Law-Underlying Principles of Criminal Liability (AS) Flashcards

Question

What is causation?

Answer 1

Part of the actus reus of the crime, and is the link between the defendant's act and the criminal consequence

Answer 2

To decide whether the defendant's guilty act caused the required consequence in the definition of a particular crime, if not, or if the act isn't unlawful, then there is no criminal liability

Answer 3

Conduct/action crimes, or result crimes

Answer 4

Where the act is the actus reus and the consequences are immaterial

Answer 5

Where the actus reus must produce a particular consequence such as death or a particular type of harm

Answer 6

Factual causation and legal causation

Answer 7

The 'but for' test: but for the defendant's act, would the consequence would gave happened?

Answer 8

the White 1910 case?

Answer 9

White put poison cyanide in his mothers drink, intending to kill her. She died shortly thereafter as a result of a heart attack. The poison had not taken effect at that time. Whilst he had intended to kill her and she had tied, he had not caused her death and therefore couldn't be found guilty of murder

Answer 10

Pagett 1983

Answer 11

The defendant used his girlfriend, Gail as a human shield while he shot at armed police. The police fired back and killed Gail. Pagett was convicted of Gail's manslaughter, as she would not have died 'but for' his used of her as a human shiled

Answer 12

The 'operating and substantial cause' test to find the link between the defendant's act and the criminal consequence

Answer 13

So that there is little chance of the conviction of a truly innocent person

Answer 14

The link between the act and the consequence. It must remain unbroken if there is to be criminal liability

Answer 15

Jordan 1956, Smith 1959 and Cheshire 1991

Answer 16

The defendant had stabbed the victim, who was taken to hospital. A week later, the wound was almost healed, doctors gave him an incorrect injection and he died. As the medical treatment was 'palpably wrong', there was no legal causation and the defendant was acquitted. The original injury was not the operating and substantial cause of death, but defendant is still guilty of wounding

Answer 17

Two soldiers involved in a fight and victim was stabbed, and lung was pierced. Taken to medical station and died there an hour later. Defendant was charged with murder but argued the chain of causation was broken by the way the victim had been treated as he was dropped twice on the way, the medical officer didn't realise the extent of the injuries, and was then given bad treatment. Defendant was convicted and appealed unsuccessfully as there was operating and substantial cause, as the cause of death was blood loss, from the stab wounds

Answer 18

Rare medical complication can break chain of causation, but only where original inquiry is no longer having any real effect. In this case the victim was shot in the thigh/stomach and died as a result of rare complications from a tracheotomy, which had not been spotted by doctors. Even though original wounds were no longer life threatening, tracheotomy given to help breathing problems and the rare complication were not seen as independent of gunshot wounds. In other words, they were still the main reason for the tracheotomy and so the chain of causation wasn't broken

Answer 19

A 'new act intervening': this breaks the chain of causation

Answer 20

When the sole cause of death or injury seems to be a completely independent act

Answer 21

An act of another person unconnected with the defendant's act, as in Pagett, or medical intervention as in Jordan

Answer 22

The law doesn't take into account any particular characteristics of the victim

Answer 23

It didn't matter that the victim was an old man, if he was therefore more likely to suffer a heart attack, then that was a risk the defendant must take

Answer 24

The defendant stabbed the victim, who was a Jehovah's witness. The victim was rushed to hospital, where doctors told them that they would die without a blood transfusion, but they refused on religious grounds so they died from their wounds. Defendant argued that the victims refusal of treatment was unreasonable so broke chain of causation, however defendant had to take victim as he found her, so not just her physical condition, but her religious beliefs too. Stab wound caused death so victim caused death

Answer 25

If the defendant causes the victim to act in a foreseeable way, then the victim's own act won't break chain of causation, depending on whether the victim's conduct is reasonable or unreasonable

Answer 26

Robers 1971 and Williams 1992

Answer 27

A girl who was passenger in the defendant's car injured herself by jumping out the car while it was moving because the defendant made sexual advances to her and was trying to pull her coat off. He was convicted as it was held that the correct test for causation in law was to ask whether the result was the reasonably foreseeable consequence of what the defendant was saying or doing, but chain is broken if the victim is doing something unreasonable. Defendant was acquitted

Answer 28

The defendants gave a life to a hitch hiker and allegedly tried to rob him. The victim jumped from the car and dies from head injuries caused by falling into the road. His act could be a novus actus interveniens and break the chain of causation.

Answer 29

Once it has been established that the defendant performed the act, the actus reus, the prosecution the must prove that his or her act caused the criminal consequence. Causation has two parts, factual and legal

Answer 30

The guilty mind, and is often the distinguishing factor between different crimes

Answer 31

The differences between s18 and s20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, is the mens rea (s18 is with intention and s20 is subjective recklessness)

Answer 32

Direct intention or indirect (oblique) intention

Answer 33

Occurs where the consequence is the defendants aim or purpose

Answer 34

Mohan 1976

Answer 35

It was said that direct intention is a decision to bring about, so far as it lies in the defendant's powers, the criminal consequence of his act or not. It can be said to be the defendant's aim, purpose or desire

Answer 36

Where the defendant intended the act but not the consequences. Difficulties arise when the defendant's aim is something different to the actual consequence

Answer 37

Defendant was feeding his 3 month old baby, who then choked. Defendant lost his temper and threw the bay towards the pram, but the baby hit a wall and died from head injuries. Defendant didn't have direct intention and court used a two part test to determine whether there was oblique intent

Answer 38

Allows the court or jury to infer intention if, a) the consequence is a virtually certain result of the act, and b) the defendant knows that there is a virtually certain consequence

Answer 39

Court of appeal stressed the defendant appreciation of death or serious bodily harm as a virtual certainty doesn't constitute necessary intention for murder, but is something from which intention can be inferred. The facts of he case were that the defendants pushed their victim from a bridge into a river, when they knew he couldn't swim. They watched him swim towards the bank but didn't know if he succeeded, but he drowned

Answer 40

Recklessness

Answer 41

This occurs where the defendant knows there is a risk of the criminal consequence, is willing to take it, and takes it deliberately

Answer 42

Because it requires looking at what was in the defendants mind

Answer 43

Cunningham 1957

Answer 44

The defendant had broken a pre-pay gas meter to steal the money in it, with the result that has escaped into the next-door house, making the neighbour ill. Defendant charged for administering noxious substance to victim. Mens rea could be intention or recklessness, but was found not guilty as it couldn't be shown that he knew there was a risk of harming anyone

Answer 45

'Being recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (that is the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done, and yet has gone on to take the risk of it). It is neither limited to, nor does it indeed require, any ill towards the person injured'

Answer 46

The mens rea of an offence is often quite difficult to prove. There have been many cases where the courts have struggled to find suitable words to direct the jury. The present rules on this are reasonably clear

Answer 47

The idea that a person can't be guilty of a crime if he or she performs an act that causes a previously desired result. General principle that the actus reus and mens rea of a crime must occur at the same time

Answer 48

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (MPC) 1969

Answer 49

Defendant accidentally stopped his car on a policeman's foot and swore and refused to move it when the policeman asked. He was guilty of causing injury to the policeman as leaving the car on his foot was seen as a continuing act. Even though mens rea wasn't there when he stopped the car on his foot, but formed the mens rea when he refused to move the car, and the act of placing car on policeman's foot continued

Answer 50

It can be one act which happens continuously, eg leaving a car on a policeman's foot, or it can be a series of connected acts, which can be seen in a similar manner to chain of causation

Answer 51

Thabo Meli 1954

Answer 52

Defendant hit the victim over the head, intending to kill him. They believed he was dead and tried to make it look like an accident by throwing him over a cliff, where the victim later actually died of exposure. The mens rea continued throughout, as the defendant had set out to kill the victim

Answer 53

Church 1966

Answer 54

Defendant took a woman to his van for sexual purposes, where she mocked his impotence, leading to him attacking her and knocking her out. He panicked when he couldn't revive her so threw her into a river, where she drowned. Court decided the mens rea continued even after he thought she was dead, so as to include her death from drowning

Answer 55

Occurs when the defendant's mens rea is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim, eg by shooting person A, but missing and shooting person B

Answer 56

Mitchell 1983, Latimer 1886, and Pembilton 1884

Answer 57

Defendant got into argument in a post office and pushed an elderly man, who then fell on an elderly woman, who later died. Court said although there was no direct contact between defendant and victim, she was injured as a direct result of his act and so the mens rea was transferred (transferred malice)

Answer 58

Defendant aimed to hit someone with a belt, but missed and hit a bystander. Mens rea was transferred to the victim, from the intended victim as the offence was of the same type (malice was transferred)

Answer 59

The defendant threw a stone at his intended victim, but missed and broke a window. The mens rea of intending to cause harm to the victim was not transferred to the window (criminal damage) as the intended act and actual act where not of the same type, so he wasn't guilty of criminal damage based on the mens rea

Answer 60

General principle of coincidence between actus reus and mens rea is sometimes interpreted quite widely to ensure that there can be a conviction when someone is truly guilty. These interpretations include continuing acts and transferred malice

Answer 61

Crimes where the definition of the crime includes an actus reus and no mens rea. Performing the act is sufficient to make a person guilty eg many motoring offences

Answer 62

To make it easier to prove guilt for business-related offences, because in the 19th century, with industrial revolution, there were many abuses of factory workers that were the subject of criminal law, but very few successful prosecutions as showing mens rea was difficult, and magistrates were also often factory owners, but when mens rea didn't have to be proved, conviction rates increased and so did factory safety

Answer 63

By phrases such as 'knowingly' or 'recklessly'

Answer 64

Decided in the House of Lords and established that the offence of being involved in the management of premises which were used for the smoking of cannabis was not an offence of strict liability under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 (there was no mens rea)

Answer 65

Court considered the scope and role of strict liability offences in modern criminal law, starting with principle that in criminal law there is a presumption of mens rea

Answer 66

Presumption of mens rea, truly criminal, statute must clearly exclude mens rea, only for public safety or social concern, encouraging greater vigilance

Answer 67

Very minor penalty, which leads to questions of why there was prosecution in the first place

Answer 68

Alphacell v Woodward 1972

Answer 69

The defendants were papermakers. There was an overflow from settling tanks which allowed polluted water to be discharged into a river due to pumping equipment becoming blocked. The alarm systems and regular maintenance and inspect programmes couldn't predict if and when there would be a blockage, but was still found guilty and fined £20. From the company's point of view, the main problem was hidden costs and bad publicity

Answer 70

One tin of peas, out of millions of tins produced by the defendants, contained a caterpillar. The defendant were convicted under the Food and Drugs Act 1955, even though they had taken all reasonable care

Answer 71

Court held the offence off selling a national lottery ticked to someone under 16 was a strict liability offence because the offence wasn't truly criminal but dealt with a matter of social concern (serves as a reminder to others)

Answer 72

Investigation officers hear unlicensed radio station broadcast and traced it to a flat where the defendant was found alone by record decks, still playing music and wearing headphones. Defendant admitted knowing he was using equipment but claimed he believed he was making demonstration tapes and didn't know he was transmitted

Answer 73

Court was told that pirate radio broadcasts might interfere with public service transmissions and so create a risk to public safety. Therefore the defendant was convicted as it was a crime of strict liability

Answer 74

Requires no mens rea. May seem unfair but the reasons behind strict liability make prosecution a just outcome (easier to prove, takes less court time, encourages compliance with law, prevents defences being raised as excuses, makes regulation straightforward and protects public)