Criminal Law Basics Flashcards
Criminal offences
Every offence to prove someone guilty, you have to prove the intention
Actus reus
Physical element of the crime
Mens rea
Mental element of the crime
Actus reus can be:
Voluntary act
Failure to act (omission)
State of affairs
Voluntary act
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
Bill v Baxter 1958
Lost control of car because he was stung by bees
Had a heart attack whilst driving and crashed
Involuntary acts
Accidents
When someone hits someone due to a muscle spasm from a medical condition
Actus reus
Omissions
Normally an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence
6 exceptions
Omissions
Exceptions
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
Government can make exceptions by statute
Failing to stop and report an accident
Failing to provide a breath specimen
Contractual duty
Pittwood 1902
Duty because of relationship
Gibbins and proctor 1918
Duty taken on voluntarily
Stone and dobinson 1977
Duty through one’s official position
Dytham 1979
Duty arises because the D has set in a motion of events
Miller 1983
Causation
Prosecution must prove mens rea, actus reus and causation
Causation is the link between the Ds actions and the consequence
Factual causation
Defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened but for the defendants conduct
Factual causation
Pagett 1983
Do used pregnant gf as a shield while he shot at police
Police fired back
Killed the girlfriend
Factual causation
White 1910
D put cyanide in mothers drink
She died of a heart attack before she drank it
Convicted of attempted murder
Legal causation
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
Legal causation
Case
Blaue 1975
Woman stabbed by man and needed blood transfusion
Refused due to religious reasons
Had to take the victim as they found her
Intervening acts
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
Types of intervening acts
Act of a 3rd party
Victims own act
Natural but unpredictable
Act of a 3rd party
Normally medical treatment will not break the chain of causation unless extraordinary
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
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
Malcherek 1981
Switching off life support when the patient is dead doesn’t break the chain of causation
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
Victims own act
Roberts 1971
Girl jumped from car to avoid sexual advances
Injured
D liable
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
Mens rea
Basic intention - recklessness
Specific intention - intention to cause the offence
Intention
Mohan 1975 - decision to bring about the prohibited consequence
D motive for committing the crime is irrelevant
Foresight of consequence
Difficulties arise when you’re trying to prove intention when the defendants main aim isn’t the prohibited consequence
Foresight of consequence
2 part test
- Prohibited consequence was a virtual certainty
- The D realises this
Woolin 1998
Threw 3 month baby towards pram but hit the wall instead and died
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
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
Transferred malice
Where the defendant intends to commit a similar crime but against a different victim
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
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
General malice
Where the D doesn’t have a specific victim in mind
Mens rea is applied to anyone injured
Coincidence rule
Both actus reus and mens rea has to be evident at the same time for there to be liability
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)
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
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
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
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
Strict liability
Arguments against
Makes people who aren’t blame worthy guilty
Even when they take every reasonable precaution
