Introduction to criminal liability

Question 1

What is the translation of Actus reus

Answer 1

The guilty act

Question 2

What is the Key principles of Actus reus

Answer 2

It must be voluntary and not a reflex. In Hill v Baxter a bus driver was attacked by a swarm of bees and the actus reus could not be established.

Question 3

Explain the actus reus of result crimes

Answer 3

The actus reus is in the circumstance of the defendants actions. For example ABH the defendants actions must have caused actual bodily harm

Question 4

Can the actus reus of a crime be a state of affairs?

Answer 4

Yes, for example if you are in possession of drugs then the actus reus is the situation or the circumstances of that crime. In Winzar the situation was the defendant being drunk on the highway

Question 5

What is the general rule for omissions

Answer 5

That no act means there is no actus reus however there are exceptions to the rule.

Question 6

What are the exceptions to the rule and their case examples

Answer 6

1. A contractual obligation - Pittwood (railway)
2. A statuary obligation - no case
3. A duty due to a relationship - Gibbins and Proctor (starving daughter)
4. A duty due to your public office - Dytham (police)
5. A Duty to minimise harm of your creation - Miller (squatter)
6. Duty taken on voluntarily - Stone and Dobbinson.

Question 7

What is an omission

Answer 7

A failure to act

Question 8

What are the two types of causation

Answer 8

1. Factual causation

2. Legal causation

Question 9

How is factual causation established

Answer 9

Using the but for test from White. But for the defendants actions would the victim ad suffered the criminal consequence?

Question 10

How is legal causation established

Answer 10

This is when the defendant is the substantial and operating cause of the criminal consequence for the victim (Smith) or a significant cause (Cheshire)

Question 11

Why was Cheshire still liable?

Answer 11

Because he was still a significant cause for of the treatment as the injuries were caused by him

Question 12

What is the general rule involving intervening acts?

Answer 12

The chain of causation will only be broken if the act is unforeseeable for example in the case of Pagett the chain of causation is not broken as it was foreseeable that the police would shoot back

Question 13

What is the rule of causation and medical treatment?

Answer 13

If the original wound is still the operating and substantial, then any action by doctors, even if negligent then this will not break the chain of causation. However if the original wound is the setting in which another cause operates then this will break the chain of causation. This was seen in the case of Jordan

Question 14

Explain the link between the chain of causation and the victims own act.

Answer 14

The chain of causation will not be broken as long as the actions of the victim is foreseeable. In the case or Roberts it was reasonably foreseeable that a woman would jump out of a car to avoid unwanted sexual advantages.

Question 15

What is the thin skull rule?

Answer 15

You must take your victim as you find them. Any personal characteristics of the defendant that make the harm worse will not hinder the defendants liability. This is seen in the case of Blaue

Question 16

What is the definition of mens rea?

Answer 16

This is mental element of a crime.

Question 17

What is the highest level of mens rea?

Answer 17

Intention - This is when the criminal consequence for the victim is the defendants main aim and goal. This is highlighted in the case of Mohan

Question 18

Define what oblique intent is

Answer 18

If the defendant knew that death or harm is a virtual certain outcome of the defendants actions but then takes the risk anyway then the injury can be said to be intended. This rule was established in the case of Nedrick and then confirmed in Woolin.

Question 19

Describe what recklessness is

Answer 19

This is where someone knows there is a risk and continues with the act any way. This was established in the case of Cunningham.

Question 20

Explain Transferred malice

Answer 20

This is when the defendant injures someone other than their intended victim. You can transfer the intention from the intended target to the actual target as long as the crime is of the same type (Latimer)

Question 21

Why couldn’t the malice be transferred in the case of Pembilton

Answer 21

This is because the offence is not of the same type. A criminal conviction cannot be transferred to property offences.

Question 22

What is meant by the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?

Answer 22

This means that the actus reus of a crime and the mens rea of that crime must happen at the same time.

Question 23

What does the case of Thabo Meli state about the coincidence of the actus reus and mens rea

Answer 23

That the mens rea can be a series of events.

Question 24

What did the case of Fagan highlight

Answer 24

That the mens rea can be a continuing act

Question 25

What are strict liability offences

Answer 25

These are case where there are not mens rea just the act alone is enough for the defendant to be liable

Question 26

What are most strict liability offences

Answer 26

They are statutory offences they are mostly about public conduct, traffic and health and safety.

Question 27

What did the case of Sweet and Parsley identify

Answer 27

If a crime is truly criminal then there will be a social stigma attached to the crime and therefore mens rea will be need.

Question 28

State some disadvantages of strict liability offences

Answer 28

1. Makes people guilty who are not blame worthy

2. People that have taken all possible precautions to avoid the act will still be convicted as seen in Shah