(RED) Elements of a Crime Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is meant by actus reus?

A

What the offender does. It is the physical element of the crime including conduct, circumstances and consequences.

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

What is an involuntary action?

A

An act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind.

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

Can you be found guilty of a crime if the act was involuntary?

A

No.

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

Which case defined what an involuntary action is?

A

Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland.

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

What 3 examples of involuntary acts when driving where given in the Hill v Baxter case?

A

Being stung by a swarm of bees and losing control.
Being hit on the head with a stone and losing control.
Having a heart attack or epileptic fit and losing control.

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

What is an omission?

A

Not acting or failing to act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the general rule on omissions?

A

There is no criminal liability for an omission (you don’t have to endanger yourself to save someone else).

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

What are the 5 duties to act where someone can be liable for an omission?

A

Contractual.
Relationship of dependency.
Assuming responsibility voluntarily.
Public office.
Creating a dangerous situation.

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

What are the details of the case where someone had a contractual duty to act?

A

R v Pittwood.
D worked for the railway. A man was killed on the railway line when D didn’t close the gate.

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

What are the details of the case where someone had a duty to act based on a relationship of dependency?

A

R v Gibbons and Proctor.
A father and his partner killed his child by starving her.

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

What are the details of the case where someone had a duty to act by assuming responsibility voluntarily?

A

R v Stone and Dobinson.
D and his girlfriend chose to care for his elderly sister rather than send her to a home. The sister died of poor treatment/ neglect.

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

What are the details of the case where someone had a public office duty to act?

A

R v Dytham.
A police officer watched a fight break out and didn’t call for help and a man died.

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

What are the details of the case where someone had a duty to act by creating a dangerous situation?

A

R v Miller.
A man dropped a lit cigarette and started a fire. He woke up and simply moved to a different room. The house burned down. (He was homeless and was squatting there).

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

What are the two types of causation that must be proven for a defendant to be found guilty?

A

Factual causation.
Legal causation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the test for factual causation?

A

‘But for’ test. It must be proved that the consequence to the V would not have happened ‘but for’ the D’s conduct.

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

What was the R v Pagett case and what was the outcome?

A

D kidnapped his pregnant girlfriend and ended up in a stand-off with armed police. D used V as a human shield and fired at the police. The police returned fire and killed V.
D was found guilty because V would not have died but for D using her as a human shield. The police officer’s actions were also reasonable and foreseeable so don’t break the chain of causation. This means D was the significant cause of V’s death. Therefore he is the factual and legal cause of V’s death.

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

What was the R v White case and what was the outcome?

A

D decided to poison his mother for his inheritance. His mother took a sip of her poisoned drink but coincidentally died of an unrelated heart attack.
D was found not guilty of murder because she would still have died but for the poison in her drink so he is not the factual cause of her death. However he could be found guilty of attempted murder.

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

What is the test for legal causation?

A

‘Operative and substantial’ test. D’s conduct must be a significant cause of the consequence to the V.

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

What are the 3 types of intervening act that can break the chain of causation?

A

Actions of a third party (e.g the doctors’ palpably wrong treatment in the R v Jordan case).
Victim’s own actions (are the actions proportionate to the threat?).
Natural and unpredictable events (e.g floods, hurricanes, earthquakes).

20
Q

Intervening acts will only break the chain of causation if…

A

they are unreasonable and unforeseeable.
For medical treatment they also have to be palpably wrong.

21
Q

What was the R v Smith case and what was the outcome?

A

D stabbed V with a bayonet and punctured V’s lung. Medics arrived and didn’t realise the lung was punctured. They saw him struggling to breathe and performed CPR on V which tore open his lung and he died.
D was found guilty because V would not have died but for D stabbing him with a bayonet. The victim died in 2 hours so the stab must have been a significant cause of death. The medical treatment was also reasonable and foreseeable so isn’t an intervening act. Therefore D is the factual and legal cause of V’s death.

22
Q

What was the R v Jordan case and what was the outcome?

A

D stabbed V in the stomach. V had almost recovered in hospital when a doctor gave him antibiotics that he was allergic to. The doctor wrote a note saying not to give him any more. Another doctor came and gave him the same antibiotics again and V went into cardiac arrest. The doctor then pumped his body with 6 times the amount of fluid any human should have in their body.
D was found not guilty of murder because V would have recovered if it wasn’t for the palpably bad medical treatment that was unreasonable and unforeseeable. Therefore this breaks the chain of causation so D can’t be found guilty of murder. This means he is the factual but not legal cause of death as his conduct wasn’t a significant cause of death.

23
Q

Why is D guilty in R v Roberts but not R v Williams?

A

The victims were both hitchhikers who jumped out of the car. The difference is Roberts was making sexual advances on his victim so her jumping out of the car and breaking a leg is reasonable and foreseeable. It is also proportionate to the threat. This means he is the factual and legal cause of her broken leg. However Williams was only asking for money for a share of the petrol when V jumped out of the car and died. The V’s actions were unreasonable, unforeseeable and disproportionate to the threat so D is not guilty as he is not the legal cause of his death.

24
Q

What is the thin skull rule?

A

Any characteristic which makes the V more vulnerable will not break the chain of causation; the D will still be liable for the more serious consequence to the V.

25
Q

What kinds of conditions does the thin skull rule apply to?

A

Allergies, brittle bone disease, haemophilia, epilepsy, previous injury, mental illness, religious beliefs etc.

26
Q

Which case is a good example of the thin skull rule?

A

R v Blaue.
D stabbed V who was a Jehovah’s witness. At the hospital V was told she would need a blood transfusion to survive but she refused this on religious grounds and she eventually bled to death. Blaue was found guilty of her murder. V would not have died but for D stabbing her and her religious beliefs will not break the chain of causation so he is a significant cause of her death.

27
Q

What is meant by mens rea?

A

The mental element of a crime (literal translation: guilty mind).

28
Q

What are the 2 types of mens rea?

A

Intention (direct and oblique).
Recklessness.

29
Q

How does the Mohan case define direct intent?

A

D aims to bring about the prohibited consequence.

30
Q

What are good examples of proving direct intention for murder?

A

Planning/premeditation, motive, use of a weapon, relationship with V, things D has said previously.

31
Q

What is oblique intention?

A

Where the D’s aim wasn’t to bring about the consequence but the consequence was so obvious that D may as well have intended it.

32
Q

What was the Woollin case?

A

D was a loving devoted father to a small baby but he was left alone for a few hours with the baby who wouldn’t stop crying. D lost his temper and threw the baby towards the pram which was 5 feet away but the baby hit the wall and died. He was found not guilty of murder because it was deemed that he didn’t realise the baby’s death was virtually certain.

33
Q

What are the 2 parts to the test for oblique intention that was introduced by the Woollin case?

A

1) The consequence of D’s conduct was virtually certain. (Objective)
2) D realised the consequence was virtually certain. (Subjective)

34
Q

What is objective?

A

What a reasonable person would think.

35
Q

What is subjective?

A

What D was thinking.

36
Q

What was the Matthews and Alleyne case and what did it clarify?

A

The Ds threw V into a deep, fast-flowing river knowing that V couldn’t swim. They were found guilty of murder because they passed both parts of the test from Woollin case. Therefore the case clarifies that passing the test is strong evidence of oblique intent.

37
Q

What was the Cunningham case?

A

D ripped the gas meter off the wall to steal money inside but this caused gas to escape to neighbouring property where the gas harmed V.
He was found not guilty because he didn’t have the mens rea as it was determined he wasn’t being reckless.

38
Q

What is the test for recklessness which was introduced by the Cunningham case? Is this test subjective or objective?

A

Did D foresee the risk of harm resulting from their conduct but carry on regardless?
Subjective.

39
Q

What is transferred malice?

A

When D intended to commit a crime on one person but actually commits it on someone else. The mens rea can be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim, meaning D is still guilty.

40
Q

What is the case for transferred malice?

A

R v Latimer. D was in a pub and got into an argument with someone. He tried to hit them with his belt but it hit the landlady instead. He was found guilty of GBH as malice was transferred.

41
Q

Can malice be transferred if D has the actus reus of one crime whilst possessing the mens rea of a different crime?

A

No- it has to be the same offence for malice to be transferred.

42
Q

What is an example of a case where malice couldn’t be transferred?

A

R v Pembliton- D threw a stone at a group of people trying to hit them. He missed them and smashed a shop window. He was found not guilty of criminal damage as there was no mens rea for criminal damage.

43
Q

What is the principle of coincidence?

A

For an offence to take place, the defendant usually needs both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence and they need to be present at the same time.

44
Q

What is single transaction theory?

A

When the MR happens before the AR but the courts extend the MR to meet the AR for the D to be found guilty. This happens when there is a clear chain of events that act as a single action.

45
Q

Which case is an example of single transaction theory?

A

R v Thabo Meli. D and his gang kidnapped and beat V with bats until they thought he was dead. They then threw his body over a cliff where he later died of exposure to the elements. MR- when they beat him with bats. AR-when they threw him off a cliff. The court extended the MR for him to be found guilty as the events were a single transaction to death.

46
Q

What is a continuing act?

A

When the AR is done first but still continues until D has MR. The AR is extended to meet the MR.

47
Q

Which case is an example of a continuing act?

A

Fagan v MPC. D accidentally ran over a police officer’s foot. When the officer told him to move he refused and left the car on V’s foot. AR- running over his foot. MR- refusing to move the car off his foot. D was found guilty as the AR was still happening when he formed the MR.