General Elements of Criminal Liability Flashcards
What test is used to determine factual causation in criminal law?
‘But-for’ test.
Give a criminal case that demonstrates the ‘but-for’ test.
R v. White - tried to poison his mother to gain inheritance but she died of a heart attack before the poison took effect - prosecution could not prove his actions were the factual cause of death.
What is the rule for legal causation in criminal law?
Substantial and operative cause rule - ‘de minimis’ rule - d’s actions were more than a minimal cause.
Name a case that demonstrates legal causation in criminal law.
R v. Kimsey - d’s dangerous driving was more than a ‘slight or trifling’ cause.
Name the three possible breaks in the chain of causation.
1) Medical treatment.
2) The Victim
3) A third party.
What does medical treatment have to be to break the chain of causation.
‘Palpably wrong’.
Give a case where medical treatment was ‘palpably wrong’.
R v. Jordan - given a dose of drugs he was highly allergic to and died.
Give a case that considered the unreasonable actions of the victim.
R v. Roberts - V. jumped from a moving car when she thought d. was going to rape her - actions were no unreasonable.
Give a case where the actions of a third party were considered.
R v. Pagett - it was reasonable that the police would shoot back possibly killing V. who was a human shield.
Give a case that demonstrates the thin skull rule in criminal causation.
R v. Blaue - d. stabbed victim - she was a Jehovah’s witness and refused to have a blood transfusion and died.
What are the three types of mens rea?
1) Intention
2) Subjective reckless
3) Gross negligence
What are the two types of intention? Give a case for each type.
1) Direct intent - R v. Mohan
2) Oblique intent - R v. Woolin
Define ‘oblique intent’.
The consequence was a virtual certainty of the actions of the defendant.
What is subjective reckless?
Where the d. takes an unjustifiable risk - R v. Cunningham.
Define gross negligence.
Where the d’s conduct was so bad it should be judged criminal (R v. Adomako).
Give a case that compliments transferred malice.
R v. Latimer - swung belt at intended victim and it hit a bystander - mens rea was transferred to the other person.
What is the contemporaneity rule?
Where the actus reus and mens rea must coincide.
What does the continuing act theory state?
The actus reus is considered to continue until the mens rea is developed - Fagan v. Metropolitan Police.
What is the transaction theory?
Where there is no continuing act, but rather a series of events, the court will consider these acts to be one single act.
Give a case that compliments the transaction theory.
Thabo Meli v. R - hit victim, thought he was dead though he was unconscious - he later dies when they pushed his body over the a cliff.
