Elements Of A Crime Flashcards
Actus Reus
Literally means ‘guilty act’
It is the physical element of a crime
(Must be a voluntary action to be found guilty)
When is an act not voluntary
An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind
Example:
Swatting bees while driving and loosing control
Hit on the head with a wrong, now unconscious while driving, loose control
Heart attack or epileptic fit while driving, loose control
Omission
Failing to act
General rule on omissions
You are not responsible for a failure to act
Exception: if they have a duty to act
Different types of duties in omission
Contractual Relationship Assuming responsibility voluntarily Public office Creating a dangerous situation
Contractual
Duty while on the job
R v Pittwood (1902)
Failed to shut gate at railway, someone was run over by a train
Relationship
A relation usually parent and child
R v Gibbins and proctor (1918)
Failed to feed their child and the child died. Duty as guardians to feed the child
Assuming responsibility voluntarily
Voluntarily taking responsibility for someone
R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)
Chose to take care of her sister, failed to take care of her and she died
Public office
A duty from your job (on or off duty)
R v Dytham (1979)
Off the job police officer saw a fight break out and a man died, he didn’t intervene or summon help
Creating a dangerous situation
Causing risk for crime and not preventing it
R v Miller (1983)
Man dropped a lot cigarette, saw it caught fire and left it. Did not attempt to put out the fire or summon help. Caused by his action
Two types of causation (actus reus)
Factual causation
Legal causation
Factual causation- write down the name of the test
But for(without).. D’s conduct… would ____ have happened?
Case to compare to factual causation?
R V Pagett D kidnapped pregnant girlfriend(V). D used V as human shield against police, shot police then police shot V. But for(without) D using V as a human shield, she would not have died. Events would not have happened without Ds causation- passed test- guilty (more likely)
How factual causation test works- process
But for (without D’s actions).. -> would not have happened -> passed test -> guilty
But for (without D’s actions)..-> would have still happened -> failed test -> not guilty (not factual cause)
Legal causation
Operative and substantial test
Was D’s conduct a significant cause of the consequence to V.
Legal causation case
R v Smith
D stabbed V with bayonet and punctured V’s lung. Medics performed CPR on V which tore open the lung and he died.
Legal causation: intervening acts
Unbroken chain of events is needed from D’s conduct to the consequence. = chain of causation
To break the chain the intervening act must be
- unreasonable and unforseeable
3 types of intervening acts
- act of a third party
- act of the victim
- acts of God(natural)
Act of a third party case
R v Pagett
Police were a third party, however them shooting back is foreseeable and reasonable, therefore it doesn’t break the chain and D is still guilty
Medical treatment to be an intervention
As well as the treatment being unreasonable and unforseeable- it must also be palpably wrong
Case for medical intervention
R v Jordan
D shot V in stomach. V had almost recovered when hospital gave V antibiotics. V had allergic reaction and there was a note saying not to give them antibiotics. Another doctor gave V more antibiotics. V went into cardiac arrest and they pumped 6X more fluid than any human should have and they died.
Wasn’t reasonable, was unforeseeable and palpably wrong- this breaks chain of causation from D
Case for act of the victim
R v Roberts
D picked up a female hitch hiker, made sexual advances on her. She jumped out the car and broke her leg.
Her jumping out the car was reasonable and foreseeable so the chain of causation is not broken.
D is still a significant cause
R v Williams
D picked up male hitchhiker. Asked to see his wallet. V jumped out car head first
Jumping headfirst was unforeseeable therefore chain of causation is broken and D is not significant cause
Thin skull rule
Any characteristic which makes V more vulnerable or weak will never break the chain of causation
- physical or mental condition
Case showing thin skull rule
R v Blaue
D stabbed V who was Jehovah’s Witness. V refused blood transfusion and bled to death.
Abnormal condition - belief- doesn’t accept blood. “Take your victim as you find them”
Types of sentences
Custodial, fine, community, discharge
Custodial?
For most serious crimes: can be imposed if
The offence is so serious neither a fine or community sentence can be justified
4 types of custodial sentence
Mandatory life sentence
Discretionary life sentence
Fixed term sentence
Suspended sentence
Custodial: Mandatory life sentence
For murder judged have to give life sentence
Judged also have to impose tariff, tariff is how long D should wait until eligible for parole
Whole life tariffs have to be imposed if it’s:
The murder of a child where there was a sexual motive
A murder done for political reasons
What’s a discretionary life sentence (custodial)
When the maximum sentence is life and but the judge doesn’t have to decide on life, it can be lesser
They can decide this due to mitigating and aggravating factors
Custodial: Fixed term sentence
Also known as determinate sentences (bc judge determines sentence). Judge will look at maximum then take into account factors.
Any offender will usually serve half of any fixed term sentence, remaining part is on license(supervised by probation officer)
Custodial: Suspended sentence
Offender does not go to prison immediately
Chance to stay out of trouble if they meet up to 12 requirements
Doing unpaid work, subject to curfew, treatment program for drugs or alcohol
If the offender doesn’t comply or is convicted with another crime on suspension they’re likely to serve the original sentence on top of any new one
Community order
Unpaid work order
Drug/ Alcohol treatment
Curfew
Compensation
Discharge
Offender doesn’t receive punishment
If they reoffend within 3 years they will be punished for the new and old offence
Aggravating factors
Previous convictions for similar crime Premeditation Abusing a position of trust Use of a weapon Hostility towards race, religion, sexual orientation etc V’s injuries serious V is vulnerable Committing an offence while on bail High level of intent
Mitigating factor
D has difficult home life D very young/old D cooperates with the police Guilty plea D is keen to make amends Showing remorse D is vulnerable in some way First time offender
Mens rea
Literally means ‘guilty mind’
Mental element of a crime- what was D thinking?
Two type of mens rea
Intention (direct or oblique)
Recklessness
Direct intention
Mohan (1975)
Decision or aim to bring about the prohibited consequence - ‘want’ doesn’t matter
Subjective
Good evidence to show direct intention
Sustained attack/repetition Planning Motive History Weapon Area of attack
Oblique intention
Woollin (1999)
D’s baby crying and D lost temper, threw baby towards peak but hit wall by accident.
(Not direct, not aiming to harm baby)
1.consequence virtually certain (objective)
2.D has to know it’s virtually certain (subjective)
Wouldn’t pass the test as D didn’t think death was certain as he thought the baby would go in the pram
When will oblique intention be used
Only when recklessness is unavailable for the crime. Crime has to be S18 crime or murder
Recklessness
Most basic level of mens rea (less serious)
Cunningham (1957) D went into a building ripped off gas meter in order to steal money inside, didn’t know how gas meters worked. Gas exposure harmed the neighbour.
No direct intent- meant to get money
No oblique- wasn’t virtually certain as he didn’t know how has meters worked
Also didn’t realise a risk and continuing regardless because he didn’t know about the risk. (Subjective)
Transferred malice
Mens rea can be transferred from intended victim to actual victim meaning D is guilty.
Latimer (1876)
Back swing on belt hit V when meaning to hit X.
Guilty due to mens rea being transferred to the actus reus because it’s the same crime.
Thin skull rule applied causation
The thin skull rule means weaknesses of V can never break the chain of causation, D must take V as he finds him like in Blaue.
V’s rare blood condition won’t break the chain of causation because of the thin skull rule.
Because there is not an intervening act that breaks the chain, D has caused the death
Stays the same in causation question (mandatory)
D must cause V injuries or death
Factual causation uses the but for test like in Pagett
But for D’s conduct… V would not have this consequence
Legal causation uses the operative and substantial test meaning a significant cause like in Smith
Doctor’s intervening act applied
Doctor’s actions can break the chain of causation when they are unreasonable, unforeseeable and palpably wrong like in Jordan.
Here, the doctors amputating V’s legs is unreasonable, unforeseeable and palpably wrong because V had nearly recovered and originally only had a small injury. Therefore, the chain has been broken.
Because there is an intervening act that broke the chain, D has not caused the injury
No intervening act in applied
Take out the everything that’s not mandatory. Last part because there is not an intervening act D has caused the injury
Victim’s intervening act applied
Victim’s acts can break the chain of causation if they are unreasonable and unforeseeable like Roberts
Here, the V running away was reasonable and foreseeable because D waved a knife at him and threatened him. Therefore, the chain has not been broken.
Because the intervening act did not break the chain of causation, D has caused the sprained ankle
Coincidence/contemporaneity
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. ie(coincide)
But something the mens rea and actus reus don’t occur at the same time. Courts may use single translation theory or continuing act to make them coincide
Single transaction theory
Mens rea first, actus reus after
Stretch the mens rea until the actus reus takes place
View something as a connected chain of events that mens rea is applicable at any point
Continuing act
Actus reus first, mens rea after
Actus reus continues until mens rea comes
Single transaction theory case
Thabo Meli
D and his gang kidnapped V with plan to kill him. Took V to a cliff and beat him with bats until they thought he was dead. Then disposed of the ‘body’ over the cliff however he wasn’t dead. Was alive when thrown and died from the elements.
Mens rea: besting with bats
Actus reus: throwing over cliff
All actions became a single transaction to death. Viewed as one chain of connected events that they can apply mens rea to at any point
Continuing act case
Fagan V MPC
D accidentally ran over a police officers foot, when police told him to move D refused and left the car on his foot
Actus reus: ran over foot by accident
Mens rea: refused to move
Foot was still being crushed by the car when the mens rea occurred, so D becomes guilty when the mens rea occurred
