ELEMENTS OF CRIME

Question 1

What does ACTUS REUS mean and what’s the rule ?

Answer 1

Literally = ‘guilty act’ it is the physical elements of a crime - the conduct , circumstances and consequence

Rule = no act is punishable if done involuntary
( d’s action must be voluntary to be found guilty)

Remember as Actus reus for Action

Question 2

What is the CASE STUDY to show the rule that no act is punishable if done involuntary ?

And what did the LORD say ?

Answer 2

BRATTY v ATTORNEY GENERAL NORTHERN IRELAND

Lord DENNING says an act would be voluntary when
“ act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind “

Question 3

Actus Reus

Which is the CASE that showed and gave 3 example of an involuntary conduct ?
Name the examples

Answer 3

HILL v BAXTER

3 hypothetical examples of when a act would be involuntary =
1 Being stung by a swarm of bees when driving then crashing
2 Being hit on the head by a stone then becoming unconscious and losing control
3 Having a heart attack or epileptic fit whilst driving and loosing control

Question 4

another way to prove Actus Reus is Omission

What is omission?

Answer 4

Failing to act / not acting

Question 5

What is the general rule for Omission on and what are the exceptions?

Answer 5

General rule= you are not responsible for failing to act, you don’t have to help if you don’t want to and legally allowed

Exception= a person is only liable for an omission if they have a DUTY TO ACT and they don’t

• public office
• contractual
• relationship of dependency
• creating dangerous situation
• Assuming responsibility / voluntarily care

Question 6

What does Relationship of Dependency duty to act mean?

What is the case study and explain it ….

Answer 6

= is having a duty to act duty due to relations of dependence for example parents or doctor /careers to patient

R v GIBBONS and PROCTOR
(remember as they were supposed to protect the daughter)

A father and his partner killed his day by starving her. He locked her in her room and neglected her. They were found guilty as they failed to act as she was dependent on them.

Question 7

What does Public Office (or official position) Duty to Act mean ?

What is the case study abs explain it ….

Answer 7

= duty to act in an official position e.g. police officer or a mayor

R v DYTHAM

police officer watched a fight break out and didn’t stop it. Consequently one of the men in the fight got beat to death. The officer could have called for back up but didn’t and charged with miss charge of conduct as he had a duty to act.

Question 8

What does Contractual duty to act mean?

What is the case study abs explain it ……

Answer 8

= duty to act due to employment as you have a contract of employment of responsibility e.g. zookeeper

R v PITTWOOD

worked for a railway a man was killed on the railway line when D did not close the gate. D was responsible due to this job being part of his contract of employment.

Question 9

What does Assuming Responsibility (voluntary care) duty to act mean ?

What is the case study and explain it ?

Answer 9

= if you volunteer to take responsibility you have a duty to carry that act out.

R v STONE and DOBINSON
remember he had a stone cold heart for doing that to his aunt

D and his girlfriend chose to take care of his elderly aunt rather than send her to a hone. They then chose to neglect the aunt as she was hard work. She died of neglect /poor treatment and they were charged with man slaughter as they took responsibility and left her to die

Question 10

What does Creating a Dangerous (hazardous situation) duty to act mean?

What is the case study and explain it …..

Answer 10

= means you have to act on a dangerous situation if you have created one

R v MILLER

Homeless man dropped a lit cigarette and it started a fire. He woke up and just moved to a different place without telling anyone. The house burned down. D was charged with arson as he failed to act on the damaging situation he created.

Question 11

What is causation and what are the 2 different types of it?

Answer 11

Some crimes require a consequence to happen for D to be guilty.

= It must be proved that D’s conduct caused the consequences to V

1 Factual

2 Legal

Question 12

What is FACTUAL causation?

Answer 12

the ‘BUT FOR’ test= must be proved that the consequences to V Would not have happened’BUT FOR’ D’s conduct

(remember it as but For for Factual causation)

Question 13

What is the man case study used in factual causation and explain….

Does it pass the test ?

Answer 13

R v PAGETT

D kidnapped his pregnant girlfriend and ended up in a stand of with the police. D used V as a human shield and shot a police. Police shot back and ended up killing V.

‘D caused the death of V because she would not have died ‘but for’ D using her as a shield’

Question 14

What is the contrasting case for Factual causation

And explain it ….
does it pass the test?

Answer 14

R v WHITE

D decided to poison his mother to gain inheritance. But she died before the drink killed her of natural causes.

‘’ But for’ D poisoning V she still would have died’

Does not pass the test so D can’t be guilty of murder instead can be found guilty of attempted murder.

Question 15

what is the rule for CAUSATION for D to be found GUILTY?

Answer 15

BOTH tests (factual / legal) must be proved to be guilty

Question 16

What is LEGAL causation?

Answer 16

The OPERATIVE and SUBSTANTIAL test
= was D’s conduct the significant cause of the consequence to V

does not have to be the main cause or only cause just a significant one

Question 17

What case is used in Legal causation and explain it ?

Does it pass the test?

Answer 17

R v SMITH (remember it as stabby smith)

D and V were soldiers who got into a fight. D stabbed V and punctured v’s lungs with a bayonet. Medics have V CPR cause saw him struggling to breath and that tore his lung. V died

Passes Legal causation :
D was a significant and operative cause of V’s death therefore passed for legal causation.

Because it would also pass factual causation, D would be found guilty of murder.

Question 18

What is the CHAIN of CONSEQUENCE?

Answer 18

In order for D to be the Operative and Substantial cause, an unbroken chain of events must be established from D’s CONDUCT to the CONSEQUENCE aka the chain of causation.

Question 19

What is an intervening acts ?

What are the 3 types ?

Answer 19

= any event that takes place between D’s conduct and the consequence to V

1 Actions of a 3rd party

2 victims own actions

3 Natural and unpredicted event (acts of god)

Question 20

What happens if there are NO intervening acts ?

And if there is, what does it have to be to BREAK the chain?

Answer 20

If there are no intervening acts , D will always be the operative abs substantial cause of the consequence

If there is it will need to be = UNREASONABLE and UNFORESEEABLE ( in proportional to the threat)
to break the chain

Question 21

What case study is used for intervening acts of a 3 PARTY ?

Explain it …. and does it break the chain?

Answer 21

R v JORDON (remember as junky Jordon )

V was shot in the stomach by D. V had nearly recovered from the gun shot in hospital, when doctors gave him antibiotics that he was allergic to twice. V went into cardiac arrest when he was then given 6x the amount of body fluids anyone would need. V died.

The chain is broken as the act of the 3rd party were PALPABLY wrong so the chain is broken and D is not the operative and substantial cause of death.

Question 22

What does PALPABLY wrong mean and when do we use it ?

Also name the treatment where the medical treatment of a 3rd party was NOT palpably wrong and didn’t then break the chain?

Answer 22

= medical treatment in a 3rd party only breaks the chain if it was unreasonable and unforeseeable and treatment was ‘palpably wrong’ = incredibly wrong

In R v SMITH the treatment was reasonable and foreseeable so would not break the chain

Question 23

Name the 2 case studies used in Acts of the Victim ?

And name which one does and doesn’t break the chain of Causation?

Answer 23

R v ROBERTS (remember as rapey Roberts)
= DOES NOT break the chain

R v WILLIAMS (remember as wallet Williams)
= DOES break the chain

Question 24

What does the case R v ROBERTS show explain?

What happened in the case?
Also apply the Factual causation test here …

Answer 24

ACTS OF VICTIM
=D picked up a hitch hiker while driving D started to make sexual advances on V who then jumped out of the car and broke her leg

Factual : passes the test as V would not have broke her leg BUT FOR D making inappropriate sexual advances

DOES NOT BREAK the chain of causation as it was reasonable and foreseeable in proportion to the treat of getting sexually assaulted.

Therefore D is still the significance cause to the injury

Question 25

What does the case R v WILLIAMS show ?

Explain what happens in the case?
Apply the Factual causation test here…

Answer 25

ACTS OF VICTIM

= D picked up V who was a male hitch hiker. D asked if he could see V’s wallet. V thought he was going to be robbed and jumped out of the car. V died

Factual: passes as V would not have died BUT FOR D threatening him

Chain WOULD BREAK as V’s actions were unreasonable and unforeseeable in proportioning loosing some money.

So D would not be a significant cause of the consequence to V