General Elements of Criminal Liability

Question 1

Hill v Baxter

Answer 1

Actus Reus must be voluntary

Question 2

Stone & Dobinson

Answer 2

Assuming a duty to act

Question 3

Pittwood

Answer 3

Contractual duty to act

Question 4

Dytham

Answer 4

Public duty to act

Question 5

Miller

Answer 5

Duty to act as D set in motion a chain of events

Question 6

Statutory duty to act

Answer 6

s170 Road Traffic Act 1988

Question 7

White; Pagett

Answer 7

Factual causation;

Consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ their unlawful act or omission

Question 8

R v Smith

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Blaue

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Roberts

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Chesire

Answer 11

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE;

Will not break chain of causation unless ‘extraordinary or unusual’

Question 12

Smith

Answer 12

ACT OF A THIRD PARTY;

Stab wound was the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of death and therefore a more than minimal cause

Question 13

Mohan

Answer 13

Direct Intent;

D desires or aims to bring about the prohibited consequence

Question 14

Woollin test

Answer 14

Oblique intent; applies only to result crimes

1. the prohibited consequence was a virtually certain outcome of D’s conduct; AND
2. D realised this

> only consider OI for crimes which require intention and recklessness is not enough (s18 wounding/GBH, murder)

Question 15

Cunningham

Answer 15

Recklessness;

D must realise the risk of the prohibited outcome occurring but takes it anyway

Question 16

Latimer; Mitchell

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Pembliton

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Coincidence/Contemporaneity Rule

Answer 18

Generally, in order for there to be an offence, both the actus reus and mens rea must be present at the same time

Question 19

Fagan v MPC

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Thabo v Meli

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Reasons for Strict Liability

Answer 21

1. Deal with matters of social concern - speeding dealt strictly to promote road safety, high standards of driving
2. Most SI offences regulatory in nature rather than truly criminal - generally dealt via fine
3. Promote high degree of vigilance - protecting environment in Alphacell v Woodward
4. Designed to protect the public from harm - protecting children form sale of alcohol, gambling in Harrow LBC v Shah
5. Promote the maintenance of high standards of care - food hygiene in Smedleys v Bread by encouraging manufacturers to adopt additional safety measures
6. 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

Question 22

Harrow LBC v Shah; Alphacell v Woodward; Smedleys v Breed

Answer 22

1. Ds found guilty of selling lottery tickets to under 16;
2. D found guilty under Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 despite not knowing about the defective pump at the time;
3. 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

Question 23

Sweet v Parsley

Answer 23

D appealed on grounds that they had no knowledge of the offence being committed and therefore should not suffer a serious criminal conviction; acquitted

Question 24

Gammon v Hong Kong

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Health & Safety at Work Act 1974; Lemon v Gay News

Answer 25

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