Criminal Liability Flashcards
What two elements must be proved by the prosecution to show that d is guilty
Actus reus and mens rea
Actus reus
Physical element of the crime
Mens rea
Mental element of the crime
What must ds act/omission be to prove the actus reus
Voluntary, if D has no control over his actions then he is not at fault as has not committed the actus reus
In what case did the court hold that the driver of the vehicle could not be driving voluntarily
Hill V Baxter
In which situations does hill v Baxter state that driver has no actus reus when losing control of the vehicle as a result of
Stung by swarm of bees
Struck on the head by a stone
Had a heart attack while driving
Where can involuntary conduct occur
In assaults
Examples of where involuntary conduct occurs in assaults
Person A pushes person B causing them to bump into victim- not guilty of assault
D hits V due to a reflex action/muscle spasm- d not in control of his own body? Defence of insanity/automatism
Abscence of fault if there is a threat that D will be killed if he does not commit an assault- defence of duress
What does the prosecution have to show where the actus reus requires a consequence to be proved
D conduct factual cause, legal cause and there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation from Ds conduct to consequence
Factual cause
Consequence wouldn’t have happened ‘but for’ Ds conduct
Which case illustrates factual cause
Pagett
What happened in pagett (fc)
D used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at armed policemen
Police fired back and girlfriend was killed
D convicted of manslaughter- she would not have died but for him using her as a shield in the shoot out
Legal cause
If Ds conduct is more than a minimal cause of the consequence
Others may contribute to the consequence
Which case illustrates legal causation
Benge
What happens in benge (LC)
D was a foreman charged with manslaughter where railway tracks were not relaid in time and train crashed as a result- killing people
D argued that although he was negligent the flag man had not gone far enough up the track and train driver not paying attention
D still a legal cause of the deaths as his conduct was more than a minimal cause
What must there be a direct link between in order to prosecute D
From Ds conduct to the consequence
Must not be an intervening act which breaks this chain of causation
4 examples that won’t break chain of causation
- Ds conduct causes reasonably foreseeable action by third party
- medical negligence
- vs own conduct
- thin skull rule
Which case illustrates reasonably foreseeable action by third party
Pagett
Medical negligence is unlikely to break the 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 cases illustrate medical negligence
Cheshire and Jordon
Cheshire
D shot V who died later in hospital due to his windpipe becoming obstructed where surgery had been performed
Doctors negligently failed to spot complications
Although gunshot wounds no longer life threatening at the time of death, D liable for murder
Medical complications were direct consequnece of the shooting and Ds act still a significant cause of Vs death
Jordon
D stabbed V, V treated in hospital and was recovering
Doctors gave him antibiotics which he was allergic to twice and he died as a result
Negligence ‘palpable’ and he was recovering, chain of causation broken.
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
What case illustrates vs own conduct
Roberts
Roberts
Girl jumpers from car to escape sexual advances of D, car travelling 20-40mph and the girl injured
D held liable for her injuries as her reaction was reasonably foreseeable
Thin skull rule
Chain of causation will not be broken if V has something unusual about them which makes them more vulnerable, d must take V as he finds him
Examples of what could make V more vulnerable
Inability to swim, certain religious beliefs etc
Which case illustrates thin skull rule
Blaue
Blaue
D held to have caused the death of a jehovas witness whom he had stabbed
Young woman refused a blood transfusion on religious ground that would have probably saved her life
He had to take victim as he found her
Normal rule of omission
Omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence
Under which two pieces of legislation will require d to act
Statute/common law- omitting to do so will satisfy the actus reus
Example of a stature that may require d to act
Road traffic act requires d to drive with insurance
If without, omission causes him to commit offence
Under which 5 duties can omission make D liable for committing actus reus
- contractual duty
- duty to act because he has set in motion a chain of events
- family duty
- duty to act because he has voluntarily promised to care for V
- duty to act through official position
Which case demonstrates failure to carry out contractual duty
Pittwood:
-railways crossing keeper omitted to shut gates so that a person crossing line was struck and killed by a train
-keeper guilty of manslaughter because his duty to act was arising from his contract of employment
Which case demonstrates Ds duty to act because he has set in motion a chain of events
DPP v SANTANA-BERMUDEZ
- police officer wanted to search Ds pockets
- asked him whether he had any sharp objects, D said no
- police officer cut by syringe he had in his pocket
-d liable for ABH because he had a duty to prevent the harm to police officer by warning her about the needle and had failed to do so
Which cause illustrates family duty
GIBBINS AND PROCTOR:
- father deliberately starved his child to death
- failure to feed his own child was an omission which made him satisfy actus reus of murder
Which case illustrates duty to act because of voluntary promise to care for V
Stone and dobinson:
- stones elderly sister came to live with Ds
- became ill
- due to incompetence and forgetfulness, both Ds failed to care for her/summon help when she became helpless and V died
- both Ds 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 so
Which case illustrates duty to act through official position
DYTHAM
-police officer saw violent attack on V but took no steps to intervene or summon help- drove away from scene instead
-officer guilty of neglecting to perform his duty as an officer of justice
What does each offence have
It’s own mens rea
What must the prosecution prove that D had to find them guilty
The relevant mens rea for the offence charged
Which offences do not require proof of mens rea in respect of at least part of the actus reus
Strict liability
Why are there different levels of mens rea
The law can identify the degree to which a person is at fault for his or her actions
What must D have in order to be guilty of the offence
The minimum level of mens rea required by the definition of the offence
What are the 3 common states of mind find in criminal liability
- direct intent
- indirect intent
- recklessness
Direct is most blame worthy
Direct intent
D directly intends a Reilly where it is his aim/purpose
D actually desires the result that occurs and sets out to achieve it
Case and example for direct intent
Mohan
E.g. D deliberately punches v, directly intends to use unlawful force on v
Motive or reason for throwing punch is not relevant whether she has mens rea or not
Indirect intent
Court may find that D indirectly intends a result where that result is not desired, but was virtually certain to occur and D knows this
Case that illustrates indirect intent
Woollin
-d lost his cool when his baby started to chrome and threw him in the direction of his oram in a fit of frustration
- child missed Pram and fatally struck a wall, trial judge misdirected jury on the law
- house of lords held on appeal that d should be guilty of manslaughter- trial judge should have made it clear that D must know that the undesired result was virtually certain to occur
- jury may find that D indirectly intended the death
Recklessness
D will have acted recklessly where he knows there was a risk of the result happening, but takes the risk
What case illustrates recklessness
Cunningham
-d tore a gas meter from the wall in an empty house in order to stall the money in it
- this causes gas to seep into house next which made V ill
- d 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 it
Transferred malice
Where Ds mens rea is directed at one person, but D harms someone else, he can still be guilty.
Where is Ds state of mind transferred in transferred malice
To the actual victim, intention/recklessness can be transferred
Which case illustrates transferred malice
Latimer
D aimed a blow with an belt at a men in a pub after that man had attacked him
Belt bounced off the man and struck a woman in the face. D convicted of wounding the woman
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
In which case was transferred malice not allowed
Pembilton
D threw a stone intending to hit people with whom he’d been fighting
Stone missed them and smashed a pub window
D not liable for the damage to the window as his intention to hit people could not be transferred to property
What must be present at the same time in order for an offence to take place
Actus reus and mens rea
When do actus reus and mens rea coincide making D guilty
Where there is a continuing act for the actus reus and at some point whilst the act is still going on d has the necessary mens rea
Which case illustrates that a continuing act can make D guilty
Fagan v mpc
Fagan v mpc
- d told by a police officer to park his car by the kerb
- in doing this D drove into officers foot without realising
- officer asked him to move off but D delayed doing so
- court held that once D knew the car was on the officers foot he had the required mens rea
- as actus reus was still continuing the two elements of the crime were present together
What are the two exception where D will still be guilty of an ordence even though AR and MR are not present at the same time
- where actus reus is part of some larger transaction
- where D has voluntarily become intoxicated and then goes on to commit a crime 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
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 the actus reus is part of some larger transaction, it will be sufficient that D forms mens rea at some point during that transaction
- where d has voluntarily become intoxicated and then goes on to commit a crime that can be committed recklessly, his intoxication is not a defence. D seen as reckless in getting intoxicated in first place so has mens rea for later offence
Which case demonstrates exceptions to ar and mr occuring simultaneously (larger transaction)
Church
D liable for involuntary manslaughter. AR was part of a larger transaction and D formed mens rea at one point during that transaction
what mens rea will be sufficient to find D guilty of an offence where the actus reus is part of some larger transaction
it will be sufficient that D forms the mens rea at some point during that transaction
which case illustrates mens rea being suffiecient to occur at some point during a larger transaction where part is actus reus
church
D was liable for involuntary manslaughter. actus reus was part of a larger transaction and D formed mens rea at one point during that transaction
which case illustrates liability for voluntary intoxication
DPP v mAJEWSKI
the house of lords upheld his convictions for various assaults, all of which could be committed recklessly (this ignores the principle that actus reus and mens rea must coincide. the decision to drink may be several hours before D commits the actus reus of any offence)
what is the general rule that prosecution must prove in crimes for D to be guilty
both actus reus and mens rea
what are the two exception to the rule that prosecution must prove actus reus and mens rea for D to be guilty
crimes of strict/absolute liability
what is an offence of strict liability
one where the prosecution need not prove mens rea for at least part of the actus reus
how must D have committed the actus reus in strict liabilility
voluntarily, but D does not have to be at fault
what can D be liable despite in strict liability
despite not having a guilty mind at the time they committed the guilty act
what type of offence does HARROW LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL V SHAH illustrate
strict liability (not having guilty mind at time of committing guilty act)
harrow London borough council v shah
Ds liable for selling a lottery ticket to a person under the age of 16 years. the offence did not require MR. the act of selling the ticket to someone who was actually under 16 was enough to make them guilty. even though they had done their best to prevent this happening in their shop. it was more important to try to deal with young people gambling than insist upon proving mens rea
callow v tillstone (strict liability)
d convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale even though he was not at fault
who are most strict liability cases created by
parliament
what may a statute make clear
whether or not a crime is one of strict liability
what case illustrates that where there is uncertainty, the courts will start by presuming that the prosecution must prove mens rea
gammon
when will the presumption that the prosecution must prove mens rea be set aside in strict liability uncertainty be set aside
where the statute involves an issue of social concern, strict liability will be imposed
in what type of offences will the presumption that the prosecution must prove mens rea be set aside
offences which are regulatory in nature as these are not thought of as being truly criminal matters eg food safety and sale of alcohol, prevention of pollution and safe use of vehicles
what is the link between social danger and likelihood of strict liability being imposed
the greater the social danger, the more likely strict liability will be imposed
which case illustrates links between greater social danger and likelihood of strict liability being imposed
ALPHACELL LTD V WOODWARD
ALPHACELL LTD V WOODWARD
there was no evidence that the company had been negligent, but they were strictly liable because it was the utmost public importance that rivers should not be polluted
3 main reasons for having offences of strict liability
- help protect society
- easier to enforce strict liability offences
- saves court time
how do strict liability offences help protect society
it makes sure businesses are run properly
why is it easier to enforce strict liability offences
there is no need for the prosecution to prove mens rea- this would’ve helped secure the conviction of ALPHACELL
why do strict liability offences save court time
Ds are more likely to plead guilty so that no trial is required. the fact that d may not be blameworthy can be taken into account when sentencing
what is the main argument against strict liability
it makes people who are not blameworthy guilty
even those who have taken all possible care will be found guilty and can be punished
eg. harrow LBC where ds guilty even though theu had done their best to prevent sales of lottery tickets to anyone under the act of 16
what must the prosecution prove where an offence is one of strict liability
that D voluntarily committed the actus reus
what happens in strict liability if D acted involuntarily
there is no actus reus and D is not guilty
what happens in addition to mens rea not needing to be proved in offences of absolute liability
the actus reus can be involuntary
what is the actus reus in absolute liability
state of affairs
case demonstrating absolute liability
winzar v chief constable of kent
winzar v chief constable of kent
the court upheld his conviction of being found drunk on the highway because this was an offence of absolute liability, designed to deal with the nuisance of public drunkenness. it did not matter that D had been taken to the highway against his will
what is an assault
D must intentionally/recklessly cause V to apprehend immediate and unlawful force: IRELAND
actus reus of an assault
where by an act or words of D causes V to apprehend immediate or unlawful force
what is the rule for actus reus of assault
there must be an act or words for an assault, an omission is not enough
in what 3 formats can Ds words be in actus reus for an assault
verbal, written or typed
in what case did the court hold that letters could be an assault
constanza
in what case was it held that silent phone calls could be an assault- there is no need for any physical contact
ireland
what is necessary in the actus reus of assault
that V apprehends unlawful force
what does apprehend mean
to be aware of something- v does not have to be scared, nor doing he have to be in danger
Logdon V DPP
d was convicted of assault, V did not actually have to be in danger