ELEMENTS OF CRIME Flashcards
What does ACTUS REUS mean and what’s the rule ?
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
What is the CASE STUDY to show the rule that no act is punishable if done involuntary ?
And what did the LORD say ?
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 “
Actus Reus
Which is the CASE that showed and gave 3 example of an involuntary conduct ?
Name the examples
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
another way to prove Actus Reus is Omission
What is omission?
Failing to act / not acting
What is the general rule for Omission on and what are the exceptions?
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
What does Relationship of Dependency duty to act mean?
What is the case study and explain it ….
= 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.
What does Public Office (or official position) Duty to Act mean ?
What is the case study abs explain it ….
= 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.
What does Contractual duty to act mean?
What is the case study abs explain it ……
= 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.
What does Assuming Responsibility (voluntary care) duty to act mean ?
What is the case study and explain it ?
= 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
What does Creating a Dangerous (hazardous situation) duty to act mean?
What is the case study and explain it …..
= 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.
What is causation and what are the 2 different types of it?
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
What is FACTUAL causation?
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)
What is the man case study used in factual causation and explain….
Does it pass the test ?
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’
What is the contrasting case for Factual causation
And explain it ….
does it pass the test?
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.
what is the rule for CAUSATION for D to be found GUILTY?
BOTH tests (factual / legal) must be proved to be guilty
What is LEGAL causation?
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
What case is used in Legal causation and explain it ?
Does it pass the test?
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.
What is the CHAIN of CONSEQUENCE?
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.
What is an intervening acts ?
What are the 3 types ?
= 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)
What happens if there are NO intervening acts ?
And if there is, what does it have to be to BREAK the chain?
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
What case study is used for intervening acts of a 3 PARTY ?
Explain it …. and does it break the chain?
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.
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?
= 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
Name the 2 case studies used in Acts of the Victim ?
And name which one does and doesn’t break the chain of Causation?
R v ROBERTS (remember as rapey Roberts)
= DOES NOT break the chain
R v WILLIAMS (remember as wallet Williams)
= DOES break the chain
What does the case R v ROBERTS show explain?
What happened in the case?
Also apply the Factual causation test here …
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
What does the case R v WILLIAMS show ?
Explain what happens in the case?
Apply the Factual causation test here…
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
