Criminal Law Flashcards
All criminal offenses start in what court?
Magistrates court. More serious offenses then progress to the Crown Court.
Actus Reus
physical act
Ex:
The actus reus for murder is causing the death of another human being
Mens Rea
Mental state
Ex:
The mens Rea for murder is intention to kill or cause great bodily harm
A criminal offense almost always requires…
Proof of a physical act (actus reas) and a mental state (mens rea) and that the act and mental state occurred at the same time (happen concurrently)
What are the three elements of actus reas
Conduct
Physical acts or omissions by the defendant that make the defendant liable for the offense
Circumstances
Sacs that must exist for a defendant to be liable
Result
What must occur for the offense to be committed
What are the three requirements for an omission to constitute as a crime
- Law must state the omission is capable of being illegal conduct
- there must be a duty owed by the defendant to act
- defendant must have breached that duty by failing to act or acting in a way that does not fulfill the requirements of the duty
You will need to act in a number of circumstances including
- special relationship e.g. parent- child or doctor-patient
- Defendant voluntarily assumed a duty of care for the victim
- where duty is imposed by contract, such as passenger Railway guard
- where the defendant created a dangerous situation and is aware of having done so
- possession of a thing (weapon or drug)
- placing oneself in a situation (eg being a member of a terrorist organization)
For an omission to be a criminal act there must be a…
Duty to act
no good Samaritan law requiring people to help others in trouble. Therefore, Defendant not liable for the failure to help or rescue another person unless he has a duty to do so no matter how easy it would have been to provide help.
Certain circumstances must exist for an offense to be committed.
Ex. A defendant who damages a car commits the offense of criminal damage only if the car belongs to someone else
Do not jump to a conclusion just because a person burn down the house or damaged a car. Make sure the damage property belong to someone else. A person is free to damage his own property
Some criminal offenses require a result.
For all result crimes, such as murder, the defendant must have caused the result specified within the offense. To analyze this the court will look at both…
Factual causation
But for test. Did the results occur because of the defendants conduct? Ex: for murder, The victim would not have died but for the conduct of the defendant.
Acceleration of result
more than one cause or defendant’s action slightly accelerates the results, that is enough for causation. Ex: B is suffering from a disease. A poisons B’s food which causes B to die a day earlier than B would have died but for the poison. A would be guilty of murder as the poisoning accelerated B’d death.
Ex: both A and C each poison B’s food. B dies. The doctors do not know which poison accelerated B’a death. Both A and C guilty of murder.
Legal causation
This element is used to prevent the factual causation test from being too broad. It prevents a conviction where factual causation (but for) is met, but other facts, such as lack of foreseeability, would make such a conviction unfair.
Ex: A breaks window by throw football. B cuts hand on broken window, causes B to contract blood poisoning and dies. Not for seeable that kicking a football would cause B’s death. Although A is factually responsible for the death, the lack of foreseeability breaks the chain of causation
In order for the defendants action to be a legal cause, the action must be
Substantial and operative
Substantial: descendants acts/role must be more than minimal, slight or trifling
Operative: another person cannot intervene with the defendants act and the results
Ex: C joins in the fight drawing a knife and stabbing B in the heart resulting in B’s death. C’e actions were free, deliberate, and informed so will break the chain of causation.
What is the egg shell school principal
Defendant causing more damage than would be expected because of the vulnerabilities of the victim does not negate causation the defendant will still be responsible.
Defendant will still be liable if a victim suffering greater harm because they refuse medical treatment on religious grounds. This will not break the chain of causation.
Defendant takes their victim as they find them.
What is the difference between motive and intent?
Intent is the state of mind that exists at the time of the offense. This makes the D ‘guilty’
Motive will only provide evidence that d might have intent but motive in and out of itself is not an element of any offense in English law.
What is specific intent
Offenses that cannot be committed recklessly and require intention at the time of commission.
Theft requires intent to permanently deprive = specific intent
These offenses cannot conclude the intent based only on the mere doing of the act. But the manner in which The crime was committed can be used as evidence of intent.
Ex placing the can of beans in jacket pocket versus in basket, seee friend outside the shop and runs to say hello and forgets to pay
Adding “attempted” to a crime that can be committed either with intention or recklessly must still show
Specific intent
“Attempted” added to x crime requires showing specific intent.
The person being charged with any kind of “attempted” x crime, must have had intention at the time to be found guilty. Attempt” requires there to have actually been specific intent.
Ex:
Criminal damage can be committed with intention or just recklessly.
But the charge of “attempted” criminal damage requires to show specific intent. Need to show they intended it in order for the charge “attempted” criminal damage.
Oblique intent
Prosecution cannot prove the defendant intended to commit an act the court may imply such an intent if it would be virtually certain.
Rare and applies only in cases which recklessness is not available as a form of mens rea (mental) such as in murder.
For oblique intent to arise, the result of a descendant’s act must be:
- virtually certain consequence of conduct
- defendant realizes it as being virtually certain
-jury must find the realization amounts to an intention
Ex: firing bullet into a crowd to scare away people from an area. If someone is shot and killed in the process, The shooter could be virtually certain that death or serious injury would have occurred. Therefore they have oblique intention to kill or cause serious harm and would be guilty of murder.
What is transferred malice
Defendant has intention to commit an offense against one victim, but inadvertently commits the offense against a different victim, the intent is then transferred to the new victim.
Ex: abby laces Bob’s tea with poison intending to kill him. Cathy drinks the tea instead and dies. Abby is still guilty of murder even though she did not intend to kill Cathy. Abby’s intent to kill Bob is transferred to Cathy
True or false
A person guilty of a crime on the basis of transferred malice is usually guilty of two crimes
True
The contemplated crime against the actual victim and attempt against the intended victim. Therefore in the poison tea example Abby is guilty of murdering Kathy but also is guilty of attempting to murder Bob.
Malice can only be transferred where…
The intended offense is the same as the one committed.
Abby throws a rock at Bob, intending to hit Bob with the rock, Abby intended to commit assault. If the rock misses Bob and accidentally hits a window, the offense actually committed is criminal damage. Cannot use the result of the criminal Dans seas intent for assault. It is not possible to transfer the mens rea from the intended offense to the committed offense, as they are different types of offenses with different mens rea requirements.
Compare
A shoots at B intending to kill B, but misses and hits and kills C. Transferred malice can operate so that the mens rea of A (intention to kill B) can be transferred to the killing of C. Consequently A is liable for the murder of C, despite the fact that he did not actually intend to kill C.
For recklessness a defendant must
- foresee the risk (did THIS defendant foresee a risk?). Subjective.
- unreasonable risk to take (would a reasonable person have run this risk?). Objective. In all circumstances known to the defend it it must be an unreasonable risk to take.
Note:
If the defendant sees any risk, the first part is satisfied. The extent of the risk is largely irrelevant.
Ex: abby and her 11-year-old son Billy decide to set fire to some newspaper. The fire spreads to a building causing it damage. Abby foresaw the risk from setting the fire, but took it anyway. A reasonable person would not have run such a risk. Abby would be guilty of arson. Billy being much younger did not foresee any risk so would not be guilty.
What is required to prove negligence
The court will ask
- did the defendant owe aduty of care and
- did the defendant breach the standard of care expected?
Note, standard will be defined by statute and in others by common law. Always an objective standard, reasonable person.
Ex: while driving, Abby gets distracted while changing the radio. She smashes into the back of another car. Abby owes a duty of care to other road users and has fallen below the standard of the ‘competent and careful driver’, she will be guilty of careless driving.
What is a strict liability offense
No mental state is required. No defenses to negate the state of mind such as mistake a fact are not available.
Ex
Driving car thinking they are insured by their spouse but they are not. Still guilty of offense of driving without insurance bc strict liability offense
What intent is required for the crime of assault
Intention or recklessness in causing the apprehension of inflicting immediate and unlawful force
What intent is required for a battery
Intention or recklessness regarding applying unlawful contact
What is the intent required for wounding or causing GBH
Intention or recklessness regarding causing some bodily harm
What intent is required for a criminal damage
Intention or recklessness regarding whether a property belongs to another person and whether it is damaged or destroyed
What is a principal offender
Person who commits the act and has a mental state at the same time