Criminal Liability Unit 2 Flashcards
Hill v Baxter
Gives examples of where an act would be involuntary:
- Stung by bees
- Heart attack
- Hit on head with stone
R v Gibbons and proctor
Duty out of relationship.
R v Dytham
Official position
R v Stone and Dobinson
Voluntary assumption of care
R v Miller
Creation of a dangerous situation
R v Pittwood
Contratual duty
State of affairs
This is when the defendant is guilty because a certain situation exists. The do not have to act in a voluntary way.
Direct Intention
Mohan – “A decision to bring about the prohibited consequence whether desired or not”
Indirect Intention
Woollin – When D knows that the consequence is a virtual certainty
Recklessness
Cunningham – Subjective test – When D realises a risk and takes it anyway.
Transferred Malice
Mens rea can be transferred to a different victim e.g. Latimer but mens rea cannot be transferred to a different crime e.g. Pembliton.
Coincidence
Actus reus and mens rea must occur at the same time. This rule exists because of fairness e.g. It is not fair to use past thoughts (mens rea) from years ago and apply to a potential accident situation. E.G. Thabo Meli and Fagan
Strict Liability
This is when mens rea is not required. The defendant is guilty on the basis of the actus reus alone. Strict liability offences are those described as quasi crimes which means less serious in nature. E.G. Harrow v Shah
Gammon Rules
The courts decide which offences are strict liability offences by looking at the Gammon Rules
- Mens rea is presumed. Sweet v Parsley
- The presumption is extra strong if the crime is “truly criminal” B v DPP
- Mens rea can be removed if statute says so
- Purpose of strict liability offences is to address matters of public safety or social concern. Smedley v Breed or Alphacell v Wooward
- Mens rea can only be removed if it will promote the purpose of the statute.
Reasons for strict liability
- Easier to prove therefore quicker and cheaper for the courts
- Encourages high standards e.g. Harrow v Shah
- Protects public e.g. Smedley v Breed or Alphacell v Woodward
Reasons against strict liability
- People are punished for quasi crimes
- People punished when they didn’t even realise a risk
- People punished when reasonable steps had been taken e.g. Harrow v Shah
Factual Causation
This uses the “But For” test. But for the D’s actions would the consequence have happened?
E.G. Rv Pagett, R v White
Legal Causation
This looks at what the operative and substantial cause of the consequence is. (what is the main cause) E.G. R v Smith (stab wound) R v Jordan (injection of antibiotics)
Novus actus interveniens
(intervening act)In order to establish the operative and substantial cause of the consequence it may be crucial to look at whether there was an intervening act that could be the main cause. There are three types:
- Actions of a 3rd party e.g. R v Jordan
- Actions of the victim e.g. R v Roberts (the victims actions must be proportionate to the threat or it will break the chain of causation)
- A natural but unpredictable event e.g. flood
Thin Skull Rule
You must take your victim as you find them. If the victim has a condition that would make their injuries more serious then D will be responsible for the entire extent of the injuries. E.G. R v Blaue.
