ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY Flashcards
ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA
- A criminal offence usually requires a physical act (actus reus) and a mental state (mens rea) to occur at the same time (that is, concurrence).
- Some offences do not have a mens rea requirement; these are strict liability offences, where the offence is committed if the actus reus is complete.
DEFENCES IN THE CRIMINAL EQUATION
- If the prosecution have proved that the actus reus and mens rea of the alleged offence are fulflled, a defendant may nev-ertheless argue that they are not culpable or less culpable
- if a defence is available to them. Defences can be complete (resulting in acquittal) or partial (resulting in conviction of a lesser offence).
ACTUS REUS/PHYSICAL ACT
The physical act can be broken down into three possible ele-ments (not all elements will be required for every ofence):
*Conduct—These are the physical acts or omissions by the defendant that make the defendant liable for the ofence.
*Circumstances—These are the facts that must exist for a defendant to be liable.
*Result—This is the outcome that must occur for the offence to be committed.
Conduct
All criminal offences require some conduct on behalf of the defendant.
1. Omissions Sometimes Can Be Criminal Acts
In certain circumstances, failure to act can also amount to conduct. Two requirements must be satisfed for a failure to act to amount to a criminal offence:
*There must be** a duty **on behalf of the defendant to act; and
*The defendant must have breached that duty by failing to act sufciently.
A duty to act will arise in a number of circumstances, including:
*Under statute, such as an obligation to stop at the scene of an accident;
*Where there is a special relationship, such as parent-child or doctor-patient;
*Where the defendant voluntarily assumed a duty of care for the victim;
*Where a duty is imposed by contract, such as passenger railway guard; and
*Where the defendant created a dangerous situation and is aware of having done so.
- Possession and Entering Certain Situations
Possession of a thing (for example, a weapon or a drug) can also be sufficient conduct, as well as placing oneself in a situation (for example, being a member of a terrorist organisation).
Circumstances
Certain circumstances must exist for an offence to be com-mitted. For example, a defendant who damages a car com-mits the offence of criminal damage only if the car belongs to someone else. A defendant cannot cause criminal damage to their own car.
Exam Tip
While this concept might seem simple, it is likely to be tested on your exam. Do not jump to a conclusion just because a person burned down a house or damaged a car—make sure the damaged property belonged to someone else. A person is free to damage their own property.
Result Crimes
Result crimes require a certain outcome for the ofence to be committed.
a.Causation
For all result crimes, such as murder, the defendant must have caused the result specifed within the ofence. For example, in the case of murder, the defendant’s actions must have caused the victim’s death. To assess whether the defendant’s act caused the result, the court will consider the** two-stage test** of factual and legal causation.
1. Factual Causation
- Legal Causation
This element is used to prevent the factual causation test from being overbroad. It prevents a conviction where factual causation (but for) is met, but other factors, such
as lack of foreseeability, would make such a conviction
unfair.
factual causation
Factual causation is called the ‘but for’ test. The court will ask whether the result occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct.
Acceleration of Result
If there is more than one cause or even if the defendant’s action slightly accelerates the result, there is sufficient causation in criminal law.
legal causation
- Substantial
For the defendant’s action to be a legal cause, the action must be substantial—the defendant’s role must be more than minimal, slight, or ‘trifing’. For example, if a group of people are beating up a victim, they all are equally responsible for the wounds that result. However, if the defendant was not part of the group and simply brushed the victim before the group attacked, that would not be sufcient. -
Operative
The defendant’s action must also be operative. If the actions of someone or something else **intervenes **between the defendant’s act and the result, the defendant will not be liable.
break the chain of causation
‘Thin Skull Rule’
That the defendant causes more damage than one would expect because of the vulnerabilities of the victim does not negate causation—the defendant will still be responsible. Likewise, a victim suffering greater harm because they refuse medical treatment on religious grounds
will not break the chain of causation. This is sometimes known as the ‘eggshell skull principle’ or ‘thin skull rule’. A defendant takes their victim as they find them.
causation
mensrea
Mens rea is the mental element of an offence; it is the state of mind the defendant must have at the time of the actus reus in order to be guilty of the offence. Motive is the reason that a defendant commits an offence. Motive may provide evidence that a defendant might have the necessary mens rea, but **motive in and of itself is not **an element of any offence in English law.
intention
- Intention is a common form of mens rea that applies to many diferent offences
- The mens rea of intention can be satisfed in two ways: direct intention and indirect (or oblique) intention.
direct intention(intentional or reckless)
The word ‘intention’ is given its ordinary meaning, namely ‘aim or purpose’. The defendant will satisfy the mens rea if the** act, circumstance, or outcome** specifed in the offence is their aim or purpose.
Indirect (Oblique) Intention
- Where the prosecution cannot prove that the defendant had direct intention, the court may fnd the defendant neverthe-less has intention if the outcome was** a virtual certainty** of the act and the
- defendant realised the outcome was a virtual certainty. This is known as oblique or indirect intention.
- For indirect intention to arise, the result of a defendant’s act must be:
*A virtually certain consequence of their conduct; and
*Realised by the defendant as being virtually certain. - Indirect intention is available **only **for specifc intent offences (where recklessness is not available as a form of mens rea). It never applies to basic intent offences (where recklessness is available as an alternative form of mens rea).
- If the defendant is charged with a basic intent offence, they cannot rely on indirect intention, but recklessness will be available as an alternative.