General elements Cases Flashcards
Actus reus
Guilty act of the defendant
The physical element
Conduct crimes
To prove the AR is not necessary for any consequence to be proved e.g drink driving
Consequence crimes
To prove the AR the prohibited conduct must also result in a consequence e.g assault causing ABH
State of affairs crimes
To prove the AR the prohibited conduct mist also result in a consequence e.g pocessions of weapons in public
Voluntary nature of AR
Act of omission must be voluntary if defendant has no control over his actions
HILL V BAXTER
Involuntariness of AR
Very rare cases where defendant can be convicted even though he didn’t act voluntarily Usually involve state of affairs crimes
Actus reus general rule
Usually a person is not liable for omission ls as there would be no AR (guilty act)
Omissions
Statutory duty
If defendant has a duty under statute and fails to act, this could form the AR of an offence
Omissions
Contractual duty
Defendant will have a duty to act if it is part of his contract
R V PITTWOOD
Omissions
A duty because of relationship
Usually a parent and child relationship
R V GIBBINS AND PROCTOR
Omissions
Duty which has been taken on voluntarily
R V STONE AND DOBINSON
When the duty has been taken on voluntarily you must follow through to the finish
Omissions
A duty through an official position
R V DYTHAM
Duty to act if it is part of his public position
Omissions
A duty by creation of a dangerous situation
R V MILLER
Defendant has a duty to act if he becomes aware/ makes a dangerous situation
Causation
Consequence crimes
Defendants act must be caused by a particular consequence
Factual causation
Defendant is only guilty if the consequence would not have happened “but for” his act
R V PAGETT
R V WHITE
Legal causation
Link between defendant’s act and the consequence is the “chain of causation” and must remain unbroken
Operating and substantial
R V SMITH
NAI of third-party
A third-party does something which causes the outcome
R V JORDAN
Palpably wrong
Cato
Defendant need not have been the only cause of death is but was more than a minimal cause
Benge
Defendants action needs not to be the sole cause of the resulting harm but it must be more than minimal
NAI by victim
Victims action can count as NAI and break the chain of causation
R V ROBERTS
R V WILLIAMS
Thin skull rule
if victim has underlying physical condition, mental health condition or religious belief that will make injuries worse - defendant is still liable.
R V BLAUE
Transferred malice
Defendant can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim
Defendants MR is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim
R V LATIMER non fatal
R V MITCHELL fatal
R V PEMBILTON same offence
Coincidence of mens rea and actus reus
Actus reus and mens rea must occur at the same time in the same place and the same person
Continuing acts
FAGAN V METROPOLITAN POLICE COMISSIONER
When the MR occurred but the AR remaind throughout
