general elements of criminal liability

Question 1

what can the actus reus be?

Answer 1

an act, an omission or a state of affairs.

Question 2

what must the acts reus be? give a case

Answer 2

the actus reus must be voluntary . hill v baxter

Question 3

what is the general rule regarding omissions?

Answer 3

an omission cannot be the AR of an offence.

Question 4

what is the exception to the general rule about omissions?

Answer 4

the AR of an offence can be an omission where there is a failure to act when there is a duty to act.

Question 5

what are the 6 situations that a duty to act can exist in? include cases.

Answer 5

a contractual duty ( Pittwood)
a statutory duty (Road Traffic Act 1988)
a duty because of a relationship (gibbons and Proctor)
a duty to care which has been taken on voluntarily (Stone and Dobinson)
a duty through an official position (Dytham)
a duty which arises where the defendant has created a dangerous situation ( miller) (Evans)

Question 6

what is meant by state of affairs?
include a case.

Answer 6

instances where a defendant may be found guilty because of actions against his will. (DPP v Winzar)

Question 7

what are the two types of causation?

Answer 7

factual and legal

Question 8

explain factual causation

Answer 8

factual causation concerns the “but for” test where the defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened “but for” his conduct

Question 9

which cases support factual causation

Answer 9

pagett and white. Hughes established that the “but for” test alone is not enough.

Question 10

explain legal causation and include a case

Answer 10

the defendant can be guilty if he was the operating and substantial cause of the consequence which means he was a more than minimal cause. smith.

Question 11

what does novus actus interveniens mean?

Answer 11

a new intervening act that is not reasonably foreseeable that breaks the chain of causation under legal causation.

Question 12

what are the 4 rules you should consider when discussing novus actus interveniens , include their cases.

Answer 12

1. victims own act : Roberts, Corbett
2. act of a third party/contribution of others : Pagett
3. medical negligence : Cheshire , Jordan
4. the thin skull rule : Blaue

Question 13

is motive relevant?

Answer 13

no, steane

Question 14

what is the highest level of mens rea?

Answer 14

intention

Question 15

what are the two types of intention? which cases define them?

Answer 15

direct/specific defined in Mohan “ the defendant makes a decision to bring about a particular consequence”

indirect/oblique defined in Woolin / Moloney “ where the consequences of the defendants actions are a virtual reality and the defendant appreciates that this is the case”

Question 16

how did Matthews and Alleyne refine indirect intention?

Answer 16

“foresight of consequences” in itself is not intention but it is evidence from which the jury can determine if there was intention.

Question 17

explain subjective recklessness

Answer 17

it is a lower level of mens rea than intention, Cunningham defines it as where the defendant foresees a risk of the consequence and carries on regardless . parameter defined that recklessness is subjective.

Question 18

explain negligence , what case defined it

Answer 18

where the defendant fails to meet the standards of the reasonable person, adomako

Question 19

what is the name of the office where there is a high level of negligence?

Answer 19

gross negligence manslaughter

Question 20

what type of crime does not require mens rea?

Answer 20

strict liability offences

Question 21

explain the principle of transferred malice

Answer 21

where a crime which is intended for one person falls on another by accident , the defendants men rea towards the intended victim is transferred to the actual victim.

Question 22

which cases support the principle of transferred malice?

Answer 22

Latimer and Mitchell

Question 23

what does pembliton state about transferred malice?

Answer 23

the mens rea can only be transferred if the crime intended and crime committed are the same

Question 24

what is the general principle of the AR and MR of a crime?

Answer 24

both the actus reus and mens rea must coincide, be present at the same time… at some point if the AR is a series pf acts/ a long continuing act

Question 25

which cases support coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?

Answer 25

thabo meli and Fagan v metropolitan police commissioner