Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Criminal Law > General elements of liability > Flashcards

General elements of liability Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

3 Forms of Actus Reus

A

Act, omission, state of affairs (absolute liability)

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

Conduct crimes and result crimes

A

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)

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

Marchant and Muntz

A

D’s not guilty of dangerous driving. Criminal consequence of death.

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

Define causation

A

Actus reus must connect with the corresponding result

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

What must the actus reus be?

A

Voluntary-must be in control of his actions to be liable (exception of state of affairs)

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

Hill v Baxter

A

Voluntary nature of AR-court gave examples of involuntary action e.g stung by bees while driving

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

Define omission

A

The failure to act

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

6 rules of omissions

A 
Statutory duty
Contractual duty
Special relationship duty
Creating a dangerous situation
Official position duty
Voluntary duty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Example of Stat duty omission

A

Road Traffic Act 1988-offence to fail to put on seatbelt

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

Contractual duty

A

Pittwood-didnt close gates when train came when it was his job

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

Special relationship duty omission

A

Gibbins v Proctor-didnt feed his daughter who died-liable for manslaughter

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

Dangerous situation

A

Miller-failed to summon help when cigarette set fire to mattress

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

Duty by official position omission

A

Dytham-neglected his duty as police officer-failed to intervene when man was beat to death

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

Voluntary duty omission

A

Stone+Dobinson-didnt summon help when anorexic sister became ill and died

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

Positive act

A

Mostly in medical cases-an omission would be in the best interests of the patient

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

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

A

Doctors could stop feeding him, as in best interestd in patients. Removal of feeding tube was not an omission

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

State of affairs

A

Defendant is responsible for actus reus even if not voluntary (absolute liability)

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

Cases for state of affairs

A

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

19
Q

Clarke

A

D put items in bag without paying. Suffered from depression so lacked MR-acquitted

20
Q

When is mens rea needed and not needed?

A

Needed in all offences except strict liability

21
Q

Contemporaneity

A

AR and MR must be present at same time.

22
Q

Fagan v MPC

A

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

23
Q

Thabo Meli

A

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)

24
Q

Transferred Malice

A

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

25
Q

Pembliton

A

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

26
Q

4 coincedences of AR and MR to remember:

A
  1. AR can be a continuing act (Fagan)
  2. AR and MR can be a series of events (Thabo)
  3. Transferred malice (Latimer)
  4. Cannot be transferred between offences (Pembliton)
27
Q

2 types of intent and what are they

A

Specific-Direct or Oblique required

Basic-Intent or reckless

28
Q

Case that defined intention and what happened?

A

Mohan-the decision to bring about the criminal consequences. D drove car recklessly after P.O told to stop. Attempted GBH

29
Q

Oblique intent

A

Defendant’s main aim was not the criminal consequence. However still can be liable if there is virtual certainty harm would be caused.

30
Q

3 developments of oblique intent+case that relates to them

A

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

31
Q

Recklessness

A

D knows the risk but takes the risk regardless

32
Q

Case for recklessness

A

Cunningham-D tore gas meter, seeped into house where harmed women. Not guilty as didn’t see the risk or intend harm

33
Q

Caldwell test

A

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.

34
Q

Negligence and main case

A

Failing to meet standards of reasonable man (objective) (Adomako)

35
Q

White

A

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

36
Q

R v Pagett

A

Factual causation-Human shield. But for his actions, she wouldnt have died

37
Q

Legal causation

A

Can be more than 1 act contributing to consequence.

Legal causation if more than minimal, does not have to be only cause

38
Q

R v Benge

A

More than 1 person responsible

39
Q

R v Hennigan

A

D driving dangerously hit car who had driven past stop sign. D was still had legal causation (more than 1 act contributing to consequence)

40
Q

R v Smith

A

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.

41
Q

R v Jordan

A

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

42
Q

Medical negligence

A

Very hard to break the chain, unless it is extraordinary or unusual or that bad. (Adomoko)

43
Q

Thin skull test

A

Blaue-jehovah witness refused life saving treatment. D still guilty, as have to take victim as they are

44
Q

Williams

A

V’s actions can break causation if daft. Hitchhiker jumped out car and died:was daft as no threat (compared to R v Roberts)

Criminal Law (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions