Introduction to criminal law Flashcards
What is the definition of actus reus?
The guilty act may be voluntary or an omission.
Name the three types of AR
Conduct - where the actual doing of the offence is enough,
Consequence - the prohibited act must result in a specific consequence.
State of affairs - a “being” crime, having an offensive weapon in a public place.
Hill v Baxter
“suppose a driver had a stroke or an epileptic fit … he could not said to be driving. A blow from a stone or an attack from a swarm of bees” would be similar.
What is the definition of an omission?
An omission is a failure to act, this is usually not an offence unless they have a contractual duty to act such as a lifeguard.
R V Gibbins and proctor.
Parent starved their daughter to death. failure to feed the child formed the AR for murder.
R V Stone and Dobinson
DIed of malnutrition due to the food-lacked nutrients, this formed the AR.
R V Miller
His cigarette lit the house on fire, he was accused of arson.
DPP V Santa Bermudez
He was accused of ABH due to lying about weapons on himself. The D knew there was a dangerous situation but both failed to stop it.
R V Dytham
Bystanders are convicted of the alleged crime as he failed to do his job right.
R V Pittwood
Their failure to do their duty could make them guilty of an offence.
What is the definition of causation?
Causation has to be proved if there is any doubt. Factual causation proves that there is a “chain” linking the actions of the D with the final harm that occurred. Legal causation then asks if any other act or person broke this chain.
Factual: R V White
But for the D’s conduct, the harm would not have occurred.
Legal cause: R V Kimsey
If the conduct was more than a minimal cause then it can be said to have caused the death.
Legal cause: R V Blaue
If the V has something unusual which then makes the injury more serious then the D is liable for the more serious injury. This is also known as the thin skull rule.
Legal - Intervening acts: R V Pagett
A foreseeable reaction by a third party would not break the chain.
Legal - Intervening acts: R V Smith
Medical treatment. D act need not be the sole cause of death as long as it is an operating and substantial cause.
Legal - Intervening acts: R V Cheshire
D’s act was not the sole cause of death or even the main cause of death.
Legal - Intervening acts: R V Jordan
A sufficiently independent act will break the chain of causation.
Legal - Intervening acts: R V Malcherek
Switching a life support machine does not break the chain of causation as long as the patient is brain-dead.
Intervening acts - victims’ act: R V Roberts.
If the D does something that causes the V to act in the reasonably foreseeable way then any injury to the V will be seen to have been caused by the D, it will not break the chain.
Intervening acts - victims’ act: R V Williams
An unreasonable reaction may break the chain
Intervening acts - victims’ act: R V Dear
D’s actions, e.g. in reopening the wound will not break the chain as long as the original act is still an operating cause of death.
Define “Mens rea”
The guilty mind.
MR - Direct Intent: R V Mohan
A decision by the D to bring about the prohibited consequence no matter whether they desired this consequence. “Intending what they were doing”
