Intro to Criminal Law and the Criminal Justice System Flashcards

Question

what are conduct crimes?

Answer 1

involves an act in which only the forbidden act must be proved (the d's behaviour is criminalised rather than an outcome)

Answer 2

causation must be established before the actus reus can be proved e.g. property must be damaged

Answer 3

the D doesn't have to actually do anything to be convicted- the actus reus is satisfied by the existence of a state of affairs/set of circumstances

Answer 4

R v Larsonneur 1933- French citizen deported from Ireland to England against her will convicted of being found illegally in the UK despite the fact she had no choice

Answer 5

special relationships, voluntary assumption of care, cross over between special relationship and voluntary assumption of care, a contractual duty to act

Answer 6

R v Gibbins and Proctor 1918

Answer 7

D conviected of murdering child who died of starvation, Gibbins was father so court held that he had a DoC- omission to feed the child

Answer 8

R v Stone and Robinson 1977- two defendants took in Stone's sister and were convicted of manslaughter because she died of infected bed sores- they were convicted because they failed to sufficiently care for her

Answer 9

R v Pittwood 1902- defendant railway worker employed to guard the gate at a level crossing- he failed to open the gate on one occasion and a person was killed by a train- he was convicted of manslaughter

Answer 10

when a legislative provision imposes a duty on individuals to act in a certain way in a given set of circumstances e.g. Children Act 1989

Answer 11

liability will only accrue if the conduct is willed and not just a reflex movement e.g. a man fainting onto someone while unconscious wouldn't be convicted of assault

Answer 12

the D alleges that their conduct was involuntary e.g. falling asleep at the wheel is involuntary but arguably the D's fault

Answer 13

result crimes because the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused's act or omission actually caused the prohibited sequence

Answer 14

principle that the D cannot be considered to be the cause of an event if it would have occurred in exactly the same way without the D's act or omission

Answer 15

when the D was an operating/substantial cause of the consequence

Answer 16

where the victim acts in a particular way, where an act by the other person intervenes, where an event occurs between conduct and result, injuries inflicted by D were an operating/substantial cause despite an intervening event, if the intervening event was forseeable

Answer 17

'a new and intervening act'- this breaks the chain of causation therefore D not the cause of the result and is absolved of liability for it

Answer 18

R v Dalloway 1847- D negligently driving a horse and cart not holding reins when a child ran in front and was killed- if the man was holding the reins would the child have died? Jury said yes so he was acquitted

Answer 19

court considers how foreseeable a victim's response of escape was

Answer 20

if the victim does something after the initial act or omission but before the consequence occurs, the intervention is voluntary so legal causation of the D wont be established

Answer 21

R v Roberts 1971- victim jumped out of moving car to escape unwabted sexual advances from the D- the D convicted of assault even though technically it was teh victim's own fault