General Principles Flashcards
When may D have a burden of proof and what standard?
In relation to defence, either:
* Legal burden of proving defence on balance on probabilities (e.g. diminished responsibility); or
* Evidential burden of raising evidence to rely on defence. P must show beyond reasonable doubt the defence is invalid (e.g. loss of control, self-defence)
What is the general rule in relation to the standard and burden of proof in criminal offences?
P has the legal and evidential burden to prove an offence beyond reasonable doubt
Legal burden = prove elements of offence
Evidential burden = provide evidence
What are the 4 types of AR / crime?
Conduct crime: D behaves in specified way
Result Crime: D’s act factual and legal cause of specified consequence
Circumstance: specified state of affairs exists
Ommissions: D liable for failure to act
To satisfy the AR of a result crime, what tests are applied to show D caused the consequence?
- Factual causation: but for D’s act the consequence would not have occured
- Legal causation: D’s act was a ‘substantial and operating’ cause of the consequence
- No intervening event
What are the 4 rules associated with legal causation?
- D’s act only needs to be ‘more than minimal’ cause (e.g. using GF as human shield)
- D’s act need not be the sole cause (e.g. all stabbers liable if stabbed multiple times)
- D must be blameworthy (e.g. consequence would not have happened if D had acted properly (e.g. holding reins)
- D must take victim as they find them
What events are likely to break the chain of causation so D escapes liability?
- Unforeseeable event (e.g. flash flood / gas explosion)
- Daft Escape (not reasonably foreseeable)
- Voluntary OR not reasonably foreseeable 3rd party intervention (i.e. not instinctive)
- V’s own act if voluntary + occurs after D but before consequence
What is the test to determine whether V’s suicide constitutes an intervening event?
Was V’s suicide a reasonably foreseeable response?
What will not amount to an intervening event (D remains liable)?
- Medical negligence (unless injury no longer operating cause AND grossly negligent)
- Reasonably foreseeable escape
When may D be criminally liable for failing to act?
GR: No liability
Exception: D is under a legal duty to act (statute, special relationship, contractual duty, assumption of responsibility, creation of a dangerous situation)
When will D be considered to have assumed a responsibility for V and thus have a legal duty to act so be liable for failure to act?
- D voluntarily undertakes to care for helpless person (infant, mentally ill, ill health) (satisfy duty by calling ambulance)
- D lives in same house and given money to care for family
When is D under a legal duty to act if they create a dangerous situation?
- D creates danger
- D is aware of danger
- D fails to take reasonable measures to counteract it (no need to put life at risk)
What are the 4 types of MR?
- Intention
- Recklessness
- Negligence
- Strict Liability
When will D have direct intent?
Outcome was their aim or purpose (subjective test)
- liklihood of success irrelevant
- D must know gun loaded to have direct intent
What is the test for indirect intent and when is it relevant?
Test:
1. Death/injury was virtually certain (objective); and
2. D foresaw this (subjective but what a reasonable person may foresee is relevant if D’s story unbeleivable)
Relevance:
- D does not have direct intent
- Offence cannot be committed recklessly
What is the test for recklessness?
- The risk is unjustified / unreasonable to take (objective)
- D foresaw the risk of whatever is required by specific offence AND **goes on to take it **(subjective)
NOTE:
- what a reasonable person foresees / what D should have foreseen irrelevant
- An awareness of any level of risk, however small, is sufficient
When will D be negligent to satisfy the MR and what things are irrelevant considerations?
Conduct falls below reasonable person (careless) - objective test
D’s state of mind, motive, experience is irrelevant
If a statute contains no MR what approach will the court adopt?
Presumption in favour of MR unless:
- words suggesting MR used in other sections
- offence is aimed at preventing a sig social danger’ or
- punishment is minor / offence does not carry significant social stigma
What is the doctrine of transferred Malice?
If D has the malice (MR) to commit a crime against a person / property, the MR can be transferred to the unintended victim / property
- MR of crime committed must be the same as the crime D intended (not property instead of person)
- Doctrine not relevant if offence can be committed recklessly
What is the rule known as coincidence of AR and MR?
D must have the required MR at the same tme they commit the AR UNLESS:
1. Continuing Act: D commits AR and at some point they also have MR whilst act is continuing
2. One Transaction: series events and the evential act that causes death is part of the same sequence
What are crimes of basic intent?
Can be committed intentionally or recklessly
What are crimes of specific intent?
Can only be committed intentionally
What are crimes of ulterior intent?
P must establish D intended an an additional consequence beyond the AR (irrelevant whether D achieves consequence)
- burglary
- aggravated criminal damage
