Elements Of A Crime Flashcards
AR, MR, F/L causation, NIA, TSR, TM, Contemporaneity
what 3 things must be in a crime
actus reus
mens rea
principle of coincidence
what is actus reus
physical voluntary act
to murder someone
what is mens rea
guilty state of mind
“i am going to murder someone”
what is principle of coincidence
AR/MR must happen at the same time
what does the AR have to be
what case / what is said
has to be voluntary
Bratty v NI AG (1963) “involuntary act = controlled by muscle, not the mind eg tourrettes, sneezing”
case of involuntary act
-what happened
Leicester v Pearson (1952)
-D. crashed into, hit pedestrian
what is an omission
failing to do something
what does actus reus by omission mean
had a duty (5) to act, but did not
what are the 5 duties to act
contract, relationship, voluntary assumption of responsibility, public position, person creates dangerous situation
case of duty to act - contract
-what happened
R v Pitwood (1902)
-D. worked for railway
-man died after D. left gate open
case of duty to act - relationship
-what happened
R v Gibson & Proctor (1918)
-child starved to death
-D.’s GF didn’t feed child
case of duty to act - voluntary assumption of responsibility
-what happened
R v Stone & Dobinson (1977)
-D. cared for elderly sister rather than putting her in a home
-sister died
D. + GF charged
case of duty to act - public position
-what happened
R v Dytham (1979)
-D. (police officer) walked past fight
-did not intervene
-man died
case of duty to act - person creates dangerous situation
-what happened
R v Miller (1983)
-D. slept with lit cigarette
-caused fire
-ignored it and slept somewhere else
what is factual causation proving
consequence wouldn’t have otherwise occurred
what is legal causation proving
D.’s actions were a significant cause of consequence
factual causation test + 2 cases
“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.
legal causation test + case
operative and substantial test
** R v Smith (1959) **
-soldiers get into fight
-D. stabs V.
-V. recieves poor treatment + dies
what is the name of the things that break the chain of causation?
what 3 things are they? (4?)
new intervening acts
actions of 3rd parties (medical)
actions of victim
acts of god
what do NIA have to be to break the chain? (med)
unreasonable, unforeseeable (palpably wrong)
actions of 3rd party case
extra; medical case
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
actions of 3rd party case 1 = case 2
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
act of god examples
-eruption
-earthquake
-tsunami
-tornado
thin skull rule
-phrase
-what does it apply to?
-case
-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
3 types of mens rea? what are they?
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
direct intention case
R v Mohan (1975)
-police told D. slow down
-D. slowed, then rapidly sped up
-ran over police
being “in a rage” = direct
oblique intention case 1 + test + case 2 + apply test
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
recklessness case + test
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)
transferred malice meaning + case 1 + case 2
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
courts can force contemporaneity - meaning? theory 1 case. theory 2 case
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
Exam structure
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?
What does the Thin Skull Rule state?
Defendant is to take the victim as they find them
Do any conditions matter under the TSR
No, any conditions don’t matter
What types of conditions does the Thin Skull Rule apply to?
- Physical conditions
- Mental conditions
- Religious views
What is an example of a mental condition that might be relevant under the Thin Skull Rule?
Mental illnesses, phobias
What is the case associated with the Thin Skull Rule?
R v Blaue (1975)
In R v Blaue, what action did the defendant take against the victim?
Made sexual advances on the victim
What happened to the victim in R v Blaue after the defendant’s actions?
The victim got stabbed by the defendant
What medical procedure did the victim need after being stabbed in R v Blaue?
Blood transfusion
Why could the victim not receive a blood transfusion in R v Blaue?
She was a Jehovah’s Witness
What was the defendant’s argument regarding the victim’s refusal of the blood transfusion in R v Blaue?
The victim’s refusal broke the chain of causation
What was the verdict in R v Blaue?
Guilty
