Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Law - criminal > Criminal Law Basics > Flashcards

Criminal Law Basics 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
Act of a 3rd party Didn’t break the chain
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
Act of a 3rd party Did break the chain
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
Malcherek 1981
Switching off life support when the patient is dead doesn’t break the chain of causation
28
Victims own act
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
Victims own act Roberts 1971
Girl jumped from car to avoid sexual advances Injured D liable
30
Victims own act Williams 1992
Hitchhiker jumped from car and died Jumped because D attempted to take his wallet D not liable Actions were unreasonable
31
Mens rea
Basic intention - recklessness Specific intention - intention to cause the offence
32
Intention
Mohan 1975 - decision to bring about the prohibited consequence D motive for committing the crime is irrelevant
33
Foresight of consequence
Difficulties arise when you’re trying to prove intention when the defendants main aim isn’t the prohibited consequence
34
Foresight of consequence 2 part test
1. Prohibited consequence was a virtual certainty 2. The D realises this
35
Woolin 1998
Threw 3 month baby towards pram but hit the wall instead and died
36
Recklessness
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
Recklessness Case
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
Transferred malice
Where the defendant intends to commit a similar crime but against a different victim
39
Transferred malice Case
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
Transferred malice Exception
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
General malice
Where the D doesn’t have a specific victim in mind Mens rea is applied to anyone injured
42
Coincidence rule
Both actus reus and mens rea has to be evident at the same time for there to be liability
43
Continuing act
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
Strict liability
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
Strict liability Case
Shah 1998 Sold scratch card to 13 year old thinking they were 16 Still liable even if they had no mens rea
46
Strict liability Presumption of mens rea
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
Strict liability Justification
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
Strict liability Arguments against
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.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions