Elements Of A Crime

Question 1

what 3 things must be in a crime

Answer 1

actus reus
mens rea
principle of coincidence

Question 2

what is actus reus

Answer 2

physical voluntary act
to murder someone

Question 3

what is mens rea

Answer 3

guilty state of mind
“i am going to murder someone”

Question 4

what is principle of coincidence

Answer 4

AR/MR must happen at the same time

Question 5

what does the AR have to be
what case / what is said

Answer 5

has to be voluntary
Bratty v NI AG (1963) “involuntary act = controlled by muscle, not the mind eg tourrettes, sneezing”

Question 6

case of involuntary act
-what happened

Answer 6

Leicester v Pearson (1952)
-D. crashed into, hit pedestrian

Question 7

what is an omission

Answer 7

failing to do something

Question 8

what does actus reus by omission mean

Answer 8

had a duty (5) to act, but did not

Question 9

what are the 5 duties to act

Answer 9

contract, relationship, voluntary assumption of responsibility, public position, person creates dangerous situation

Question 10

case of duty to act - contract
-what happened

Answer 10

R v Pitwood (1902)
-D. worked for railway
-man died after D. left gate open

Question 11

case of duty to act - relationship
-what happened

Answer 11

R v Gibson & Proctor (1918)
-child starved to death
-D.’s GF didn’t feed child

Question 12

case of duty to act - voluntary assumption of responsibility
-what happened

Answer 12

R v Stone & Dobinson (1977)
-D. cared for elderly sister rather than putting her in a home
-sister died
D. + GF charged

Question 13

case of duty to act - public position
-what happened

Answer 13

R v Dytham (1979)
-D. (police officer) walked past fight
-did not intervene
-man died

Question 14

case of duty to act - person creates dangerous situation
-what happened

Answer 14

R v Miller (1983)
-D. slept with lit cigarette
-caused fire
-ignored it and slept somewhere else

Question 15

what is factual causation proving

Answer 15

consequence wouldn’t have otherwise occurred

Question 16

what is legal causation proving

Answer 16

D.’s actions were a significant cause of consequence

Question 17

factual causation test + 2 cases

Answer 17

“but for test”
[consequence] wouldn’t have happened but for [action]

R v Pagett (1983)
-kidnapped pregnant GF
-used her as shield when he shot at police
-she died
“the GF would not have been shot but for D. using her as a shield and shooting at police” - this makes sense, and factual causation is proven.

R v White (1910)
-D. poisoned mothers tea
-she died of unrelated heart attack
“the mother would not have had a heart attack but for D. poisoning the tea”? -this does NOT make sense, and factual causation cannot be proved.

Question 18

legal causation test + case

Answer 18

operative and substantial test

** R v Smith (1959) **
-soldiers get into fight
-D. stabs V.
-V. recieves poor treatment + dies

Question 19

what is the name of the things that break the chain of causation?
what 3 things are they? (4?)

Answer 19

new intervening acts
actions of 3rd parties (medical)
actions of victim
acts of god

Question 20

what do NIA have to be to break the chain? (med)

Answer 20

unreasonable, unforeseeable (palpably wrong)

Question 21

actions of 3rd party case
extra; medical case

Answer 21

R v Pagett (1983)
-claimed police shot woman, not him
-however police shot was not independent
-chain not broken
-GUILTY

R v Jordan (1956)
-patient came in for stabbing treatment
-was allergic to antibiotics; it was noted
-Dr ignored; DEAD
-PALPABLY WRONG; it was worse than the stabbing

Question 22

actions of 3rd party case 1 = case 2

Answer 22

R v Roberts (1971)
-V. jumped out of car to avoid advances
-this was NOT unforeseeable/unreasonable - chain NOT broken

R v Williams (1992)
-V. jumped out of car to avoid robbery threat; DEAD
-this WAS unreasonable - chain WAS BROKEN, D. NOT guilty

Question 23

act of god examples

Answer 23

-eruption
-earthquake
-tsunami
-tornado

Question 24

thin skull rule
-phrase
-what does it apply to?
-case

Answer 24

-D. is required to take V. as they find them; any conditions dont matter. if they die they die
-applies to physical, mental, religious (eg weaknesses, mental illness, views)

R v Blaue (1975)
-D. stabs V.
-V. needed blood transfusion
-as a jehovah’s witness, couldn’t receive it; DEAD
-D. argued V.’s refusal broke chain; due to TSR, D. GUILTY

Question 25

3 types of mens rea? what are they?

Answer 25

direct intention; D. aimed to bring consequence
oblique intention; D. denies intending, but evidence infers he should’ve known
recklessness; D. saw risk but carried on regardless

Question 26

direct intention case

Answer 26

R v Mohan (1975)
-police told D. slow down
-D. slowed, then rapidly sped up
-ran over police

being “in a rage” = direct

Question 27

oblique intention case 1 + test + case 2 + apply test

Answer 27

R v Woollin (1998)
-man caring for baby
-frustrated; tries to put it down
-throws it; DEAD
-argued he wasnt seeing straight and didnt mean to; NOT GUILTY

Woollin test
-part 1 objective - consequence was virtually certain (99%+)
-part 2 subjective - D. knew it was v certain

R v Matthews & Alleyne
-D. threw V. in river
-V. cries he cant swim
-D. argued they didnt mean to kill

apply test
-objective = river was very deep; conseq is v certain
-subjective = D. knew he’d die; v. crying out he cant swim

Question 28

recklessness case + test

Answer 28

R v Cunningham
-ripped gas meter for the £££
-gassed neighbours to death
-unaware; pt.2 of woollin test FAILED; NOT GUILTY

test
-D.D.R.R.R
-Did Defendant Realise Risk + carry on Regardless(any % of risk)

Question 29

transferred malice meaning + case 1 + case 2

Answer 29

court takes MR from intended V. to who suffered AR; ONLY LIKE OFFENCES (eg only building/only person)

R v Latimer (1886)
-bar fight
-man shouldve been hit; woman hit
-MR transferred

R v Pembilton (1874)
-threw stones into crowd
-broke window
-NOT a like offence (building vs person) NOT GUILTY

Question 30

courts can force contemporaneity - meaning? theory 1 case. theory 2 case

Answer 30

can force principle of coincidence - make MR and AR coincide

Single Act Transaction theory - MR B4 AR
R v Thabo-Meli (1954)
-beat v.
-thought he was dead
-threw over cliff to dispose, then he died

Continuing Act Theory - AR B4 MR
Fagan v MPC (1964)
-ran over foot accidentally
-stayed on it

Question 31

Exam structure

Answer 31

FALIAC

F - explain Factual causation + test
A - Apply
L - explain Legal causation + test
I - explain new Intervening acts
A - Apply to case
C - Conclude; legal caus proved?