General Principles Flashcards
Defence’s standard of proof
Balance of probabilities
What defences must the prosecution disprove?
Self-defence, and loss of control. Defence only has evidential burden.
What are the two requirements for a failure to act to amount to a criminal offence?
Defendant:
- Had a duty to act
- Breached the duty by failure to act sufficiently
What are the five situations in which a duty to act will arise?
- Statute, e.g. to stop at scene of accident
- Special relationship, e.g. parent-child, doctor-patient
- Voluntarily assumed duty of care for victim
- Contract, e.g. railway guard
- Defendant created dangerous situation and is aware of having done so
What are the two stages in the test for causation?
- Factual causation
- Legal causation
What does factual causation consider?
Whether the result occurred but for the defendant’s conduct
If there is more than one cause, and defendant’s action slightly accelerates the result, is there sufficient factual causation?
Yes.
Compare with legal causation under which the cause must be substantial.
What is the purpose of legal causation?
The prevent factual causation test from being overinclusive.
- Lack of foreseeability = unfair conviction
What are the two requirements of a defendant’s action before it will be a legal cause?
It must be:
1. Substantial, i.e. more than minimal, slight, or trifling, and
2. Operative, i.e. actually cause the result and is negated by a more substantial intervening act or event
Thin-skull rule
Defendant must take their victim as they find them.
When will medically negligent treatment amount to an intervening act?
If the poor medical treatment was so independent from original action and potent in causing V’s death that the defendant ought not to be liable.
What is required for intervention of the following parties to break the chain of causation?
- Natural event
- Victim
- Third party
- Natural event: Unforeseeable
- Victim: Voluntary, and unforeseeable. i.e. so daft as to be unforeseeable.
- Third party: free, deliberate, and informed act
What are the two types of intention?
- Direct
- Indirect (oblique)
Factual causation
Defendant’s act is but-for cause
When will a defendant indirectly intend an outcome?
When the outcome is a virtual certainty of the act, and the defendant realises this
Basic intent offences
Can be committed recklessly or with direct intention.
What is a specific intent offence?
An offence which can only be committed with intent, not recklessness
Specific intent Offence
Only be committed with intent, cannot be committed recklessly.
Either oblique or direct intent.
What is the doctrine of transferred malice?
If defendant has intent to commit an offence against victim A, but inadvertently commits the offence against victim B.
MR is nevertheless satisfied (transfers over).
Limitation of transferred malice
Resulting offence must be the same as the one intended.
ie. intention to cause property damage does not transfer to intent to commit battery.
Where a person is guilty of a crime under transferred malice, what other offence will they usually also be guilty of?
Attempt against victim A
Test for recklessness
(i) Is D aware of risk/potential risk?;
and
(ii) In circumstances known to D, was it an unreasonable risk to take?
Can one be criminally liable for an omission to act?
Only if duty of care exists, which is subsequently breached.
Direct intention
Aim and purpose was to bring about AR.
Continuing act theory
Coincidence between MR and AR is satisfied even if:
D begins and act w/out requisite mens rea, but during course of act, subsequently forms it.
R v Fagan
Accidentally drove on police officer’s foot with car, but then deliberately refused to move car.
R v Thabo Meli
Coincidence of MR and AR
Defendant hit victim with his car with intent to kill.
In reality, victim survived injuries from first act, but later died after D rolled V off a cliff to cover their tracks.
MR - satisfied during first act.
AR - met during second act.
Series of acts
Two separate acts, each satisfying AR and MR separately, can be seen as forming part of one larger transaction - meaning coincidence is satisfied.
Chandler v DPP
Not about the defendant’s intention behind the immediate act, but instead whether intended the same method of achieving it.
R v Cheshire
Medical negligence did not break causal chain.
Victim was shot by D and doctors conducted tracheotomy to help her breathe.
After procedure, woman complained she still could not breathe, but doctors dismissed her complaints, and she later died after scar tissue formed in her throat. D was liable for her death.
R v Padgett
Not free, informed, and deliberate act by third-party.
D was liable for V’s death when using her as human shield during police stand-off.
Police officers had no choice but to fire back.
R v Bleau
Victim’s decision to refused medical treatment on religious grounds did not break causal chain.
Will a victim’s decision to commit suicide as a result of injuries sustained break causal chain?
No provided that:
(i) D’s unlawful act is a significant and operating cause of death.
and
(ii) Reasonably foreseeable victim would commit suicide from injuries sustained.
R v Wallace
D was guilty of manslaughter after V went to Belgium to get euthanise.
Left severely disfigured after D threw acid on his face.
R v Dear (legal causation)
D is still responsible even if V after medical treatment is “complete” if D’s act is an operative cause of death.
Satisfied when V died after stitches came undone.
What is one key point to note if asked to re-state the correct legal test for oblique intention?
Jury is invited to find intention, and not infer intention.
- Woollin [1999] AC 82 approved the direction given in Nedrick [1986], but changed the word ‘infer’ to ‘find’.
