Criminal Law (Actus Reus - Strict Liability)

Question 1

When can someone be liable for an omission?

Answer 1

When they have a duty to act.

Question 2

R v Pitwood

Answer 2

Contractual duty

• Failed to shut a railway crossing gate, resulted in someone’s death.

Question 3

R v Dytham

Answer 3

Misconduct in a public office

• He was required to act as he was a uniformed police officer and failed to stop the bouncer from being kicked to death

Question 4

R v Miller

Answer 4

Creating a dangerous situation/ failure to minimize harmful consequences of own act

• Fell asleep with a lit cigarette, created a small fire on the mattress, woke up and moved to another room to go back to sleep
• Didn’t put out the fire
• Owed a duty to call the fire brigade

Question 5

R v Stone & Dobinson

Answer 5

Voluntary acceptance of duty

• Fanny starved to death after D’s agreed to look after her

Question 6

R v Gibbons v Proctor

Answer 6

Special relationship
- A father and step mother were liable for the death of their child who had starved to death

Question 7

Fagan v MPC

Answer 7

Continuing act
- D drove onto a policeman’s foot and refused to move

Question 8

When will causation need to be established

Answer 8

In result based crimes, or when there is time between the act and result

Question 9

What is Factual Causation?

Answer 9

When the consequence would not have happened “but for” the D’s act

Question 10

White

Answer 10

D tried to poison his mother, she died of a heart attack before it would work
- Held: Not guilty of murder, his actions had not caused death
- Liable for attempted murder

Question 11

Pagget

Answer 11

Human shield. Used pregnant girlfriend as a human shield, was charged with manslaughter. Appealed against the conviction on the issue of causation
- Conviction upheld.
- The firing at the police officers caused them to fire back. In firing back the police officers were acting in self -defence. His using the girl as a shield caused her death.

Question 12

What is legal Causation

Answer 12

Is the D’s act the operating and substantial cause
- Does not mean it was the only cause!

Question 13

Benge

Answer 13

Defendant was the foreman of a group of plate-layers. He misread the railway timetable so that the track was up at the time the train was due. Realised his error and placed a signal man with a flag 540 yards up the line. Statutory regulation stated a distance of atleast 1000 meters. Train driver wasnt paying attention and didn’t see. Several died.
- Need not be the only cause
-In criminal law, a defendant’s actions do not need to be the only cause of the proscribed outcome. They need only be a substantial cause.

Question 14

Blaue

Answer 14

D stabbed V who was a Jehovah’s witness. She refused a blood transfusion and died as a result.
- Thin skull rule. Take the victim as you find them

Question 15

Haywood

Answer 15

D chased his wife out the house, she collapsed and died.
- Thin skull rule

Question 16

To establish Causation what can’t the chain be broken by?

Answer 16

A Novus Actus Interveniens

Question 17

Jordan

Answer 17

D stabbed V, wound was almost healed when the doctors gave him an incorrect injection and he died
- Held: Not guilty of murder as the wound was not the “operating and substantial” cause of death** as the medical treatment was “palpably wrong”
- 3rd party**

Question 18

Smith

Answer 18

D stabbed V and punctured his lung. V died and D was charged with murder. D argued he wasn’t liable as,
- On the way to the hospital he was dropped twice; Doctor failed to realize the severity of his injuries; Treatment given was poor “might well have affected his chances of recovery”
- Held: guilty - the stabbing was the “operating and substantial” cause of death

Question 19

Malcherek

Answer 19

V was attacked so badly she was put on life support. Doctors turned off the machine
- Held: D guilty of murder even though it was separate act that killed her because the wounds were still the “operating and substantial” cause

Even where doctors deliberately cause death it will not break the chain of causation

Question 20

Chesire

Answer 20

D shot V in the stomach and thigh. V was taken to hospital where he was operated on and developed breathing difficulties. Hospital gave V a tracheotomy. Several weeks later his wounds were healing and no longer life threatening, however, he continued to have breathing difficulty and died from complications arising from the tracheotomy.
- Held: D guilty of murder. 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 regard the defendant’s acts as insignificant. Since the defendant had shot the victim this could not be regarded as insignificant.

Was the act “wholly independent”

Question 21

Roberts

Answer 21

V jumped from car to avoid sexual advances from D.
- Held: D liable for injuries

A victims own act wont break the chain of causation if it is a “foreseeable and proportionate response” to the D’s action.

Question 22

Williams

Answer 22

V jumped out D’s car as D allegedly tried to rob him. V died.
- Held: Not guilty - the victims own act was a novus actus interveniens

Question 23

What is mens rea concerned with?

Answer 23

The state of mind of the defendant.

Question 24

How many levels of Mens rea are there?

Answer 24

3

Question 25

What are the levels of Mens rea?

Answer 25

• Direct intent
• Oblique intent
• Recklessness
• Negligence

Question 26

What is Direct Intent?

Answer 26

A decision to bring about, in so far as it ties within the accused power, [the prohibited consequence] no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not.

Mohan

Question 27

What is the test for oblique intent?

Answer 27

Woolin
- Was the outcome virtually certain?
- Did D realize it was virtually certain?

Intent may be inferred from the circumstances.

Question 28

Define Recklessness

Answer 28

Foresight of harm being possible

Question 29

What happens in transferred malice?

Answer 29

The mens rea is moved from the intended V to the actual V
D is guilty if they intend a similar crime against a different V.

Question 30

Latimer

Answer 30

D got into a fight in a pub with another man. D took off his belt and hit the man with the belt. The belt ricocheted off and hit a woman in the face. The mens rea he had to cause harm to the man was transferred to the woman.

Question 31

Pembilton

Answer 31

Cannot transfer from property to people

D threw stones into a crowd of people wanting to disperse the crowd. The stones smashed a window. Appealed conviction of criminal damage.
- Held: His means rea for an OAPA could not be transferred to a property offence

Question 32

Coincidence Act

Answer 32

It is a principle of English law that the actus reus and mens rea must coincide (occur at the same time)

Question 33

Fagan v MPC

Answer 33

D parked on a police mans foot and hadn’t realized. The man told D, D then refused to move his car.

Continuing act
- AR continued until he realized and then said he would not move his car (MR)

Question 34

Church/Thebo meli

Answer 34

Series of linked events

Church MR occurred when he struck the girl, however it was not until he wrapped her in a rug and threw her into a river in an attempt to dispose of the body that he actually killed her. The acts were held to be a series of linked events and so D still guilty.

Question 35

What is fault?

Answer 35

Level of blameworthiness

Question 36

What is Strict Liability?

Answer 36

A state of affairs crime. No mens rea is required at all nor does the act have to be voluntary.

Question 37

Larsonneur

Answer 37

Deported from England and held against her will to Ireland, then forcefully deported ack to England by Irish authorities. Charged with being an illegal alien.

Question 38

Winzar v CC of Kent