General Elements Of Criminal Liability Flashcards
What is the actus reus
The physical element of the crime
It must be voluntary
no AR if D has no control over actions - Hill v Baxter.
what are examples of AR being a positive act
conduct crimes where the AR is the prohibited conduct eg too much alcohol in blood and driving = drink driving
consequence crimes where the AR results in a consequence eg abh - the consequence of the assault or battery is the actual bodily harm
State of affairs - Duck v Peacock - ‘being’ drunk in charge of a vehicle - man asleep in car.
will failure to act be considered AR
As the AR must be a positive act, omission will not normally be considered as a guilty act
what are the exceptions where omission will be AR
Statutory duty to act - s170 Road Traffic Act - statutory duty to provide a specimen of breath if required
Fails to minimise the consequences - R v Miller
Contractual duty - failure to carry out a contractual duty would be an omission - R v Pittwood
Duty due to a relationship - eg parent/child, R v Gibbins and Proctor
Due to a voluntary assumption - R v Stone and Dobinson -
Through an official position - R v Dytham
factual causation
the D’s act must be the FACTUAL CAUSE of the consequence - ask ‘would the consequence not have happened but for the D’s conduct? R v Pagett
legal causation
D’s conduct must be more than a ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence ‘de minimis’ R v Kimsey
intervening acts
There must be a direct link between the Ds conduct to the consequence
If an event takes place that is sufficiently separate from the D’s conduct there may be a break in the chain of causation:
Medical Intervention - must be independent of the D’s act and ‘itself so potent in causing death/injury).
If medical intervention is ‘palpably wrong’ it may be enough to break the chain - R v Cheshire
Switching off a life support machine does not break the chain - R v Malcherek
Victim’s own acts. If the D causes the V to act in a foreseeable way the chain of caution will not be broken. R v Roberts
R v Dear - opening wounds/not seeking medical treatment doesn’t break the chain
3rd party intervention, R v Pagett
thin skull rule
D must take V as they find them
R v Blaue
mens rea
refers to criminal intent - the mental element in a crime
intent
key MR for specific intent crimes eg murder, s18 gbh, theft
Direct Intent - aim, desire and purpose - R v Mohan.
indirect/Oblique intent. - The situation where D intends one thing but the actual consequence which occurs is another - Requires ‘foresight of consequences’ where D could foresee it occuring as it was virtually certain to occur - R v Woollin
recklessness
MR for crimes of basic intent eg assault, battery, abh & s20 gbh
Subjective recklessness - where the D is aware that there is a risk of the consequence happening but takes that risk. R v Cunningham.
Negligence as MR
failure to meet the standards of the reasonable man - R v Adomako.
transferred malice
MR of an offence is transferred to another identical offence
R v Latimer
Coincidence of AR and MR
Principle is that the actus reus and mens rea elements of an offence must occur at the same time
exception to coincidence
Continuing act theory is established by superimposing the mens rea upon an existing actus reus
it is not necessary that the mens rea existed at the inception of the actus reus
Miller (1982)
Transaction’ theory is established where the actus reus is part of some larger sequence of events where the mens rea is formed at some point during that sequence
Thabo Meli
