Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law > General Elements Of Criminal Liability > Flashcards

General Elements Of Criminal Liability Flashcards

1
Q

What must the act or omission be in order to constitute actus reus?

A

Voluntary

If the defendant has no control over his actions, such as in reflex actions or muscle spasms, he has not committed the actus reus.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

In which case are examples given for when a car driver is not acting voluntarily?

A

Hill v Baxter

Examples include being stung by bees, being hit by a stone, or having a heart attack.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the general rule regarding omissions in relation to actus reus?

A

An omission cannot be the actus reus of an offence

Exceptions exist where there is a duty to act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is an example of a contractual duty leading to actus reus?

A

Pittwood

A railway-crossing keeper omitted to shut the gates, resulting in a death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What creates liability for an omission according to statutory duty?

A

An Act of Parliament

Example: Failure to provide a specimen of breath under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

In which case did a father and partner fail to feed their daughter, resulting in murder convictions?

A

Gibbins and Proctor

They were found guilty for deliberately starving their daughter to death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What does the case Stone and Dobinson illustrate about voluntary duty to care?

A

Failure to care for a sister

The man and his partner were convicted of manslaughter for failing to care for their sister who died of malnutrition.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is an example of a duty arising from an official position?

A

Dytham

An on-duty policeman failed to intervene as three men kicked another man to death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

In Miller, what was the defendant’s failure that led to his conviction?

A

Failed to deal with a dangerous situation

He fell asleep while smoking, causing a fire but did not take action.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What was the outcome in the case of Evans regarding dangerous situations?

A

D was held responsible for V’s death

D supplied heroin to V, who overdosed and died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the significance of the case DPP v Winzar?

A

Guilty for being found drunk in a public highway

The defendant’s presence in the corridor led to his conviction without regard for how he got there.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What must the prosecution show as part of actus reus regarding causation?

A

Defendant was the factual and legal cause

This includes showing factual causation through the ‘but for test’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What does the ‘but for test’ assess?

A

Factual causation

A defendant is guilty only if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ his conduct.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the significance of the ‘but for’ test in causation?

A

It determines whether the consequence would have occurred but for the defendant’s actions

In legal terms, if the consequence would not have happened without the defendant’s conduct, they may be held liable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

In Pagett, why was the defendant convicted of manslaughter?

A

He used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield, leading to her death by police fire

The court found him to be the factual cause of her death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What was the outcome of the case White regarding the defendant’s actions?

A

The defendant was not the factual cause of death as the victim died of a heart attack unrelated to the poisoning

The ‘but for’ test was not satisfied.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What does ‘operating and substantial cause’ mean in legal causation?

A

It refers to a cause that is significant and more than minimal in bringing about the consequence

This standard is used to establish criminal liability.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

In Smith, why was the original attacker held liable for murder despite medical negligence?

A

The stabbing was considered more than a minimal cause of death

The chain of causation was not broken by subsequent medical treatment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is a novus actus interveniens?

A

An intervening act that can break the chain of causation if it is not reasonably foreseeable

This concept is critical in determining legal responsibility.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

In Roberts, why was the defendant held liable for the victim’s injuries?

A

The victim’s act of jumping from the car was deemed reasonably foreseeable

This established that the chain of causation remained intact.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What happened in Corbett, and why was the defendant convicted?

A

The victim’s reasonably foreseeable reaction to being chased led to his death, keeping the chain of causation intact

The defendant’s actions were directly linked to the outcome.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Does a victim’s self-neglect or suicide break the chain of causation?

A

No, it does not break the chain

In Wallace, the defendant was acquitted despite the victim’s subsequent suicide.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

In Cheshire, why did medical negligence not break the chain of causation?

A

The medical treatment was not deemed so potent as to be the sole cause of death

The original act of shooting remained a significant cause.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What was the ruling in Jordan regarding medical negligence?

A

The medical negligence broke the chain of causation as it was considered ‘palpably wrong’

The victim’s allergic reaction to a drug led to his death.

25
Q

What is the thin skull rule in legal causation?

A

It states that a defendant must take their victim as they find them, including hidden weaknesses

This rule ensures that defendants are held accountable for all consequences of their actions.

26
Q

What was the outcome of the Blaue case?

A

The defendant was convicted of murder due to the woman’s refusal of a lifesaving blood transfusion.

27
Q

What does Mens Rea refer to in criminal law?

A

The mental element of a crime, also known as the ‘guilty mind’.

28
Q

What is the highest level of mens rea?

A

Intention.

29
Q

What are the two types of intention in criminal law?

A
  • Direct (specific) intention
  • Indirect (oblique) intention
30
Q

How is direct (specific) intention defined?

A

Where the defendant makes a decision to bring about a particular consequence and desires the outcome.

31
Q

What significant change did the Criminal Justice Act 1967 introduce regarding intention?

A

Created a subjective test from which intention can be inferred.

32
Q

How is indirect (oblique) intention characterized?

A

It concerns ‘foresight of consequences’ where the outcome is a virtual certainty.

33
Q

What was the ruling in the Woollin case regarding indirect intention?

A

The defendant did not have the necessary ‘foresight of consequences’ to be convicted of murder.

34
Q

What was the key difference between intention and foresight of consequences as established in Moloney?

A

Foreseeing the death and intending the death are two different issues.

35
Q

What did Matthews and Alleyne clarify about foresight of consequences?

A

Foresight of consequences is not intention itself but can be evidence for the jury to find intention.

36
Q

What case defined subjective recklessness?

A

Cunningham.

37
Q

What is subjective recklessness?

A

Where the defendant foresees a risk of the consequence and carries on regardless.

38
Q

In the Cunningham case, what was the defendant’s action that led to the ruling?

A

The defendant tore a gas meter from the wall to steal money, causing gas to seep into a neighboring house.

39
Q

True or False: Motive is relevant in determining Mens Rea.

A

False.

40
Q

What was the outcome in R v G&R regarding the boys’ actions?

A

They were not convicted of criminal damage because they did not foresee the risk of the bin catching fire.

The boys lit newspapers and left them under a wheelie bin, causing significant damage.

41
Q

In Parmenter, what was determined about recklessness?

A

Recklessness is subjective.

The defendant’s charge was reduced because he did not realize his actions would cause harm.

42
Q

What is negligence in legal terms?

A

Failure to meet the standards of the reasonable person.

Widely used in civil law, but not in criminal law except in cases of gross negligence manslaughter.

43
Q

What is gross negligence manslaughter?

A

A form of manslaughter committed by a very high level of negligence.

Referenced in the case of Adomako.

44
Q

What are strict liability offences?

A

Offences where mens rea is not required, only actus reus.

The court can decide an offence is one of strict liability.

45
Q

In Storkwain, what was the pharmacist convicted of?

A

Supplying prescription drugs without a prescription.

The prescription was fraudulently signed, but the pharmacist was still held liable.

46
Q

How can strict liability be indicated in legislation?

A

Through express or implied wording in an Act of Parliament.

Example: polluting a river in Alphacell v Woodward.

47
Q

How do courts determine if an offence requires mens rea?

A

By examining the wording of the statute.

Words like ‘knowingly’, ‘maliciously’, and ‘permitting’ indicate mens rea.

48
Q

What is the general assumption about mens rea in criminal law?

A

That it is required for all offences.

This presumption can be overridden for strict liability offences.

49
Q

What are social concern offences more likely to be considered?

A

Strict liability offences

Examples include broadcasting without a licence and selling lottery tickets to minors.

50
Q

What is the principle of transferred malice?

A

Mens rea intended for one person is transferred to the actual victim of a crime.

This principle applies only to identical offences.

51
Q

What happened in the case of Latimer?

A

The defendant was liable for the woman’s injuries after a blow intended for a man hit her instead.

This illustrates transferred malice.

52
Q

What was the outcome in Mitchell regarding transferred malice?

A

The defendant was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.

His actions caused an elderly woman to suffer a fatal injury.

53
Q

What does joint enterprise imply in relation to transferred malice?

A

A defendant can be held guilty of a crime even if they didn’t commit it.

This principle extends the liability of the defendant in certain situations.

54
Q

What was the outcome for D in the case of Gnango regarding the murder of V?

A

D was convicted of murder despite not firing the shot that killed V

The court applied rules on joint enterprise, holding D equally guilty as he was involved in the criminal activity.

55
Q

In the case of Pembliton, why was the defendant not guilty?

A

The mens rea for intending to hit people could not be transferred to the crime of causing criminal damage

The defendant threw a stone intending to hit people but accidentally broke a window.

56
Q

What is the general principle regarding the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?

A

Both must coincide, i.e., be present at the same time

This means that both elements must occur concurrently for a crime to be established.

57
Q

How can actus reus and mens rea coincide if the actus reus consists of a series of connected acts?

A

As long as the mens rea is present at some point while the actus reus is ongoing

This allows for the possibility of a continuous act to satisfy the coincidence requirement.

58
Q

What was the legal reasoning in Thabo Meli regarding the continuity of acts?

A

The act of beating and throwing the victim off the cliff was considered one continuing act

The court upheld the convictions despite the defendant’s argument about the timing of mens rea.

59
Q

What happened in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner regarding the defendant’s mens rea?

A

Fagan initially lacked mens rea but later formed it when he refused to move his car off the policeman’s foot

This established the principle of continuing acts in relation to mens rea.

Law (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions