Paper 1: general elements of criminal liability Flashcards
What are the 2 main criminal courts?
Magisrates and Crown court
What offences does Magistrates court deal with?
Summary and Either way offences
What offences does Crown court deal with?
Either way and indictable offences
Examples of summary offences
Assault and battery
Examples of either way offences
ABH
GBH s.20
Examples of indictable offences
GBH s.18, murder and manslaughter
What is the burden of proof?
The basis for imposing liability in criminal law is that the defendant must be proved to have committed the guilty act whilst having had the guilty state of mind for the crime they they have been charged with
Who bears the burden of proof?
the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty
What is the ‘standard of proof’?
The prosecution must prove that the crime has committed ‘beyond reasonable’
What are the two elements that have to be proven for the prosecution?
Actus reus and mens rea
What are the 3 types of actus reus?
An act, an omission and a state of affairs
What was the held in Hill v Baxter?
An involuntary action does not form the acts reus of a crime. The court states examples of situations where a driver would not be acting voluntarily, e.g. being stung by a swarm of bees, sneezing or being hit on the head by a stone
What is an omission?
A failure to act
What was held in R v Pittwood?
D was convicted- his omission had caused the death of the victim. Duty through a contract to close the gate
What was held in R v Gibbens and Proctor?
Guilty. Had a duty through a relationship to feed the child
What was held in Stone and Dobinson?
Guilty of manslaughter, D’s were convicted because they took on the duty voluntarily
What was held in R v Dytham?
Guilty, duty through an official position
What was held in R v Miller?
Guilty of criminal damage through setting in a motion chain of events. Duty to minimise the harmful effects of the fire
What is a state of affairs?
Very rare situations where the defendant is convicted even though they didn’t act voluntarily
What is the case for state of affairs?
Larsonneur
What is held in Larsonneur?
When she landed in the UK she was immediately arrested and charged with ‘being an alien’ of the state. She was convicted because she was an alien who had been refused leave to land and was found in the UK
What is factual causation?
The ‘but for’ test is used, but for the defendants act, would the consequence have occurred?
What is legal causation?
D’s act must be the ‘operating and substantial cause’ of the injury/death… or atlas there must be a more than ‘slight and trifling link’
What is nous acts interveniens?
This means ‘new act intervening’- this breaks the chain of causation
What are the 3 types of intervening acts?
1) Act’s by a 3rd party
2) Victims own act
3) Natural but unpredictable events
What is the held in R v Pagett?
D was guilty as his actions had ‘caused’ her death. But for him using her a human shield, she would not have died
What was held in R v Kimsey?
D did not have to be the substantial cause of death, as long as there is something more than a ‘slight and trifling link’
What was held in R v Jordan?
Intervening act was ‘palpably wrong’ therefore no legal causation, the intervening act broke the chain of causation
What was held in R v White?
D not guilty of murder as he had not caused her death. ‘But for’ his actions, his mother would have died anyway
What was held in R v Hughes?
The SC quashed the conviction as D’s driving did not ‘cause’ the death because his driving was faultless
What was held in R v Cheshire?
D still guilty for the death. The tracheotomoy was not seen ass being ‘sufficiently independent’ from the gunshot wounds
What was held in R v Smith?
Despite the received treament which made him worse, D was guilty of murder as the stabbing was the ‘operating and substantial cause’ which was ‘more than minimal’
What was held in R v Roberts?
D guilty of causing this, for the injuries (the result) were ‘reasonably forseeable’
What was R v Williams?
This was not reasonable action and the chain of causation was broken- his act was an intervening act
What was held on R v Malcherek?
Switching off a life support machine does not break the chain of causation
What is the definition of the mens rea?
The guilty mind and is often the distinguishing factor between different crimes. It must be distinguishes from motive
What are the types of mens rea?
Direct intention, indirect intention, recklessness
What was the held in R v Mohan?
Intention is defined as a decision to bring about the accused’s desired consequence. It can be said it was defendant’s ‘main aim, purpose or desire’
What are the two questions asked in R v Nedrick?
1) is death or serious injury a virtually certain result of the accused’s voluntary act? (was the consequence a virtually certain result)
2) Does the accused force that death or serious injury was the virtually certain result of his act? (Did D know the consequence was a virtually certain result)?
What was the held in R v Woolin?
He clearly did not have the intention to kill his son so was found not guilty of murder. If the consequence is virtually certain and D knew this, then there was evidence on which the jury could find an intention
What was held in Matthews and Alleyne?
The defendant’s foresight of consequence is no more than evidence from which the jury may find an intention
Subjectiveness test- Cunningham
He was not guilty of harming her because he did not realise that there was a risk of gas escaping and hurting somebody. To establish recklessness you must show that D took an unjustifiable risk, and that the defendant knew this risk but took it anyway
What was held in R v R and G?
On the basis of the Cunningham’s test, the defendants were unaware of the risk, therefore were not recklessness and were not guilty of causing criminal damage
What was held in Fagan v Met Police Commissioner?
Fagan was found guilty of causing injury to the policeman as leaving the car on his foot was seen as a continuing act. Even though he did not have the mens rea, he formed it when he refused to move the car
What was the held in R Thabo Meli?
The AR and Mr were present throughout, no need to separate them as there was a causal link.
What was held in R v Church?
D’s conduct amounted to a series of acts, which was culminated in her death and thus constituted manslaughter
What was held in R v Latimer?
The intention/mens rea to strike the man was transferred to V under the doctrine of transferred malice and the D was guilty
What was held in R v Mitchell?
The intention to strike the man was transferred to V, the old lady under the doctrine of transferred malice and the D was guilty of manslaughter
What was held in R v Pembliton?
His ‘malice’ in intending to strike another person could not be transferred to an intention to break the window. He was therefore not guilty of the criminal damage
What is strict liability?
Crimes of strict liability are offences which do not require the mens rea with respect to some or all of the acts reus. Merely performing the act is sufficient to make them guilty
What was held in Gammon v AG for Hong Kong?
The presumption can be removed only if the statute clearly excludes the mens rea, it is used for public safety or social concern type cases. Therefore, strict liability is used for encouraging greater vigilance
What was held in Sweet v Parsley?
HL held that this offence was not of strict liability. The Lords felt that for such an offence, Sweet needed the MR to be guilty. Since she didn’t have this, her conviction was quashed
What was held in Harrow LBC v Shah?
It was held that this offence was one of strict liability. The offence was not truly criminal but dealt with a matter of social control
What was held in Alphacell v Woodward?
It was held that this offence was one of strict liability. They were found guilty and fined £20
What was held in Smedleys v Breed?
It was held that this offence was one of strict liability. The D’s were convicted under the Food and Drugs Act 1955 despite taking reasonable care
What was held in B v DPP?
The HL quashed his conviction as the mens rea was required for this offence- it was not one of strict liability
