Criminal Law Part 1 Flashcards
What element of a crime is actus reus
Physical
What are the 3 types of actus reus
- voluntary act causing a consequence
- voluntary omission resulting in a consequence
- d being in a certain state of affairs
What must ds act/omission be for him to have actus reus
Voluntary
If d has no control over his actions then he is not at fault and has not committed the actus reus
In what type of offence can involuntary conduct occur in
Assaults
Example of involuntary conduct in assaults: person a pushes person b causing b to bump into the victim
Here bs conduct is involuntary and would not be guilty of assault
Example of involuntary conduct in assaults: where d hits v due to a reflex action or muscle spasm
Where d is not in control of his own body the defence of insanity/automatism may be available
Where the actus reus requires a consequence to be proved, what does the prosecution have to show that
- ds conduct was factual cause of consequence
- ds conduct was legal cause of consequence
- there was no intervening act which broke chain of causation from ds conduct to consequence
When will d be a factual cause of a consequence
If the consequence wouldn’t have happened ‘but for’ ds conduct
Which case illustrates factual cause
Pagett
Pagett
She would not have died but for him using her as a shield in the shoot out
When will d be a legal cause of a consequence
If ds conduct was more than a minimal cause of the consequence. Thus others may contribute to the consequence
Which case illustrates legal cause
Benge
Benge
D was still a legal cause of the deaths as his conduct was more than a minimal cause
What does it mean that there must be a direct link from ds conduct to the consequence
There must not be an intervening act which breaks this chain of causation
What is the rule on causation regarding a reasonably foreseeable action by a third party
The chain of causation will remain unbroken: pagett
What is the rule on causation regarding medical negligence
Unlikely to break chain of causation unless it is so independent of ds act and ‘in itself so potent in causing death’ that ds acts are insignificant
Which 3 cases illustrate medical negligence
Cheshire
Smith
Jordan
Cheshire
The medical complications were a direct consequence of the shooting and ds act was still a significant cause of vs death
Smith
If at the time of death the original sound is still an operating cause and a substantial cause, the chain of causation is not broken by medical negligence. D will only avoid liability for the death if the medical negligence is so overwhelming as to make the original wound party of the history
Jordan
The medical treatment was ‘palpably wrong’ and broke the chain of causation from ds stabbing to vs death. D had not caused the death and was not liable for it
What is the rule on causation regarding vs own conduct
Unlikely to break chain of causation unless it is so daft that a reasonable person would not have foreseen v reacting in that way: Roberts
Roberts
D was held to be liable for her injuries as her reaction was reasonably foreseeable
What is the rule on causation if v has something unusual about them which makes them more vulnerable
D must take v as he finds him-thin skull rule- Blaue
Blaue
He had to take his victim as he found her
What is the normal rule on omissions
An omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence
What is the exception to the rule that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence where a statute may require d to act
Omitting to do so will satisfy actus reus
What is the exception to the rule that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence where the common law may require d to act
Omitting to do so will satisfy actus reus
Case illustrating d being under a contractual duty to act under the common law
Pittwood
Pittwood
The keeper was guilty of manslaughter because of the duty to act arising from his contract of employment
Case illustrating d being under a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm resulting from a dangerous situation he has created under the common law
DPP v Santana Bermudez
DPP v Santana Bermudez
D was liable for abh because he had a duty to prevent the harm to the police officer by warning her about the needle and failed to do so
Case illustrating d being under a family duty to act under the common law
Gibbins and proctor
Gibbins and proctor
His failure to feed his own child was an omission which made him satisfy the actus reus of murder
Case illustrating d being under a duty to act because he has voluntary promised to care for v under the common law
Stone and dobinson
Stone and dobinson
Both ds were convicted of manslaughter. By allowing v to come and live with them they had promised to care for her and then had omitted to do
Case illustrating d being under a duty to act through his official position under the common law
Dytham
Dytham
The officer was guilty of neglecting to perform his duty as an officer of justice
What element of an offence is mens rea
Mental. It is the guilty mind
What does each offence have of its own
Mens rea
To be found guilty what does the prosecution need to prove
That d had the relevant mens rea for the offence charged
What are the only exceptions to the rule that prosecution must prove d had relevant mens rea for offence charged to prosecute
Offences of strict liability: don’t require proof of mens rea in respect of at least part of the actus reus
Where are there different levels of mens rea
So that the law can identify the deveee to which a person is at fault for his/her actions
What must d have to be guilty (MR)
At least the minimum level of mens rea required by the definition of the offence
Where does d directly intend a result
Where it is his aim/purpose. D actually desires the result that occurs and sets out to achieve it: MOHAN
Where does d indirectly intend a result
Where that result is not desired but was virtually certain to occur and d knows this: woollin
Where will d have acted recklessly
Where he knows there was a risk of the result happening, but takes that risk: CUNNINGHAM
Cunningham
D was not Liable since he did not know there was a risk of gas escaping into vs house. He had not intended to cause the harm, nor had he taken a risk he knew about
How can d still be guilty where his mens rea is directed at one person, hut he harms someone else
Ds state of mind is transferred to the actual victim: LATIMER
Latimer
His intention to harm the man was transferred to the actual victim
Where is the principle of transferred malice not available to make d guilty
Where ds mens rea is for a completely different type of offence: pembilton
Pembilton
He was not liable for the damage to the window because his intention to hit people couldn’t be transferred to property
What must usually be present at the same time for an offence to take place
The actus reus and mens rea
How can d be guilty where there is a continuing act for the actus reus
At some point while that act is still going on d has the necessary mens rea, the two do coincide and d will be guilty
Which case illustrates actus reus being continuing act
Fagan
Fagan
The court held that once d knew the car was on the officers foot he had the required mens rea. As the actus reus was still continuing the two elements of the crime were present together
What are the two main exceptions where d will still be guilty of an offence even though the actus reus and mens rea are not present at the same time
- where AR is part of some larger transaction
- where d has voluntary been drinking and then goes on to commit a crime that can be committed recklessly
What is the rule where the actus reus is part of some larger transaction
It will be sufficient that d forms mens rea at some point during that transaction: church
Church
D was liable for involuntary manslaughter. The actus reus was part of a larger transaction and d formed mens rea at one point during that transaction
What is the rule where d has voluntarily been drinking and then commits an offence that can be committed recklessly
His intoxication is not a defence. D seen as reckless in getting intoxicated in the first place so has the mens rea for the later offence: majewski
majewski
the house of lords upheld his convictions for various assaults, all of which could be committed recklessly
what does the exception to the coincidence rule involving voluntary intoxication ignore
the principle that AR and MR must coincide. the decision to drink may be several hours before D commits the AR of any offence
what does IRELAND state that d must do to commit an assault
intentionally/recklessly cause v to apprehend immediate and unlawful force
what is the actus reus of assault
where by an act/words of d causes v to apprehend immediate and unlawful force
which case supports that there must be an act/words for an assault and that an omission is not enough
Fagan v MPC
in what case did the courts hold that letters could be an assault
constanza
in which case was it held that silent phone calls could be an assault, ie there is no need for any physical contact
Ireland
what is it necessary that v apprehends in assault
unlawful force
what does it mean to apprehend something
to be aware of it. v does not have to be scared, nore does v have to be in danger- LOGDON
LOGDON
D was convicted of assault. V did not actually have to be in danger
what must there be an apprehension of in assault as well as unlawful force
immediate force
what type of threat by d cannot be an assault
a threat by D to inflict harm in the future
smith v swps
v was terrified and did not know what d might do next. unlawful force could well have been imminent
what can prevent an act from being an assault
words indicating that there will be no immediate and unlawful force: tuberville v savage
tuberville v savage
his words ruled out the threat implied by putting his hand to his sword, so there was not assault
mens rea of an assault
intention/recklessness as to causing v to apprehend immediate and unlawful force: VENNA
what does the case of COLLINS state that d must do to commit a battery
intentionally/recklessly apply unlawful force to v
actus reus of a battery
where ds act/omission applies unlawful force to v
which case states that force can include the slightest touching but not the ordinary jostling of everyday life
collins
why does battery not include the jostling of every day life
implied consent is given to all the touching which is inevitable in everyday life
which case states that unlawful force does not have to be applied to vs body in battery
thomas
thomas
the court held that touching a persons clothes while he/she was wearing them is equivalent to touching them
which case states that unlawful force may be applied through an indirect act for a battery
haystead
haystead
d satisfied the AR of battery by indirectly applying force to the child
when can a battery be committed by omssion
only if D is under a duty to act: DPP V SANTANA BERMUDEZ
what is the mens rea of a battery
intention/recklessness as to applying unlawful force to V- venna
what is it an offence to commit under s47 OAPA
any assault occasioning ABH
actus reus of ABH
there must be an assault/battery and this must occasion actual bodily harm
how must the assault/battery have ‘occasioned’ ABH in s47
there must be no intervening act which breaks chain of causation from Ds conduct to injury
what is ABH
any hurt/injury calculated to interfere with the health/comfort of V- MILLER
what does the word ‘actual’ mean
the injury should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant- chan fook
mens rea s47
either the mens rea of an assault/mens rea of a battery
what does d not need to be for mens rea of s47
intend or be reckless as to whether ABH is caused to v- savage
savage
ds satisfied mens rea of s.47 as she had mens rea of a battery
what is it an offence to do under s20
- unlawfully and maliciously inflict GBH
- unlawfully and maliciously wound
what does the actus reus of s20 require d to do
inflict GBH on v or to have vounded v
which case states that there appears to be very little difference between the two words ‘inflict’ and ‘cause’
burstow
what does GBH mean and case
‘really serious harm’ DPP V SMITH
which case states GBH can be psychological
burstow
burstow
ds conduct caused v to suffer severe depression, insomnia and panic attacks. d was liable for maliciously inflicting GBH
bollom
in deciding whether injuries amount to GBH, it is necessary to take into account vs age and health
brown and stratton
a single minor injury, when added to other minor injuries inflicted on V can amount to GBH
what does wounding require
a breaking of the whole skin, the injury must be deep enough to break the inner skin
which case states that internal bleeding when there is no cut of the skin is insufficient for a wound
jcc v Eisenhower
mens rea for s20
defined by the word maliciously
intention/recklessness that v might suffer some harm: mowatt
what is it an offence to under s18 oapa
- wound with intent to do some GBH
- cause GBH with the intent to do some GBH
- maliciously wound with the intent to resist/prevent arrest
- maliciously cause GBH with the intent to resist/prevent arrest
actus reus s18
similar to s20- requires proof of either GBH/wounding
mens rea s18
d must either intend to do some gbh/intend to resist/prevent arrest
how must d also act where d directly intends to resist/prevent arrest
maliciously- there must be intention/recklessness that v might suffer some harm- Morrison
morrison
the court of appeal held that the prosecution had to prove that:
-d intended to resist arrest by jumping through the window
d either intended/was reckless that some harm might occur
