General Elements to Criminal Liability Flashcards
1
Q
Actus Reus
A
- Physical element of a crime
- Can be:
> A voluntary act
> An omission
> A state of affairs
2
Q
Omissions
A
- A failure to act
- Normally can’t make someone guilty
- Are 6 exceptions, where omissions can form actus reus
3
Q
What are the 6 omissions that can form actus reus?
A
- Government statutes
- Contractual duty
- A duty because of a relationship
- A duty taken on voluntarily
- A duty through official position
- A duty which arises because D set in motion a chain of dangerous events
4
Q
A voluntary act
A
- Can be an act or omission
- If D has no control, then no actus reus
- Hill v Baxter 1958 = not a voluntary act
5
Q
State of affairs
A
- D found guilty, even though they acted involuntarily
- Is a type of strict liability
6
Q
What is causation?
A
- Prosecution must prove actus reus & mens rea
- Is the link between D’s actions and the consequence
- Has 3 elements (must prove all)
> Factual causation
> Legal causation
> No intervening act that broke chain of
causation
7
Q
Factual Causation
A
- D guilty if event wouldn’t have happened ‘BUT FOR’ D’s actions
- Pagett 1983 = D uses pregnant girlfriend to shield shot from police. She died. V wouldn’t have died ‘BUT FOR’ D’s actions
8
Q
Legal Causation
A
- D’s actions were ‘MORE THAN A MINIMAL CAUSE’
- Need not be a substantial cause
- Take V as you find them - Thin Skull Rule
- R v Blaue 1975 = Woman stabbed. Couldn’t have blood transfusion due to religion. She died. D guilty because of thin skull rule
9
Q
Chain of Causation
A
- Must be direct link between D’s actions and consequence
- May be no liability if the chain is broken by an intervening act
10
Q
What are the 3 Intervening Acts
A
- Act of 3rd party
- Victims own act
- Natural but unpredictable event
11
Q
Act of 3rd Party - Intervening Act
A
- E.g. A car accident on the way to the hospital
- Medical treatment doesn’t break chain of causation unless ‘‘extraordinary’’
12
Q
Victims Own Act - Intervening Act
A
- If V acts unreasonably then it will break chain of causation and D won’t be liable
- If D causes V to act in a foreseeable way then D will be liable for consequences
- Williams 1992 = Jumped from car as D tried to steal wallet. C died. Held that C’s actions were unreasonable so D was not guilty
13
Q
Mens Rea
A
- Mental element of a crime
- Do not need mens rea for strict liability cases
- 2 main type
> Basic intention = recklessness
> Specific intention = intention
14
Q
Intention - Mens Rea
A
- Mohan 1975 = ‘the decision to bring out the prohibited consequence’
- Motive is irrelevant
15
Q
Oblique Intention
A
- When D’s main aim is not actually what happened, but another crime happened instead
- D must know consequence was a virtual certainty
16
Q
Recklessness
A
- D must either intend the consequence or realise there was a risk of it happening and took the risk anyway
- Cunningham 1957 = Gas seeped into house next door as D tore gas meter from wall. Neighbour injured. D not guilty as didn’t realise risk of gas escaping
17
Q
Transferred Malice
A
- D intends to commit similar crime but against another V
- Mens rea cannot be transferred
- Offence MUST BE OF SAME KIND
- Latimer 1886 = D intends to him man, but hits woman instead. D still liable
18
Q
General Malice
A
- No intended victim
- Mens rea applies to anyone injured
- E.g. A terrorist attack
19
Q
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
A
- Both must be evident at the same time
- Exception is a CONTINUING ACT
20
Q
Continuing Act
A
- E.g. Thabo-Meli v R 1954 = D hit V over head. D thought V was dead. D threw body off cliff. This was actual cause of death. No mens reas as thought V was already dead. So no continuing act
21
Q
Strict Liability
A
- Only actus reus needed to be proven
- No need for mens rea
22
Q
Presumption of Mens Rea
A
- If unclear if offence is strict liability or not then judges presume all cases require mens rea
- This presumption only changes when it involves an issue of social concern
- E.g. Selling alcohol to minors, gambling
