General elements of liability Flashcards
3 Forms of Actus Reus
Act, omission, state of affairs (absolute liability)
Conduct crimes and result crimes
Actus reus is the prohibited behaviour itself. No consequence is needed
Actus reus is also the consequence (e.g for murder someone needs to be dead)
Marchant and Muntz
D’s not guilty of dangerous driving. Criminal consequence of death.
Define causation
Actus reus must connect with the corresponding result
What must the actus reus be?
Voluntary-must be in control of his actions to be liable (exception of state of affairs)
Hill v Baxter
Voluntary nature of AR-court gave examples of involuntary action e.g stung by bees while driving
Define omission
The failure to act
6 rules of omissions
Statutory duty Contractual duty Special relationship duty Creating a dangerous situation Official position duty Voluntary duty
Example of Stat duty omission
Road Traffic Act 1988-offence to fail to put on seatbelt
Contractual duty
Pittwood-didnt close gates when train came when it was his job
Special relationship duty omission
Gibbins v Proctor-didnt feed his daughter who died-liable for manslaughter
Dangerous situation
Miller-failed to summon help when cigarette set fire to mattress
Duty by official position omission
Dytham-neglected his duty as police officer-failed to intervene when man was beat to death
Voluntary duty omission
Stone+Dobinson-didnt summon help when anorexic sister became ill and died
Positive act
Mostly in medical cases-an omission would be in the best interests of the patient
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
Doctors could stop feeding him, as in best interestd in patients. Removal of feeding tube was not an omission
State of affairs
Defendant is responsible for actus reus even if not voluntary (absolute liability)
Cases for state of affairs
Larsonneur-D deported went to Ireland. Ireland sent her back-arrested and convicted for being back in the UK
Winzar v Kent-left on highway-arrested for being drunk on the highway
Clarke
D put items in bag without paying. Suffered from depression so lacked MR-acquitted
When is mens rea needed and not needed?
Needed in all offences except strict liability
Contemporaneity
AR and MR must be present at same time.
Fagan v MPC
AR can be a continuing act. D parked on policemans foot, and refused to move. AR started from first application of force and continued till he formed the MR by refusing to move
Thabo Meli
AR can be a series of events.
Attacked and threw him off a cliff thinking he was already dead. D argued MR and AR not present at same time. AR was series of events until actual death, MR continued from initial attack until AR was complete (he died)
Transferred Malice
Latimer-MR can be transferred from an intended victim to another. Aimed belt at man but hit another woman. Still liable even tho not intended-transferred MR
Pembliton
Mens rea cannot be transferred between different offences. Threw rock at people, hit a window. Intent to hit people could not be transferred to window
4 coincedences of AR and MR to remember:
- AR can be a continuing act (Fagan)
- AR and MR can be a series of events (Thabo)
- Transferred malice (Latimer)
- Cannot be transferred between offences (Pembliton)
2 types of intent and what are they
Specific-Direct or Oblique required
Basic-Intent or reckless
Case that defined intention and what happened?
Mohan-the decision to bring about the criminal consequences. D drove car recklessly after P.O told to stop. Attempted GBH
Oblique intent
Defendant’s main aim was not the criminal consequence. However still can be liable if there is virtual certainty harm would be caused.
3 developments of oblique intent+case that relates to them
Natural Consequence-Maloney (shot stepfather)
Infer virtual certainty-Nedrick (set fire to house, ‘infer’ is too vague, almost means guess)
Find Virtual certainty-Woolin (threw baby at wall) find-intent shown through fact
Recklessness
D knows the risk but takes the risk regardless
Case for recklessness
Cunningham-D tore gas meter, seeped into house where harmed women. Not guilty as didn’t see the risk or intend harm
Caldwell test
Objective test for recklessness, whether a reasonable person would’ve seen the risk. Unfair as people may have problems so was scrapped back to the Cunningham subjective recklessness test.
Negligence and main case
Failing to meet standards of reasonable man (objective) (Adomako)
White
Factual-intended to poison mum. She died of a heart attack before. but for his actions, she still wouldve died so not guilty of murder, but convicted of attempted murder
R v Pagett
Factual causation-Human shield. But for his actions, she wouldnt have died
Legal causation
Can be more than 1 act contributing to consequence.
Legal causation if more than minimal, does not have to be only cause
R v Benge
More than 1 person responsible
R v Hennigan
D driving dangerously hit car who had driven past stop sign. D was still had legal causation (more than 1 act contributing to consequence)
R v Smith
D stabbed soldier. Medical treatment was bad and soldier died. Despite negligence, still guilty of murder as stab wound was an operating cause of death.
R v Jordan
Wounds had nearly healed, but victim given wrong treatment for pneumonia and had an allergic reaction. Wound was part of history, so not operative/substantial, so not guilty
Medical negligence
Very hard to break the chain, unless it is extraordinary or unusual or that bad. (Adomoko)
Thin skull test
Blaue-jehovah witness refused life saving treatment. D still guilty, as have to take victim as they are
Williams
V’s actions can break causation if daft. Hitchhiker jumped out car and died:was daft as no threat (compared to R v Roberts)
