Criminal Law Flashcards
Actus reus and mens rea
Filler
What must you have to be guilty W5P1
Actus reus - you did the guilty act. Men’s rea - you had the guilty mind. The issue with actus reus are: Was the act voluntary - Hill V Baxter Can an omission count as a guilty act - should you be guilty if you fail to do something - help someone in danger
What is actus reus P111 and 112
An act, a failure to act (omission) or a state of affairs.
State of affairs.
Conduct crimes: the ar is prohibited conduct itself - drink driving - there doesn’t need to be a consequence.
Consequence crimes - must result in a consequence.
Omission must be voluntary - Bill V Baxter. R V Mitchell
When an omission can be an actus reus 5 W5P1 P113,114 and 115
In some countries like France and Canada there is a general legal obligation to help others (Good Samaritan) A statutory duty - parents are legally responsible for a child to provide food, water, clothing and lodgings. R V Gibbins and Proctor
A contractual duty - liable if you fail to meet the conditions of their role and someone is harmed R V Pittwood.
Where your profession results in a DOC - R V Dytham
A duty which has been undertaken voluntarily- R V Stone and Dobinson.
A duty which arises because the defendant set in motion a chain of events - R V Miller
What must be proven for there to be a causation P116, W5P1
The defendants act was a factual cause of the consequence, was the legal cause of the consequence and no intervening act.
Factual causation - But for test - would the harm have happened if it wasn’t for the defendant. R V White
Legal cause - more than one contributing act - be guilty if their act was more than a minimal cause of the consequence - de minimis rule. R V Pagett
Intervening act - direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence (chain of causation). Can be broken by: act of a third party, the victims own act or a natural but unpredictable event. R V Smith and R V Jordan.
Where the defendants conduct causes a foreseeable action by a third party, then the defendant is likely to be held for the consequences.
What are intervening acts P117, 118 and 119
Novus actus interveniens ‘new intervening act’ and breaks the chain of causation. Intervening act - direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence (chain of causation). Can be broken by: act of a third party, the victims own act or a natural but unpredictable event. R V Smith and R V Jordan.
Where the defendant causes the victim to react in a foreseeable, then the injuries to the victim will be considered to have been caused by the defendant. R V Roberts 1971.
Unreasonable reaction in R V Williams and Davis 1992
What is the Thin Skull Rule P117
The defendant must take the victim as he or she finds them, it means that if the victim has something unusual about their physical or mental state that makes the injury more serious, then the defendant is liable for a more serious injury. This was shown in the case R V Blaue (1975).
Men’s rea
Filler
What are the types of mens rea W5P1
Mens rea is the mental element of an offence, prosecution has to prove it unless it’s strict liability. Intention - Mohan tells us intention is ‘achieving a desired consequence.’
Recklessness - is the lower level of mens rea, seen as realising the risk of harm, but going ahead anyway - Cunningham - confirmed that recklessness is a subjective test.
Criminal negligence - only applies to gross negligence manslaughter - Adomako - the breach of contract was so large it should be criminal not civil.
What is intention W5P1 and page 122
Mohan tells us that it’s achieving a desired consequence. The motive is irrelevant, the important point is the defendant decided to bring about the prohibited consequence.
In direct intent is when you mean to do one thing but something else happens. Need to check with Tim about oblique intent and foresight of consequence.
What is oblique/indirect intent and foresight of consequences P122
This is where the defendant intends one thing but the actual consequence that occurs is another thing. This was shown in the case R V Woollin. The problem with proving intention with foresight of consequences when the main aim was not the prohibited consequences.
What is subjective recklessness P126
The offence involved in Cunningham uses the word ‘maliciously’ to indicate the mens rea required. This meant for them to have the mens rea they must either intend or realise there was a risk of the consequence and decide to take the risk. Recklessness is sufficient for mens rea include assault and battery, ABH and malicious wounding.
What is Negligence P126 and 127
A person is negligent if they fail to meet the standards of the reasonable person, this means it’s an objective test. What the defendant intended or thought is not relevant means it’s a much lower level of fault. Not often used in criminal law but used in manslaughter such as Adamoko.
Transferred malice P132
Is the principle that the defendant can be guilty if they intended to commit a similar crime but against a different - R V Latimer.
When the mens rea is for a totally different type of offence then the defendant may not be guilty - Pembliton.
General malice and coincidence of ar and mr P132 and 133
General malice - when the defendant doesn’t have a particular individual in mind - terrorist, so the mens rea is held to apply to the actual victim.
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea - order to be guilty you must have the ar and mr at the same time. R V Thabo Meli - guilty as ar and mr were combined in a series of acts. Another case which is R V Church is similar.
Continuing act P133
When there is a continuing act for the ar and at some point while the act is going on the defendant has mr. This can be seen in Fagan V MPC.
