Principles of Criminal Liability Flashcards
Criminal Liability
2 elements of Criminal Liability:
- Actus Reus
- Mens Rea
Actus Reus:
Committing the guitly act.
E.g.
Definition of Murder “The unlawful killing of another human being under the Queens peace with malice aforethought.”
Actus Reus for Murder is causing the death of another human under the Queen’s Peace.
Mens Rea:
‘Guilty Mind’. The mental element of a crime. This will include the state of mind of the D at the time of the Actus Reus.
Causation
This is the link between the D’s act and the result suffered by the V. Causation can be viewed like a chain, whereby if one of the links is broken then it can not be said to amount to liability. Causation is broken up into Factual and Legal Causation. Whether the D’s act or omissions actually caused the result is for the Jury to decide.
Factual Causation:
Tested in the But For test; “If it was not for the actions of the D, the result would not have occured.”
E.G. R v White 1910:
-D put cyanide into mother’s drink in order to gain from her will. Mother died later of heart attack not poisoning, even though she drank it.
Legal Causation:
Closely associated with moral responsibility; ‘can the result be fairly said to be the fault of the D’
E.G. R v Dalloway 1847:
-D driving horse and cart without holding reins, child runs out and was killed. D charged with Manslaughter.
Causation:
Deminimus Principle
Acceleration Principle
Deminimus Principle:
D’s actions need not be substantial cause of death as long as it was more than a slight or trifling link.
-Actions of D must have more than a Minimal Contribution.
Acceleration Principle:
D’s act will be considered the cause of the result if it accelerated that result.
E.G. R v Adams 1957:
- D was a doctor charged with Murder of terminally ill patient, by means of an overdose of painkillers. D’s act considered cause because it accelerated death.
Causation:
Contributory Causes
D’s act need neither be the sole, nor even the main cause of death.
Actions of 3rd Parties:
Only in extreme circumstances can D avoid liability by trying to blame someone else.
E.G. R v Paggett 1983:
-Police trying to arrest D, D armed himself with a gun and shot at police, police shot back but D had used pregnant GF as a shield, GF died. Police considered Factual Cause but D convicted for being legal cause.
3rd Party Medical Treatment:
Where D inflicts injury on V, which requires medical treatment, will D be held liable for Murder or Manslaughter if the treatment is improper or negligent?
R v Smith:
Wound must be ‘Operating’ and ‘Substantial’.
R v Cheshire 1991:
- D and V arguing when D produces gun and shoots V. V sent to hospital and had major bowel surgery, which was successful. V then had respiratory problems and had Tracheotomy. V condition worsened and he died because of windpipe becoming blocked, as a result of Tracheotomy. Gun wound had already healed.
- D convicted of murder even though wound healed. Judge ruled the treatment must be “so independent from D’s act for the D to escape liability.”
R v Mellor 1996:
- V, 71yr old man, attacked by hooligans including D. V taken to hospital complainignof chest pain and facial bruising. V died in hospital 2 days later. D convicted because Judge upheld Cheshire.
3rd Party Life Support Machines:
-R v Malcharek and Steel 1981:
M stabbed wife 9 times, Wife put in hospital but suffered pulmonary embolism which stopped her heart. During surgery, she suffered brain damage and was put on life support. Life Support was switched off. CoA rejected arguement that Dr’s had caused death because Brain Dead is a Legal Death, but D made V Brain Dead.
Causation:
Contributory Causes;
Victims Own Act and ‘Daftness’
If the D causes V to act in a foreseeable way, then any injury to the V will be considered to have been caused by the D.
Examples:
-R v Roberts 1971
Girl jumps from car to escape D’s unwanted sexual advances. Girl dies from jumping. D held liable because it was reasonably foreseeable she would try and escape/protect herself.
-R v Williams & Davis 1992
W and D give lift to hitchhiker, S. S opened door and jumped out, S dies. Crown argues S jumped to escape being robbed. Question of whether V’s conduct was “Proportionate to the threat, that is to say that it was within the ambit of reasonableness and not so daft as to make it his own voluntary act.”
Comments on Causation
- What is meant by ‘Slight and Triffling Link’:
Vague and difficult to define, subjective- therefore different standards may be applied. - Taking V as you fing them:
Being unjust where D does not know of the medical condition. - Refusal of Treatment:
- R v Holland 1841 is perhaps justified where treatment was more primative.
- R v Dear 1996 - Negligent Medical Treatment:
- R v Smith 1959 means D still cause if wound is ‘Operating and Substantial’
- R v Cheshire 1991 said treatment must be ‘so independent from D’s act for the D to escape liability.’
