Paper 1 - The Legal System & Criminal Law: Section B - The Criminal System Flashcards

1
Q

What is ‘actus reus’?

A

It’s a ‘constituent element of crime’ - ‘guilty act’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is ‘mens rea’?

A

It’s the ‘intention or knowledge of wrong doing that constitutes crime’ - guilty mind

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the ‘Burden of Proof’

A

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 that they have been charged
with. The prosecution must prove that the defendant is
guilty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the ‘Standard of Proof’

A

The prosecution must prove that the crime has
been committed ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
If this cannot be proved then the defendant will be
acquitted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What two elements mean that a person is guilty of a crime?

A

In order for a person to be found guilty of a criminal offence
the prosecution have to prove two elements.
ACTUS REUS + MENS REA = CRIMINAL OFFENCE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are three forms of actus reus?

A
  1. An act
  2. An omission (failure to act)
  3. A state of affairs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Voluntary Act: Hill v Baxter (1958)

A

Held: an involuntary action does not form the actus reus of a
crime.
The court stated examples of situations of where the
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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Omission: R v Pittwood (1902)

A

The defendant (D) was a gatekeeper at a railway station. He forgot to shut the gate when he went for his lunch. Due to this someone crossed the railway line & was hit & killed by a train.
Held: D was convicted - his omission had caused the death of
the victim.
Duty through a contract to close the gate.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Omission: R v Gibbens and Proctor (1918)

A

A father and his new wife omitted to feed his child, who then died.
Held: Guilty
Duty through a relationship to feed the child.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What are examples of Parliament imposing a duty to act?

A

Parliament imposes a duty to act:
Seatbelt – Road Traffic Act
Neglect – Children and Young Persons Act 1933

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Voluntarily Act/ Omission: Stone and Dobinson (1977)

A

D’s (of low intelligence) omitted to care for Stone’s elderly sister who then died
Held: Guilty of manslaughter
D’s were convicted because they took on the duty voluntarily

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Omission: R v Dytham (1979)

A

Police Officer failed to intervene as he saw a man being kicked to death
Held: Guilty
Duty through an official position

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Omission: R v Miller (1983)

A

Squatter accidentally started fire, omitted to put it out or summon help and moved to another room
Held: Guilty of criminal damage through setting in a motion chain of events
Duty to minimise the harmful effects of the fire

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is State of Affairs?

A
  • Very rare situations where the defendant is
    convicted even though they didn’t act voluntarily
  • e.g. Road Traffic Act 1988 ‘in charge of motor vehicle
    whilst unfit to drive”
  • Phrases like ‘being found’, ‘being in possession’ &
    ‘being in charge’ are all states of affairs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

State of Affairs: R v Larsonneur (1933)

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is ‘Causation’?

A

Causation is the the coincidence of Actus reus and Mens rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is ‘factual causation’?

A

The ‘but for ‘ test is used – but for the defendant’s act, would the
consequence have occurred?
The defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ his act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is ‘legal causation’?

A

D’s act must be the ‘operating and substantial cause’ of the
injury/death…or at least there must be a more than ‘slight and trifling link’.
This is a test to find the link between the defendant’s act and the consequence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is ‘novus actus interveniens’?

A

This means ‘new act intervening’ – this breaks the chain of causation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Factual causation: R v Pagett (1983)

A

D was guilty as his actions had ‘caused’ her death. But for him using her a human shield, she would not have died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Factual causation: R v White (1910)

A

D not guilty of murder as he had not caused her death. ‘But for’ his actions, his mother would have died anyway

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Factual causation: R v Hughes (2013)

A

The Supreme Court quashed the conviction as D’s driving did not ‘cause’ the death because his driving was faultless.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Legal causation: R v Kimsey (1996)

A

D did not have to be the substantial cause of death, as long as there was something more than a ‘slight or trifling link’ – here there was and D was guilty.

24
Q

When should no intervening acts occur?

A

No intervening acts must occur which breaks the chain of causation.

25
Q

What are the three intervening acts?

A
  1. Acts by a 3rd party
  2. Victim’s own acts
  3. Natural but unpredictable events
26
Q

Acts by a 3rd party: Medical treatment R v Jordan (1956)

A

Intervening act was ‘palpably wrong’ therefore no legal causation, the intervening act broke the chain of causation

27
Q

Acts by a 3rd party: Medical treatment R v Chesire (1991)

A

D still guilty for the death. The tracheotomy was not seen as being ‘sufficiently independent’ from the gunshot wounds

28
Q

Acts by a 3rd party: Medical treatment R v Smith (1959)

A

Despite the received treatment which made him worse, D was guilty of murder as the stabbing was the ‘operating & substantial cause’ which was ‘more than minimal’

29
Q

Victim’s own acts: R v Roberts (1971)

A

D guilty of causing the injuries (the result).
V’s actions of jumping were ‘reasonably foreseeable’

30
Q

Victim’s own acts: R v Williams (1992)

A

V’s actions were unreasonable and the chain of causation was broken by the V himself.

31
Q

What happens in relation to a Life Support Machine and Causations?

A

Switching off a life support machine doesn’t break the chain of causation

32
Q

Life Support Machine: R v Malcherek and Steel

A

Two separate appeals were heard together. In Malcherek the defendant had stabbed his wife. In Steel the defendant was accused of sexually assaulting and beating a woman over the head with a stone. In both cases the victims had been taken to hospital and placed on life support machines. The doctors in the respective cases later switched off the life support machines as both victims were not showing any activity in their brain stem. The defendants sought to argue that the doctors’ actions constituted a novus actus interveniens which broke the chain of causation.

Held: Convictions upheld
The test of death is where the brain stem has died. Thus at the time of switching off the machine, the victims were already dead. The doctors could not therefore be the cause of death.

33
Q

What are three types of mens rea?

A
  1. Direct Intention
  2. Indirect Intention or Oblique Intention
  3. (Subjective) Recklessness
34
Q

Direct intention: R v Mohan (1976)

A

Intention is defined as a decision to bring about the accused’s desired consequence. It can be said it was the defendant’s ‘main aim, purpose or desire’.

35
Q

Indirect intention: R v Woollin (1998)

A

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.

36
Q

Indirect intention: R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

A

The CA did not like the word ‘find’ from Woollin as this
suggested that the jury must find an intention rather than this
just being evidence of an intention (jury having the freedom
of choice).
The defendant’s foresight of consequence is no more than evidence from which the jury may find an intention

37
Q

A summary of Indirect (oblique) intention

A

 There has to be a prohibited act
 Harm has to be a virtual certainty
 Defendant must foresee this (harm/death as a
virtual certainty)

38
Q

Subjective Recklessness: Cunningham (1957)

A

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
The defendant knew this risk but took it anyway

39
Q

Subjective Recklessness: R v R and G (2003)

A

On the basis of the Cunningham test, as the defendants were unaware of the risk, therefore were not recklessness and were not guilty of causing criminal damage.
Lord Bingham justified the approach with a ‘moral blameworthiness’ principle, whereby ‘stupidity’ was not enough for a conviction.

40
Q

What is the Contemporaneity Rule?

A

Actus reus and Mens rea must coincide. They must happen at the same time.

41
Q

Contemporaneity Rule: Fagan v Met Police Commissioner (1969)

A

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 Fagan did not have the MR of the crime when
he stopped the car accidently on the policeman’s foot, he
did form the mens rea when he refused to move it and the
act of placing the car on the foot remained.

42
Q

Contemporaneity Rule: R v Thabo Meli (1954)

A

D attacked the victim intending to kill him -> D then threw him off a
cliff -> Victim died of exposure.
The AR and MR were present throughout; there was no
need to separate them as there was a causal link.
The AR consisted of a series of linked acts, it was enough
that the MR existed at some time during that series, even
if not necessarily at the time of the particular act which
caused the death.

43
Q

Contemporaneity Rule: R v Church (1966)

A

D’s conduct amounted to a series of acts, which culminated in her death and thus constituted manslaughter.

44
Q

What is Transferred Malice?

A

Transferred malice is a legal doctrine that holds that, when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible

45
Q

Transferred Malice: R v Latimer (1886)

A

The intention/MR to strike the man was transferred to V under the doctrine of transferred malice and the D was guilty.

46
Q

Transferred Malice: R v Mitchell (1983)

A

The intention/MR to strike the man was transferred to V, the
old lady under the doctrine of transferred malice and the D
was guilty manslaughter.

47
Q

Transferred Malice: R v Pembliton (1884)

A

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.

48
Q

What is ‘Strict liability’?

A

Crimes of strict liability are offences which do not require the mens rea with respect to some or all of the actus reus.
Merely performing the act is sufficient to make
them guilty.

49
Q

Strict liability: Gammon v AG for Hong Kong (1985)

A

The presumption can be removed only if the statute clearly
excludes mens rea
Strict Liability is used for public safety or social concern type
cases
Therefore, Strict Liability is used for encouraging greater
vigilance

50
Q

Strict liability: Sweet v Parsley (1970)

A

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.

51
Q

Strict Liability: Harrow LBC v Shah (2000)

A

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 (gambling by young people).

52
Q

Strict Liability: Alphacell v Woodward (1972)

A

It was held that this offence was one of Strict Liability. They
were found guilty and fined £20.

53
Q

Strict Liability: Semdleys v Breed (1974)

A

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.

54
Q

Strict Liability: B v DPP (2000)

A

The HL quashed his conviction as the mens rea was
required for this offence – it was not one of strict
liability.

55
Q
A