Mens rea, actus reus and causation Flashcards
Indirect intention can only be found when…
(1) The harm was a “virtual certainty” of D’s actions
(2) D knew this
The two types of intention are…
(1) Direct and (2) indirect
Case that sets out the test for indirect intention (a baby is thrown against a wall)
R v Woolin (1998)
Recklessness means…
(1) D knew there was a risk
(2) D took the risk anyway
Case that confirms that ‘recklessness’ is defined with a subjective, not an objective test (gas meter is torn from wall - D doesn’t realise there is a risk)
R v Cunningham (1957)
Case that sets out the doctrine of transferred malice (man hits man with belt but strikes someone else)
Latimer (1886)
Thabo Meli v R (1954)
Actus reus and mens rea can be combined through a connected sequence of acts (D thinks V is dead and pushes her off a cliff, although she was still alive and died later)
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1986)
Actus reus and mens rea must be combined, but this can be through a continuing act
“General malice” is…
… when a person means to do harm in general, but not to a specific person - e.g. a terrorist planting a bomb in a public place
Three requirements for criminal liability:
(1) Actus reus (2) Mens rea (3) Causation
A person can’t commit a criminal offence by NOT doing something (an omission), unless…
(1) They were under a legal duty to do it
(2) They had to do it for their job / position
(3) They had a relationship of care to the victim
(4) They had started a dangerous sequence of events and not stopped it
R v Pittwood (1902)
A railway-crossing keeper fails to shut the gates, when it was his job to do so - a crash results, and his is liable through his omission
R v Dytham (1979)
A policeman sees a man being kicked to death, but doesn’t intervene or get help. He can be liable through his omission, because it was his role to help
R v Evans (2009)
V’s half-sister and mother fail to get help when she overdoses from heroin - They are liable through their omission to act because of their relationship of care
R v Miller (1983)
D is liable for omitting to act when he has started a dangerous situation (man falls asleep while smoking, starting a fire - when he wakes up he does nothing to put it out)
Case that sets out the test for factual causation in criminal law
R v White (1910) (man tries to poison his mother’s tea, but she dies before poison can take effect)
The rule about injuries to people with particular vulnerabilities is…
The ‘thin skull rule’ - you take your victim as you find them
Case showing that negligent medical treatment doesn’t break the chain of causation in criminal law, if D’s actions are still an “operating” and “substantial” cause of death
R v Smith (1956) (soldier stabs another - V is dropped by stretcher carriers on way to hospital, injuring him further - D is still liable)
R v Cheshire (1991)
D is guilty of V’s murder when V dies due to a faulty operation, when V was only in hospital because D stabbed him
Case where negligent hospital treatment did break the chain of causation
R v Jordan (1956) - D stabs V, and when in hospital doctors negligently give V antibiotics to which he is allergic
R v Malcherek (1981)
Switching off a life support machine doesn’t break the chain of causation - D is still liable
R v Roberts (1972)
Girl is injured jumping from car when D tries to sexually assault her - D is still liable, as her response to his actions was one D could have reasonably foreseen
R v Marjoram (2000)
V’s action doesn’t break chain of causation when it is a response to D’s acts that D should reasonably have foreseen (V is injured jumping from hotel window when D comes to the door to threaten him)
R v Williams and Davis (1992)
If a victim’s response to D’s actions is unreasonable, then this will break the chain of causation and D will not be liable (V jumps from car to escape theft of small change)
