Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law - criminal > Criminal Law Basics > Flashcards

Criminal Law Basics Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Criminal offences

A

Every offence to prove someone guilty, you have to prove the intention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Actus reus

A

Physical element of the crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Mens rea

A

Mental element of the crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Actus reus can be:

A

Voluntary act
Failure to act (omission)
State of affairs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Voluntary act

A

Act or omission must be voluntary - the D must mean to do the act
If the D has no control over his actions then he has not committed the actus reus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Bill v Baxter 1958

A

Lost control of car because he was stung by bees
Had a heart attack whilst driving and crashed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Involuntary acts

A

Accidents
When someone hits someone due to a muscle spasm from a medical condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Actus reus
Omissions

A

Normally an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence
6 exceptions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Omissions
Exceptions

A

Government can make exceptions by statute
Contractual duty
Duty because of a relationship
Duty taken on voluntarily
Duty through one’s official position
Duty arises when the Duty sets in a motion of events

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Government can make exceptions by statute

A

Failing to stop and report an accident
Failing to provide a breath specimen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Contractual duty

A

Pittwood 1902

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Duty because of relationship

A

Gibbins and proctor 1918

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Duty taken on voluntarily

A

Stone and dobinson 1977

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Duty through one’s official position

A

Dytham 1979

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Duty arises because the D has set in a motion of events

A

Miller 1983

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Causation

A

Prosecution must prove mens rea, actus reus and causation
Causation is the link between the Ds actions and the consequence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Factual causation

A

Defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened but for the defendants conduct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Factual causation
Pagett 1983

A

Do used pregnant gf as a shield while he shot at police
Police fired back
Killed the girlfriend

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Factual causation
White 1910

A

D put cyanide in mothers drink
She died of a heart attack before she drank it
Convicted of attempted murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Legal causation

A

Defendants actions must be more than a minimal cause but need not be a substantial cause
Take the victim as find them - thin skull rule

21
Q

Legal causation
Case

A

Blaue 1975
Woman stabbed by man and needed blood transfusion
Refused due to religious reasons
Had to take the victim as they found her

22
Q

Intervening acts

A

Has to be a direct link between the defendants conduct and the consequence
May have proven factual and legal causation but there may be no liability if the chain is broken by an intervening act

23
Q

Types of intervening acts

A

Act of a 3rd party
Victims own act
Natural but unpredictable

24
Q

Act of a 3rd party

A

Normally medical treatment will not break the chain of causation unless extraordinary

25
Q

Act of a 3rd party
Didn’t break the chain

A

Smith 1959
2 soldiers fighting and one stabbed the other in the lung
V carried to hospital but dropped on the way
Staff gave cpr and made injury worse
Died
D still found guilty as original stabbing was the substantial cause

26
Q

Act of a 3rd party
Did break the chain

A

Jordan 1956
Stabbed in stomach and helping well in hospital
Died - allergic reaction to antibiotics
Allergy spotted but doctor ordered a larger dose
Intervening act and D not guilty

27
Q

Malcherek 1981

A

Switching off life support when the patient is dead doesn’t break the chain of causation

28
Q

Victims own act

A

If the D causes the v to act in a foreseeable way then they will be liable for the consequence
If victim acts in an unreasonable way then it will break the chain of causation and the D won’t be liable

29
Q

Victims own act
Roberts 1971

A

Girl jumped from car to avoid sexual advances
Injured
D liable

30
Q

Victims own act
Williams 1992

A

Hitchhiker jumped from car and died
Jumped because D attempted to take his wallet
D not liable
Actions were unreasonable

31
Q

Mens rea

A

Basic intention - recklessness
Specific intention - intention to cause the offence

32
Q

Intention

A

Mohan 1975 - decision to bring about the prohibited consequence
D motive for committing the crime is irrelevant

33
Q

Foresight of consequence

A

Difficulties arise when you’re trying to prove intention when the defendants main aim isn’t the prohibited consequence

34
Q

Foresight of consequence
2 part test

A
  1. Prohibited consequence was a virtual certainty
  2. The D realises this
35
Q

Woolin 1998

A

Threw 3 month baby towards pram but hit the wall instead and died

36
Q

Recklessness

A

Lower level of mens rea than intention
Defendant must either intend the consequence or realise that there was a risk of the consequence happening and decided to take the risk anyway

37
Q

Recklessness
Case

A

Cunningham 1957
D tire gas meter from wall of house to steal money
Gas seemed next door and injured her
Wasn’t guilty as he didn’t know it could cause harm

38
Q

Transferred malice

A

Where the defendant intends to commit a similar crime but against a different victim

39
Q

Transferred malice
Case

A

Latimer 1986
Intended to hit man with belt but hit woman instead
Guilty because the mens rea was transferred from the man to the woman

40
Q

Transferred malice
Exception

A

Mens rea cannot be transferred to an object of another kind
Pembilton 1874
D threw stone intending to hit people but hit window
Intention to hit people could not be transferred to the window

41
Q

General malice

A

Where the D doesn’t have a specific victim in mind
Mens rea is applied to anyone injured

42
Q

Coincidence rule

A

Both actus reus and mens rea has to be evident at the same time for there to be liability

43
Q

Continuing act

A

Exception to coincidence rule
Fagan 1968
Fagan told by police officer to park by kurb
Did so and ran over officers foot (no mens rea right now)
Didn’t move
When officer asked to move he refused (mens rea so liable)

44
Q

Strict liability

A

Only exception to the rule that there must be mens rea and actus reus
Guilty if you have actus reus - no need to prove mens rea

45
Q

Strict liability
Case

A

Shah 1998
Sold scratch card to 13 year old thinking they were 16
Still liable even if they had no mens rea

46
Q

Strict liability
Presumption of mens rea

A

Problems occurs when parliament isn’t clear if it is strict liability
Judges presume all cases need mens rea
Only situation where the presumption changes is where statute involves an issue of social concern
Generally with offences that are regulatory in nature - food/alcohol/gambling

47
Q

Strict liability
Justification

A

Helps protect society
Promotes greater care over matters of public safety
Encourages higher standards
Easier to enforce
Saves time as people generally plead guilty

48
Q

Strict liability
Arguments against

A

Makes people who aren’t blame worthy guilty
Even when they take every reasonable precaution

Law - criminal (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions