Criminal law: AR/MR Flashcards
What is the legal burden of proof in criminal liability?
On prosecution to prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt and (mostly) disprove all defences
EXCEPT D must prove on balance of probabilities for:
Diminished responsibility
Insanity
Duress
Except falls on D to prove on balance of probabilities for diminished responsibility, insanity, and duress.
What is the evidential burden of proof?
On prosecution to provide sufficient evidence to show there’s a case to answer
EXCEPT D has evidential burden to raise via entering witness box and giving details (& pros must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt):
Loss of control
Self defence
Alibi
D has evidential burden to raise loss of control, self-defence, and alibi.
What are the three components to establish criminal liability?
- Guilty conduct (actus reus)
- Guilty state of mind (mens rea)
- Absence of valid defence
Define actus reus.
The elements of an offence that do not relate to the state of mind of the defendant.
What may AR consist of/types of crime?
Act (or failure to) (conduct crimes)-conduct must mostly be voluntary
Consequences flowing from Ds conduct (result crimes)
The existence of circumstances at time of Ds conduct(circumstances/state of affairs crimes)
What is the general rule regarding omissions in criminal law?
No criminal liability for omission to act.
What are the exceptions to the general rule on omissions?
- Statutory offences
- Common law offences where duty to act is recognized:
Contract
Special relationship ( family ties or D assumed duty to V)
Creation of dangerous situation and D is aware of it, are under duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm occurring (reasonable depends on circumstances)
AR: elements of causation?
Factual Causation
Legal Causation
Chain not broken by new intervening events
AR: What is factual causation?
But for the defendant’s conduct, would the result have occurred as and when it did?
AR: What is legal causation?
Defendant’s conduct must be a substantial and operating cause of the consequence:
□ Consequence must be attributable to a culpable act or omission
□ The culpable act must be more than a minimal cause of the consequence
□ Culpable act need not be the sole cause
□ Egg shell skull
AR: What does the principle of ‘egg shell skull’ refer to?
The defendant must take their victim as they find them.
AR: What will break the chain of causation?
- Victim acts after initial act/omission but before consequence and intervention is free deliberate and informed (vol)
- Unforeseeable events/acts of god
- Daft/voluntary escapes
- Third party intervention if free, deliberate and informed OR not reasonably foreseeable
AR: what might break the chain of causation?
Victims suicide (wont if was reasonably foreseeable result of injuries)
AR What wont break the chain of causation
Medical negligence (usually-wont of original injury was still operating at time of death/will if it is so independent of Ds actions and so potent in causing death that it makes the contribution of the accused acts insignificant )
Reasonably foreseeable escapes (that are not free, deliberate and informed)
5 Types of MR
- Direct intention
- Indirect intention
- Recklessness
- Negligence
- Strict liability offences
MR: What constitutes direct intention?
Was the result the defendant’s aim or purpose?
MR: What is indirect intention?
i. Objective: Was the consequence virtually certain to occur from the Ds actions (or omission)?
ii. Subjective: Did the D appreciate this?
MR: Define recklessness in criminal law.
Conscious taking of an unjustified risk.
i. Objective: The risk must be an unjustified or unreasonable one to take (depends on what risk was and likely consequences, inc social utility and likelihood/severity of harm)
2 Subjective: D foresaw a risk that something may happen as a result of their behaviour (or a set od circumstances may exist) and went on without justification to take that risk
MR: What is negligence?
Inadvertent taking of unjustifiable risk.
Objective test: did D meet the standard of a reasonable person? (ie. Fail to see risk, forsaw but didn’t take steps to avoid/took inadequate steps to avoid)
MR: What are strict liability offences?
Offences where it’s unnecessary to prove mens rea or negligence.
What type of offence is driving with excess alcohol?
Strict liability
MR of careless driving
Negligence-driving fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver
MR: how to identify a strict liability offence
Statue says/uses words identifying MR (intentionally/knowingly/wilfully)
If statute silent there’s (rebuttable) presumption of MR
Look at statute as whole-Words suggesting MR in other parts of statute?
Social context-greater social danger=more likley SL offence
‘Truly criminal’ (high penalty)=less likely SL
Define coincidence of actus reus and mens rea.
For criminal liability, AR and MR must coincide in time:
§ AR must be a continuing act that coincides with the required MR
§ OR a number of consecutive events must be a ‘single transaction’-will be guilty if have MR at some point in transaction
What is transferred malice?
If the defendant has malice to commit a crime against one person, it transfers to an unintended victim.
LIMITATIONS: only applies to same type of crime D originally had in mind
Not necessary for offences that can be committed recklessly
Classify the types of offences.
- Summary offences
- Either way offences
- Indictable offences
Examples of summary only offences
common assault
s4/5 POA
most road traffic offences
Examples of either way offences
- s47/s20 OAPA
- Theft
- Fraud
- Most burglary
- Criminal damage
- Handling stolen goods
- Sexual assault
Examples of indictable only offences
- Murder/MS
- s18
- Rape
- Robbery
- Aggravated burglary
- Blackmail
- Kidnap
- Conspiracy
How is low value theft/shoplifting treated?
Goods under £200=summary
BUT if enter NG plea have option of CC trial
What type of offence is criminal damage
Less than £5k=summary
Other wise=either way
ALWAYS either way if caused by fire/to memorial
What is intent as classification of crimes?
Basic intent: committed intentionally or recklessly
Specific intent: only be committed intentionally (ie. Murder/theft)
Ulterior intent: ‘extra’ element of MR must be proved by prosecution-D intended to bring about consequences beyond the MR (ie burglary must also prove ulterior intent to steal/inflict GBH/cause damage)
