General Elements of Criminal Liability Flashcards
Hill v Baxter
Actus Reus must be voluntary
Stone & Dobinson
Assuming a duty to act
Pittwood
Contractual duty to act
Dytham
Public duty to act
Miller
Duty to act as D set in motion a chain of events
Statutory duty to act
s170 Road Traffic Act 1988
White; Pagett
Factual causation;
Consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ their unlawful act or omission
R v Smith
Legal Causation;
D has caused the unlawful outcome if his conduct contributes to it in a more than minimal way; conduct need not be the only or main cause
Blaue
THIN SKULL RULE;
D ‘must take their victims as they find them’ : If V suffers more harm than expected D is still held to be responsible for full extent of V’s injuries
Roberts
VICTIMS OWN ACTIONS;
If V contributes to result or makes it worse, this only breaks the chain if actions are very unusual, unexpected or unreasonable
Chesire
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE;
Will not break chain of causation unless ‘extraordinary or unusual’
Smith
ACT OF A THIRD PARTY;
Stab wound was the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of death and therefore a more than minimal cause
Mohan
Direct Intent;
D desires or aims to bring about the prohibited consequence
Woollin test
Oblique intent; applies only to result crimes
- the prohibited consequence was a virtually certain outcome of D’s conduct; AND
- D realised this
> only consider OI for crimes which require intention and recklessness is not enough (s18 wounding/GBH, murder)
Cunningham
Recklessness;
D must realise the risk of the prohibited outcome occurring but takes it anyway
Latimer; Mitchell
D can be criminally liable if have necessary MR to commit a crime, but against unintended victim - MR will be transferred from intended to actual victim
Pembliton
Mens rea can only move between victims of the
same type of crime.
If D commits a different type of offence, transferred malice will not apply
Coincidence/Contemporaneity Rule
Generally, in order for there to be an offence, both the actus reus and mens rea must be present at the same time
Fagan v MPC
Continuing Actus Reus;
Where the actus reus is committed and it is argued that the mens rea is not present, the court will hold that the actus reus continues until such time as the mens rea occurs, so the two coincide
> Once D refused to move car on foot, he formed MR and the AR was continuing (force of car applied to foot) so continuing AR and MR coincided
Thabo v Meli
Series of Events;
Where the mens rea is present before the actus reus, the courts will find that there is coincidence if both are part of the same series of events
> D’s conduct was part of the same series of events - as long as AR and MR were present at some point during series of events, this counted as coincidence
Reasons for Strict Liability
- Deal with matters of social concern - speeding dealt strictly to promote road safety, high standards of driving
- Most SI offences regulatory in nature rather than truly criminal - generally dealt via fine
- Promote high degree of vigilance - protecting environment in Alphacell v Woodward
- Designed to protect the public from harm - protecting children form sale of alcohol, gambling in Harrow LBC v Shah
- Promote the maintenance of high standards of care - food hygiene in Smedleys v Bread by encouraging manufacturers to adopt additional safety measures
- Easier to convict as no need for prosecution to prove mens rea which can be difficult - e.g for speeding, - avoids clogging courts for routine matters
Harrow LBC v Shah; Alphacell v Woodward; Smedleys v Breed
- Ds found guilty of selling lottery tickets to under 16;
- D found guilty under Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 despite not knowing about the defective pump at the time;
- D found guilty under Food and Drugs Act 1955 as it was not sufficient to show that the company had taken all reasonable care to avoid such an event happening
Sweet v Parsley
D appealed on grounds that they had no knowledge of the offence being committed and therefore should not suffer a serious criminal conviction; acquitted
Gammon v Hong Kong
Courts will presume that a criminal offence requires mens rea unless statute clearly states otherwise, especially if the offence is ‘truly criminal’ (serious)
Presumption upheld in Gammon
Health & Safety at Work Act 1974; Lemon v Gay News
Strict liability offence is one where D is guilty by doing the actus reus alone; no need to prove any mens rea in respect of some or all of the actus reus
