Elements of a Crime Cases

Question 1

Hill v Baxter

Answer 1

If a crime is committed by a positive act, the act must have been carried out voluntarily

Question 2

R v Gibbins and Proctor

Answer 2

A person may be criminally liable for an omission in cases where a duty of care can be established through the existence of a special relationship

Question 3

R v Stone and Dobinson

Answer 3

A person may be criminally liable for an omission in cases where a duty of care exists because of a voluntary assumption of responsibility

Question 4

R v Pittwood

Answer 4

A person may be criminally liable for an omission in cases where a duty of care has been created through a contractual agreement.

Question 5

R v Dytham

Answer 5

A person may be criminally liable for an omission in cases where they have a professional duty to protect others from harm.

Question 6

R v Miller

Answer 6

A person may be criminally liable for an omission if they have created a dangerous situation and then failed to take steps to prevent or reduce harm

Question 7

R v Santa-Bermudez

Answer 7

A person may be criminally liable for an omission if they have created a dangerous situation and then failed to take steps to prevent or reduce harm

Question 8

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent

Answer 8

An actus reus can be committed through a state of affairs. This is where a defendant commits the actus reus just by being in a particular situation. No mens rea needs to be established (absolute liability)

Question 9

R v Larsonneur

Answer 9

An actus reus can be committed through a state of affairs. This is where a defendant commits the actus reus just by being in a particular situation. No mens rea needs to be established (absolute liability)

Question 10

R v Woollin

Answer 10

The current test for oblique intent is whether or not the defendant foresaw the outcome as a virtual certainty of their actions.

Question 11

R v Cunningham

Answer 11

The test to establish recklessness is a subjective one. The question to be answered is whether the defendant foresaw a risk of the outcome and acted anyway.

Question 12

R v Mohan

Answer 12

Direct intent can be defined as “the decision to bring about, within so far as it lies within the accused power [the prohibited consequence] no matter whether the accused desired that consequence or not.”

Question 13

R v Savage

Answer 13

When used in statute, the word ‘malicious’ should be interpreted as subjectively reckless