautions to avoid contamination.
Held: Despite this, the House of Lords upheld their conviction.
Harrow LBC v Shah (1999)
Facts: A shop owner was held liable when an employee sold a lottery ticket to someone under 16.
Held: The assistant had reasonably thought the customer to be above the age limit but despite this, the conviction stood.
R v Bosher (1973)
Facts: The defendant was convicted of driving whilst disqualified. His defence was that he believed his disqualification had ended especially in light of the fact that his licence had been sent back to him.
Held: Despite his reasonable belief, he was convicted.
