Criminal Liability cases

Question 1

What is an omission?

Answer 1

An omission is a failure to act, there is no good Samaritan law in England, however there are a number of duties (6 duties) that will fulfil the AR of an offence if there is a duty to act

Question 2

What is the case that supports Contractual duty?

Answer 2

Pitwood
(The D’s contract stated that he had to carry out the duty of closing the gates, he failed to do this and it lead to the deaths of the people who were crossing the railway lines)

Question 3

What is the case that supports Duty through a relationship?

Answer 3

Gibbons and Proctor
(They failed to look after the daughter and therefore that failure fulfilled the AR of the offence)

Question 4

What is the case that supports Duty through a voluntary assumption of care?

Answer 4

Stone and Dobinson
They took in Stone’s very ill anorexic sister and voluntarily offered to care for her, they were then caring for her and then stopped caring for her, they failed to fulfil the duties of this, they did not seek help which they should have done and therefore failed to fulfil their duty of voluntary assuming for care

Question 5

What is a case that supports Duty through failure to minimise a dangerous situation that you created?

Answer 5

Miller
The D was a squatter and had been drinking, he fell asleep with a cigarette lit in his hand, which started a fire. The D woke up and saw the fire, took no steps to stop the fire and simply moved into a different room in the house, there was £800 worth of damage caused to the house. The D was therefore liable for his omission to take any steps to put out the fire or seek held, and was accordingly convicted of arson.

Question 6

What is the case that supports Duty through a public position?

Answer 6

Dytham
The police have a duty to stop crimes, help the public, rather than stand by and allow people to be harmed, in this case the police officer did not fulfil his duty because he did not stop the victim from being harmed, therefore he was liable for failing to act within his duty

Question 7

What is the coincidence rule?

Answer 7

actus reus and mens rea must happen at the same time (R v Church)

Question 8

What is transferred malice?

Answer 8

when the D intends towards the intended victim, but harms the actual victim, the intent can be transferred from the actual victim, the offence must be of a similar crime, (R v Mitchell)

Question 9

What are strict liability offences?

Answer 9

these are offences where the AR is present but there is no need to prove the MR, the problem with this is that a person can be guilty of an offence even if he had carefully tried to avoid the outcome

Question 10

what section is ABH under?

Answer 10

s.47 of the Offences Against a Person Act

Question 11

what is ABH defined as?

Answer 11

ABH is defined by Miller ‘any hurt or injury that interferes with the health and comfort of the victim’. Occasioning means to cause.

Question 12

what is the actus reus of ABH?

Answer 12

is that of assault or battery and the victim has suffered ABH level injuries. The harm can be psychiatric as in the case of Chan Fook

Question 13

what are some examples of ABH?

Answer 13

• cutting someones hair
  -physical pain is not a necessary injury of ABH
• extensive or multiple bruising
• Cuts and slashes that are not superficial but less severe than wounding. May require stitches
  -Temporary loss of consciousness or sensory function ( T v DPP 2003)
  -tooth loss or chipping

Question 14

what case is used for ‘but for’ in basic intent crimes

Answer 14

Pagett

Question 15

what is the MR of ABH?

Answer 15

‘intention or recklessness as to causing some harm.’

Question 16

what section is GBH s.20 and s.18 under?

Answer 16

the Offences Against the Person 1861

Question 17

how do you tell apart gbh s.20 or s.18?

Answer 17

for a s.20 offence, the D must intentionally or wrecklessly wound or inflict GBH on the V.
In s.18, only a clear intention to wound or inflict GBH, there is no wrecklessness in s.18

Question 18

what is the AR of s.20 GBH and s.18 GBH?

Answer 18

unlawfully or maliciously wound or inflict GBH upon another person.

Question 19

what is wound defined as?

Answer 19

wound was defined in Eisenhower as breaking both layers of skin

Question 20

what does Smith say about GBH?

Answer 20

GBH was defined in Smith as ‘really serious harm’

Question 21

what does Brown and Stratton establish about GBH?

Answer 21

if there are multiple minor injuries, this could add up to GBH

Question 22

What does Bollam establish about GBH?

Answer 22

if the severity of the injuries are worse because of the victims age or health

Question 23

does the thin skull rule (Blaue) ever break the chain of causation?

Answer 23

NO, you must take the victim as you find them

Question 24

ABH scaffold

Answer 24

In relation to ______(D) liability to______(V) they would be liable for assault occasioning ABH under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

ABH is defined by Miller ‘any hurt or injury that interferes with the health and comfort of the victim’. Occasioning means to cause.

The actus reus of ABH is that of assault or battery and the victim has suffered ABH level injuries. The harm can be psychiatric as in the case of Chan Fook. In this scenario, it is assault/battery (pick which applies). The actus reus of assault/battery is…
AR of assault is ‘apprehension’ (Logdon) of immediate (Smith) unlawful personal violence
AR of battery is ‘application of unlawful personal violence’ (Thomas).
Apply the AR of assault/ battery to the scenario

In this scenario, the V has suffered ABH when… e.g knocked unconscious

Causation must then be proven. First factual causation is proven, in this scenario ‘but for’ ______(Pagett), the victim would have not suffered ABH (add the injury they suffered).

It must also be proven that ______(D) is the ‘operating and substantial cause’ (Smith). This means there is no intervening acts that break the chain of causation, such as medical negligence (Cheshire), Victims own act (Roberts) and third party actions (Pagett). The thin skull rule never breaks the chain of causation (Blaue). Apply if an intervening acts are relevant,
In this scenario…

If there are no intervening acts that have broken the chain, then ______(D) is the operating and substantial cause.

The mens rea of AH is ‘intention or recklessness as to causing some harm.’ The intent can be direct (Mohan) or indirect (Woolin). Recklessness is subjective as in Cunningham

In this scenario ______ has direct/indirect intent/ recklessness.
Direct intent is when it is the D’s ‘main aim and purpose’
Indirect intent is when the defendant does not intend the consequence but it was virtually certain to occur.
Subjective recklessness is when the defendant foresees the risk, but goes ahead anyway.

Therefore ______ has satisfied all the elements of actus reus and mens rea and therefore will be liable for ABH under 247 of the OAPA 1861.

Question 25

GBH s.20 scaffold

Answer 25

In relation to the D’s liability towards V, they would be liable for GBH under s.20 of the Offences Against the Person 1861.

The actus reus of s.20 is to unlawfully or maliciously wound or inflict GBH upon another person. Wound was defined in Eisenhower as breaking both layers of the skin. GBH was defined in Smith as ‘really serious harm’.
In this scenario… (establish either wounding or GBH).
Only include if relevant:
If the severity of the injuries are worse because of the victim’s age or health (Bollam).
If there are multiple minor injuries could add up to GBH (Brown and Stratton).

Both factual and legal causation must then be proven. In this scenario, ‘but for’ (Pagett) D’s actions towards V they would not have suffered the injuries.
It must also be proven that the D is the ‘operating and substantial cause’. There must be no intervening acts that break the chain of causation, such as victims own act (Roberts), medical negligence (Cheshire) and third party actions (Pagett). The thin skull rule never breaks the chain of causation (Blaue).
In this scenario… (apply any intervening acts)
If the chain of causation is not broken then D is the legal cause.

The mens rea of s.20 is defined in the word ‘maliciously’, this is interpreted as intent or recklessness as to ‘some harm’. Intent can be direct (Mohan) or indirect (Woolin). Recklessness is subjective as in Cunningham. There does not need to be intention for serious harm, only some harm will suffice.
In this scenario, the D has intent/recklessness as to some harm when they…
Direct intent is when it is the D;s main aim and purpose to cause the consequence.
Indirect intent is when it is not the D’s main aim or purpose, ‘virtually certain’.
Subjective recklessness is when the D foresees the risk but goes ahead anyway.

Therefore, D would/would not be convicted of GBH under s.20 for their actions.

Question 26

how was wound defined in Eisenhower?

Answer 26

breaking both layers of skin

Question 27

how was GBH defined in Smith?

Answer 27

a ‘really serious harm’

Question 28

what is the MR or s.18 GBH?

Answer 28

the MR of s.18 is described in the word ‘maliciously’, this is interpreted as either direct intent (Mohan) on indirect intent (Woolin), there does not need to be intention to cause ‘really serious harm’

Question 29

GBH s18 scaffold

Answer 29

In relation to the D’s liability towards V, they would be liable for GBH under s.18 of the Offences Against the Person 1861.

The actus reus of s.18 is to unlawfully or maliciously wound or inflict GBH upon another person. Wound was defined in Eisenhower as breaking both layers of the skin. GBH was defined in Smith as ‘really serious harm’.
In this scenario… (establish either wounding or GBH).
Only include if relevant:
If the severity of the injuries are worse because of the victim’s age or health (Bollam)
If there are multiple minor injuries, could add up to GBH (Brown and Stratton)

Both factual and legal causation must then be proven. In this scenario, ‘but for’ (Pagett) D’s actions towards V they would not have suffered the injuries.
It must also be proven that the D is the ‘operating and substantial cause’. There must be no intervening acts that break the chain of causation, such as the victim’s own act (Roberts), medical negligence (Cheshire) and third party actions (Pagett). The thin skull rule never breaks the chain of causation (Blaue).
In this scenario… (apply any intervening acts)
If the chain of causation is not broken then D is the legal cause.

The mens rea of s.18 is defined in the word ‘maliciously’, this is interpreted as direct intent (Mohan) or indirect (Woolin). There does need to be intention to cause ‘really serious harm’.
In this scenario, the D has direct intent/ indirect intent as to serious harm when they…
Direct intent is when it is the D’s main aim and purpose to cause the consequence.
Indirect intent is when it is not the D’s main aim and purpose, but is ‘virtually certain’ to occur

Therefore, D would/ would not be convicted of GBH under s.18 for their actions.

Question 30

what is a non fatal offence?

Answer 30

no one has died e.g assualt, battery, GBH

Question 31

what did the case R v Chan Fook establish?

Answer 31

the phrase “actual bodily harm” can include psychiatric injury