Section B- Introduction To Criminal Law- Key Principles Flashcards
What is actus reus
Guilty act
What is men’s rea
Guilty mind
What does omission mean
Failure to act
Dependent must have committed the actus reus whilst having the necessary men’s rea
Failure or ommission act will end up in criminal liability
What are the exceptions where a failure or ommisson will result in criminal liability
Duty to act under a contract of employment
Duty to act for a person holding public office
Duty which has been taken voluntarily
Duties arising from a relationship
Duty to limit harm caused
Ommission created by statute
What is a duty to act under a contract of employment and case (ommission)
Duty may be outlined in a contract of employment. Where they D fails to fulfill his contractual duties, the courts may impose a duty to the act where they D fails D will become liable by omission
Pittwood
What happens in the case of pittwood
A railway employees job was to close gates at a rail crossing and V was killed by passing train
Held: liable for manslaughter by ommission as he failed to fulfil his contractual duty
What is a duty to act for a person holding public office and case (ommission)
Certain professions have a duty to act where a failure to act may affect public safety e.g. members of emergency service . D will become liable by omission.
Dytham
What happens in the case of dytham
PC watched a man be kicked to death and he walked away
Held: liable for manslaughter by ommission as he failed to stop it
A duty which has been taken voluntarily (omission) and case
When D undertakes the role of caring for another who is weaker through age or illness
Stone and dobinson
What happens in the case of stone and dobinson
2 defendants agreed to look after stones elderly sister she refused to eat and died on bed
Held: liable for manslaiughter by omission as they had a duty to act which they failed to do
What are duties arising from a relationship and case (ommission)
D may have a duty towards certain people because of the relationship they share. Parents, children, spouses.
Gibbins and proctor
What happens in gibbins v proctor (duty arising but relationship)
Father and girlfriend separated the 7 year old from other children and starved her to death
Both D were liable for murder by ommission- relationship as a father and fathers girlfriend
Duty to limit harm caused and case (ommission)
Where D created a dangerous situation he has a duty to act responsibly to limit harm caused
Miller
What happens in the case of miller (duties arising from relationship)
Homeless man squatting in a house- fell asleep with cigarette and set room on fire and moved to other room
Held: liable for arson by ommission- duty to limit harm caused and
Omissions created by statute and act (ommission)
statutes may specifically create an offence tat may only be committed by a failure to act
E.g road traffic act- failure to stop and report on an accident
What is causation and how to establish it
In order to convict a person of a crime it is necessary to show that the act of D caused the crime. Established: factual causation and legal causation must be proven. The rule CIF+CIL-NAI= guilty
What is causation in fact and case
But for test. But for the actions of D the C wouldn’t have been injured. Not liable if the victim would have died regardless
White
What is the case of white (CIF)
D wished to kill his mum to inherit contents of will. Gave her poison intending to kill her but she died of a heart attack attack before she drank the poison.
Held: white was acquitted of murder as ‘but for’ the actions the V would have died regardless and not the factual cause of her death so committed of attempted murder.
What is CIL and how to establish and case
The D may not be the sole case of the consequence but must be deemed the legal cause. Test to establish: -was D morally responsible. -was D more than a minimal cause. -did he accelerate death?
Pagett
What happened in the case of pagett (CIL)
D used pregnant gf as a human shield whilst he shot at police- police shot and killed girl.
Held: D was morally responsible, more than minimal cause and accelerated the death of his gf.
What is a novus actus interveniens
Once causation is established, liability can be removed by an intervening act that can break the chain of causation and original D will no longer be liable. Courts rarely break causation as they don’t want D getting away with original unlawful action.
What is the case of contributory negligence for NAI of the victim and facts
Longbottom- V was deaf man walking in road. A speeding car sounded its horn and hit V.
Held: D was liable for death as he accelerated the death and deemed the moral cause. The deaf man negligence of walking in the road did not remove causation
How may escape of the victim be a NAI and case
If V tried to escape from D in a grossly negligent way, D may not be found liable
Robert’s
What happened in the case of Robert’s (escape of victim)
D tried to undress a woman when in a car. She jumped to car and was injured.
Held: causation was not removed as her actions were not considered grossly negligent but reasoable
How can the Victims treatment of himself be a NAI and case
Where V gives himself grossly negligent treatment for injuries caused by D, can break chain of causation.
Dear
Wallace
What was the case of Dear (Vs treatment of himself)
D slashed V with knife. V took no steps to stop the loss of blood and had reopened wounds in order to commit suicide.
Held: D was convicted as he had significantly contributed to his death- actions were substantial and operating cause
How can the intervention of a third party be a NAI and case
Where D injures a victim only an intervening act of gross negligence on the part of a third party will remove causation. Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain unless its palpably wrong and so independent of the Ds acts that it makes the Ds act insignificant
Jordan
The case of Jordan (intervention of a third party- NAI)
Was stabbed and taken to hospital. Held was given antibiotic he was allergic to. He died as a result even though original wounds healed. Held: treatment deemed as palpably wrong and actions of doctors were grossly negligent and causation was broken
How can an intervening event be a NAI
Causation will be removed if injuries were made worse by an event that couldn’t have been predicted or prevented.. causation will not be broken if it could have prevented events by taking reasonable steps.
Can eggshell conditions break the chain of causation and case
NO - take the victim as they find them
Blaue
What is the case of blaue (eggshell condition)
D stabbed V through heart. Treatment required blood transfusion. V was a Jehovah’s Witness and refused and died.
Held: causation not removed as V religious beliefs were eggshell condition. D. Takes V as they find them- guilty.
What are the NAI
Contributory negligence of the victim
Escape
Treatment of himself
Third party
Event
(Eggshell)
What is men’s rea
Guilty mind- D needs to intend the crime they commit.
What are the different types of men’s rea
Direct intent
Oblique intent
What is direct intent (men’s rea) and consequence
Where Ds aim and desire to produce a certain result- subjective test
Mohan
What is the case of mohan (direct intent)
Pc signalled D to stop car and D accelerated towards the PC
Held: courts stated that direct intent is where the D does everything they can to bring a desired result
What is oblique intent (men’s Rea) and case
Where D intends one thing but the actual consequences is something different but a virtual certainty consequence. Subjective test
Woollin
What is the case of woollin (oblique intent)
Threw baby towards pram and suffered head injury and died.
Held: reduced from murder to manslaughter- should find intent if they feel sure death or serious harm was virtually certain.
What is recklessness and case
Where there is a risk of the consequence coming about but D takes that risk anyway. Used to be objective and subjective recklessness. Since the case of RvG recklessness is now subjective.
What is the case of RVG (subjective recklessness)
Two appellants 11 and 12 found old newspaper outside co op which they lit and threw under a bin assuming it would go out but it set fire to bin and the shop.
Held: convictions were quashed- unaware the shop would catch fire- subjective test.
What is a case of recklessness
R v Cunningham
What happens in R v Cunningham (recklessness)
D removed gas meter off wall of house and took cash in it. Gas leak.
Held: subjective recklessness- risk could be forseen
What is negligence and the type of test
D guilty because he did not act as a reasonable man would have done in the circumstances
Objective test
What is the coincidence rule
Requires that the actus reus and men’s Rea coincide (same time)
In rare cases, no coincidence but criminal liability can still be proved
What are the different parts of the coincidence rule
Continuing act
Transaction theory
What is a continuing act (coincidence rule) and case
In situations where the actus reus comes first, the courts apply this act doctrine where actus reus is continuing over the time to meet the point where D forms men’s Rea
Fagan
What happens in the case of fagan (continuing act)
Car was on PC foot and the PC told him to get off and he didn’t
Knew the car was on the foot- he had required men’s Rea
The AR continued throughout meaning two elements were present together
What is the transaction theory and case (coincidence rule)
Where no continuing act but instead a series of events, courts held y jay yje acts will constitute one transaction
Church
What happens in case of church (transaction theory)
Convictions for manslaufhter was upheld
Men’s Rea had been formed anywhere from the moment he first hit and threw her in the river as a series of acts
What is strict liability and cases
Most cases men’s Rea is required for guilty. For SL it’s not required to prove intent for the actus reus. Often involves matters to do with regulation (food, alcohol, pollution) created by an AOP which they failed to include that a men’s Rea is required. Even if D was at fault and did reasonable steps can still be found guilty
Harrow v shah and shah
Sweet v parsley
RVG
What happens in case if harrow v shah and shah (strict liability)
Member of staff sold ticket yo 13-year old girl without proof of age and shop owner found guilty
Sweet v parsley (string liability)
Held: acquitted on appeal when HOL held that any crime which social stigma was attached should normally require a men’s Rea
R v G (string liability)
15 had sex with 12- thought she was 15
Held: didn’t matter what the D believed still charged
What is transferred malice and cases
D can be found guilty if he intends to commit a similar crime but against a different victim. E.g trying to hit one person but instead hitting another. (Latimer)
However where the men’s Rea is completely different for type of offence D not guilty (pembliton) (Saunders)
Latimer (transferred malice)
Aimed to blow a man with a belt and hit another woman
Held: intent to hit man transferred to woman
Pembliton (transferred malice)
D threw stone intending to hit people, it broke a window instead.
Held: intention to hit a person couldn’t be transferred to damage caused to window
Saunders (transferred malice)
D wante to kill wife so poisoned an apple. The child took a bite and died
Malice transferred t child
