Elements of a Crime Flashcards
Omission
failure to act - only liable for an omission if a duty is owed
CRAPC duties
CRAPC omissions
Contractual
Relationship
Assuming responsibility voluntarily
Public office
Creating a dangerous situation
Contractual
R v Pittwood
D failed to perform his job when he didn’t close the gate at a railway and someone died
Relationship
R v Gibbins and Proctor
D’s neglected their child
Assuming responsibility voluntarily
R v Stone and Dobinson
D’s assumed care for their aunt and neglected her
Public office
R v Dytham
D was a police officer off duty who failed to interrupt a fight when one broke out and a man died
Creating a dangerous situation
R v Miller
D failed to alert others when he accidentally created a fire
Factual causation
‘but for’ test - Pagett
Legal causation
‘operative and substantial’ test meaning a significant cause - Smith
Intervening acts
can break the chain of causation if unreasonable and unforseeable
acts of victim, 3rd party or God
Acts of Victim
R v Williams - unreasonable and unforseeable (robbery threat)
R v Roberts - reasonable and forseeable (sexual assault threat)
Acts of 3rd Party
Pagett - reasonable and forseeable (D used V as a human shield and aimed at police; police fired back, killing V)
Jordan - unreasonable, unreasonable and palpably wrong (Doctors gave V incorrect medication and pumped V with X6 the amount of liquid that should ever be in a person’s body, killing V)
Medical - intervening acts
Medical acts of 3rd party must also be palpably wrong.
Thin Skull Rule
D must take V as he finds them
R v Blaue - V was a Jehovah’s Witness and died once refusing a blood transfusion due to religious reasons.
Direct intention
Mohan - D’s decision or aim to bring about the prohibited consequence
Oblique intention
Woollin - Was D’s consequence virtually certain? Did D realise this?
Recklessness
D realises a risk but continues regardless
Cunningham
Transferred Malice
Latimer - mens rea can be transferred from intended victim to actual victim
Pembliton - mens rea cannot be transferred between crimes
Coincidence
D’s mens rea and actus reus must be present at the same time.
If this is not the case, courts can extend them so they are.
Single transaction theory, Continuing Act
Single Transaction Theory
when D’s mens rea was present but isn’t when the actus reus is later - D’s mens rea can be extended.
R v Thabo Meli
Continuing Act
When D’s actus reus was present but isn’t when the mens rea is later - the actus reus can be extended.
Fagan v MPC
