elements of a crime

Question 1

What is meant by actus reus?

Answer 1

What the offender does. It is the physical element of the crime including conduct, circumstances and consequences.

Question 2

What is an involuntary action?

Answer 2

An act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind.

Question 3

Can you be found guilty of a crime if the act was involuntary?

Answer 3

No.

Question 4

Which case defined what an involuntary action is?

Answer 4

Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland.

Question 5

What 3 examples of involuntary acts when driving where given in the Hill v Baxter case?

Answer 5

Being stung by a swarm of bees and losing control.
Being hit on the head with a stone and losing control.

Having a heart attack or epileptic fit and losing control.

Question 6

What is an omission?

Answer 6

Not acting or failing to act.

Question 7

What is the general rule on omissions?

Answer 7

There is no criminal liability for an omission (you don’t have to endanger yourself to save someone else).

Question 8

What are the 5 duties to act where someone can be liable for an omission?

Answer 8

Contractual.
Relationship of dependency.

Assuming responsibility voluntarily.
Public office.
Creating a dangerous situation.

Question 9

What are the details of the case where someone had a contractual duty to act?

Answer 9

R v Pittwood.

D worked for the railway. A man was killed on the railway line when D didn’t close the gate.

Question 10

What are the details of the case where someone had a duty to act based on a relationship of dependency?

Answer 10

R v Gibbons and Proctor.

A father and his partner killed his child by starving her.

Question 11

What are the details of the case where someone had a duty to act by assuming responsibility voluntarily?

Answer 11

R v Stone and Dobinson.
D and his girlfriend chose to care for his elderly sister rather than send her to a home. The sister died of poor treatment/ neglect.

Question 12

What are the details of the case where someone had a public office duty to act?

Answer 12

R v Dytham.

A police officer watched a fight break out and didn’t call for help and a man died.

Question 13

What are the details of the case where someone had a duty to act by creating a dangerous situation?

Answer 13

R v Miller.
A man dropped a lit cigarette and started a fire. He woke up and simply moved to a different room. The house burned down. (He was homeless and was squatting there).

Question 14

What are the two types of causation that must be proven for a defendant to be found guilty?

Answer 14

Factual causation.

Legal causation.

Question 15

What is the test for factual causation?

Answer 15

‘But for’ test. It must be proved that the consequence to the V would not have happened ‘but for’ the D’s conduct.

Question 16

What was the R v Pagett case and what was the outcome?

Answer 16

D kidnapped his pregnant girlfriend and ended up in a stand-off with armed police. D used V as a human shield and fired at the police. The police returned fire and killed V.
D was found guilty because V would not have died but for D using her as a human shield. The police officer’s actions were also reasonable and foreseeable so don’t break the chain of causation. This means D was the significant cause of V’s death. Therefore he is the factual and legal cause of V’s death.

Question 17

What was the R v White case and what was the outcome?

Answer 17

D decided to poison his mother for his inheritance. His mother took a sip of her poisoned drink but coincidentally died of an unrelated heart attack.
D was found not guilty of murder because she would still have died but for the poison in her drink so he is not the factual cause of her death. However he could be found guilty of attempted murder.

Question 18

What is the test for legal causation?

Answer 18

‘Operative and substantial’ test. D’s conduct must be a significant cause of the consequence to the V.

Question 19

What are the 3 types of intervening act that can break the chain of causation?

Answer 19

Actions of a third party (e.g the doctors’ palpably wrong treatment in the R v Jordan case).
Victim’s own actions (are the actions proportionate to the threat?).

Natural and unpredictable events (e.g floods, hurricanes, earthquakes).

Question 20

Intervening acts will only break the chain of causation if…

Answer 20

they are unreasonable and unforeseeable.

For medical treatment they also have to be palpably wrong.

Question 21

What was the R v Smith case and what was the outcome?

Answer 21

D stabbed V with a bayonet and punctured V’s lung. Medics arrived and didn’t realise the lung was punctured. They saw him struggling to breathe and performed CPR on V which tore open his lung and he died.
D was found guilty because V would not have died but for D stabbing him with a bayonet. The victim died in 2 hours so the stab must have been a significant cause of death. The medical treatment was also reasonable and foreseeable so isn’t an intervening act. Therefore D is the factual and legal cause of V’s death.

Question 22

What was the R v Jordan case and what was the outcome?

Answer 22

D stabbed V in the stomach. V had almost recovered in hospital when a doctor gave him antibiotics that he was allergic to. The doctor wrote a note saying not to give him any more. Another doctor came and gave him the same antibiotics again and V went into cardiac arrest. The doctor then pumped his body with 6 times the amount of fluid any human should have in their body.
D was found not guilty of murder because V would have recovered if it wasn’t for the palpably bad medical treatment that was unreasonable and unforeseeable. Therefore this breaks the chain of causation so D can’t be found guilty of murder. This means he is the factual but not legal cause of death as his conduct wasn’t a significant cause of death.

Question 23

Why is D guilty in R v Roberts but not R v Williams?

Answer 23

The victims were both hitchhikers who jumped out of the car. The difference is Roberts was making sexual advances on his victim so her jumping out of the car and breaking a leg is reasonable and foreseeable. It is also proportionate to the threat. This means he is the factual and legal cause of her broken leg. However Williams was only asking for money for a share of the petrol when V jumped out of the car and died. The V’s actions were unreasonable, unforeseeable and disproportionate to the threat so D is not guilty as he is not the legal cause of his death.

Question 24

What is the thin skull rule?

Answer 24

Any characteristic which makes the V more vulnerable will not break the chain of causation; the D will still be liable for the more serious consequence to the V.

Question 25

What kinds of conditions does the thin skull rule apply to?

Answer 25

Allergies, brittle bone disease, haemophilia, epilepsy, previous injury, mental illness, religious beliefs etc.

Question 26

Which case is a good example of the thin skull rule?

Answer 26

R v Blaue.
D stabbed V who was a Jehovah’s witness. At the hospital V was told she would need a blood transfusion to survive but she refused this on religious grounds and she eventually bled to death. Blaue was found guilty of her murder. V would not have died but for D stabbing her and her religious beliefs will not break the chain of causation so he is a significant cause of her death.

Question 27

What is meant by mens rea?

Answer 27

The mental element of a crime (literal translation: guilty mind).

Question 28

What are the 2 types of mens rea?

Answer 28

Intention (direct and oblique).

Recklessness.

Question 29

How does the Mohan case define direct intent?

Answer 29

D aims to bring about the prohibited consequence.

Question 30

What are good examples of proving direct intention for murder?

Answer 30

Planning/premeditation, motive, use of a weapon, relationship with V, things D has said previously.

Question 31

What is oblique intention?

Answer 31

Where the D’s aim wasn’t to bring about the consequence but the consequence was so obvious that D may as well have intended it.

Question 32

What was the Woollin case?

Answer 32

D was a loving devoted father to a small baby but he was left alone for a few hours with the baby who wouldn’t stop crying. D lost his temper and threw the baby towards the pram which was 5 feet away but the baby hit the wall and died. He was found not guilty of murder because it was deemed that he didn’t realise the baby’s death was virtually certain.

Question 33

What are the 2 parts to the test for oblique intention that was introduced by the Woollin case?

Answer 33

1) The consequence of D’s conduct was virtually certain. (Objective)
2) D realised the consequence was virtually certain. (Subjective)

Question 34

What is objective?

Answer 34

What a reasonable person would think.

Question 35

What is subjective?

Answer 35

What D was thinking.

Question 36

What was the Matthews and Alleyne case and what did it clarify?

Answer 36

The Ds threw V into a deep, fast-flowing river knowing that V couldn’t swim. They were found guilty of murder because they passed both parts of the test from Woollin case. Therefore the case clarifies that passing the test is strong evidence of oblique intent.

Question 37

What was the Cunningham case?

Answer 37

D ripped the gas meter off the wall to steal money inside but this caused gas to escape to neighbouring property where the gas harmed V.
He was found not guilty because he didn’t have the mens rea as it was determined he wasn’t being reckless.

Question 38

What is the test for recklessness which was introduced by the Cunningham case? Is this test subjective or objective?

Answer 38

Did D foresee the risk of harm resulting from their conduct but carry on regardless?
Subjective.

Question 39

What is transferred malice?

Answer 39

When D intended to commit a crime on one person but actually commits it on someone else. The mens rea can be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim, meaning D is still guilty.

Question 40

What is the case for transferred malice?

Answer 40

R v Latimer. D was in a pub and got into an argument with someone. He tried to hit them with his belt but it hit the landlady instead. He was found guilty of GBH as malice was transferred.

Question 41

Can malice be transferred if D has the actus reus of one crime whilst possessing the mens rea of a different crime?

Answer 41

No- it has to be the same offence for malice to be transferred.

Question 42

What is an example of a case where malice couldn’t be transferred?

Answer 42

R v Pembliton- D threw a stone at a group of people trying to hit them. He missed them and smashed a shop window. He was found not guilty of criminal damage as there was no mens rea for criminal damage.

Question 43

What is the principle of coincidence?

Answer 43

For an offence to take place, the defendant usually needs both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence and they need to be present at the same time.

Question 44

What is single transaction theory?

Answer 44

When the MR happens before the AR but the courts extend the MR to meet the AR for the D to be found guilty. This happens when there is a clear chain of events that act as a single action.

Question 45

Which case is an example of single transaction theory?

Answer 45

R v Thabo Meli. D and his gang kidnapped and beat V with bats until they thought he was dead. They then threw his body over a cliff where he later died of exposure to the elements. MR- when they beat him with bats. AR-when they threw him off a cliff. The court extended the MR for him to be found guilty as the events were a single transaction to death.

Question 46

What is a continuing act?

Answer 46

When the AR is done first but still continues until D has MR. The AR is extended to meet the MR.

Question 47

Which case is an example of a continuing act?

Answer 47

Fagan v MPC. D accidentally ran over a police officer’s foot. When the officer told him to move he refused and left the car on V’s foot. AR- running over his foot. MR- refusing to move the car off his foot. D was found guilty as the AR was still happening when he formed the MR.