Fault Flashcards
1
Q
how is fault linked to the voluntary nature if actus reus (actus reus/omission) + case
A
- actus reus must be committed voluntarily
- if D has no control over his actions, he shouldn’t be seen as at fault
- links to automatism
- Hill v Baxter, Driver being attacked by bees isn’t driving voluntarily and shouldn’t be blamed for any collisions
- duress could be raised to show that one’s actions were involuntary
2
Q
how is fault linked to no Good Samaritan law (actus reus/omission) + case
A
- must be a voluntary act to be guilty as it shows fault as the D was in control
- failure to act could place you at fault when there’s a duty to act
- Pittwood confirmed that there’s a duty to act under contractual duty
- there is no liability for omissions as the UK doesn’t have a good samaritan law, so no one is at fault for failing to act
3
Q
how is fault linked to factual causation (causation) + case
A
- D won’t be at fault unless his actions have a direct link to the consequence suffered by the V, and must be the factual cause
- White confirmed that although the D was morally at fault, he wasn’t the factual cause of his mothers death as she died of natural causes
4
Q
how is fault linked to legal causation (causation) + case
A
- D’s actions must have made a significant contribution to the consequence suffered by V (Pagett)
- If not, the D may not be at fault
- if chain of causation is broken by an intervening act, D may not be at fault
- Jordan confirmed that wrong medical treatment led to V’s death and so the D wasn’t at fault for V’s death, but only to the initial GBH
- Smith confirmed that if D’s actions are still ‘the operating and substantial cause’ then the D will be seen as at fault
5
Q
how is fault linked to the think skull rule (causation) + case
A
- D must accept the V as he finds him
- confirmed in Blaue
- argued that cases like Blaue don’t show sufficient fault on part of the D as they must accept the D as they are, even if they’re not aware of their characteristics
- In Blaue, the D was responsible for the Jehovah’s Witness death, even though accepting the blood transfusion would have most likely saved her
6
Q
how is fault linked to the different levels of mens rea (mens rea)
A
- no liability unless the D acted with intent, recklessness or gross negligence
- fault on part of the D is important
- the more serious the crime, the higher degree of fault required
- e.g. murder is more serious than manslaughter as murder requires an intention to kill
7
Q
how is fault linked to constructive intent (mens rea) + case
A
- lack of correspondence between actus reus and mens rea of S.47, S.20 and murder fails to demonstrate sufficient fault
- As confirmed in Savage, in S.47, D can be guilty of ABH even where they didn’t intend of foresee this
- Murder should be limited to only those who intend to kill and it’s not fair to convict for murder where the D intended only GBH, as they’re less at fault
8
Q
how is fault linked to only actus reus required (SLO)
A
- fault isn’t as important in establishing criminal liability for SLO
- SLO don’t require proof of mens rea as performing the actus reus is enough
- SLOs are criticised as D’s are convicted even when they’re not truly at fault
9
Q
how is fault linked to regulatory offences (SLO) + case
A
- purpose of SLOs is to regulate the behaviour of the public rather than regulate blame
- most SLOs are regulatory so they’re not criminal in their nature and focus on social concerns (e.g. underage gambling)
- Harrow LBC v Shah confirmed that pollution is a SLO
- due to the strong link with protecting the public on a large scale, law is less concerned with proving mens rea and fault, and concerned with encouraging greater care
10
Q
how is fault linked to serious consequences/implications (SLO) + case
A
- level of fault may be considered where an act of parliament doesn’t make it clear whether the offence is strict liability
- in those cases, judges presume mens rea is required
- in Sweet v Parsley, the D wasn’t convicted for managing premises where drug taking took place as she wasn’t aware of this, and this shows that her level of fault was considered
11
Q
how is fault linked to justifications (SLO) + case
A
- most SLOs are dealt with by fines due to not truly being criminal
- tend to be outside the courts
- SLOs encourage greater care to be taken
12
Q
how is fault linked to loss of control (Partial defences to murder) + case
A
- conviction of murder requires proof of intention to kill or cause GBH
- there are degrees of culpability which is shown by the availability of defences
- where D is able to prove LoC, the level of fault would be reduced due to the LoC
- In Sarah Sands the defence was successfully used for killing a convicted pedophile for abusing her children
- if successful, murder will be substituted for a voluntary manslaughter conviction
- D’s level of fault will be reduced
13
Q
how is fault linked to diminished responsibility (Partial defences to murder) + case
A
- If D is able to prove that he suffered from an AMF that arises from a recognised medial condition, and provides an explanation for their conduct, the fault will be reduced due to the AMF
- In Byrne, the courts recognised that the D was less at fault sue to his sexual psychopathy tendencies that led to a lack of control
- if successful, murder will be substituted for a voluntary manslaughter conviction
- D’s level of fault will be reduced
14
Q
how is fault linked to diminished responsibility and intoxication (Partial defences to murder) + case
A
- voluntary intoxication on its own isn’t enough to constitute diminished responsibility and must be disregarded as the D is at fault as confirmed in Dowds
- if ignoring the effects of intoxication, the D had an AMF raising from a medically recognised condition that substantially impaired his conduct, then he may have a defence as confirmed in Dietschmann, as the D has a reduced level of fault
- In cases such as Wood, conditions such as ADS can affect metal abilities and functioning to such an extent of an AMF
- So ADS can affect one’s level of fault and may be recognised by the court
15
Q
how is fault linked to Self defence (General Defences) + case
A
- where D uses reasonable force to defend himself, another or property, they could argue self-defence and be acquitted due to their lack of fault
- there is no fault even if the D makes a pre-emptive strike (Beckford)
- but if the force is unnecessary or excessive, D will continue to be guilty, especially where the threat has passed (Hussain
