SQE1 - Criminal Law - 1. Burden and Standards of Proof, and Elements of Liability (1)

Question 1

Where the defendant wishes to rely on an exception within an element of an offence, or when raising some defences, they will have to prove it. What is the standard to which they must prove?

Answer 1

Balance of probabilities

Question 2

What defences must the prosecution disprove?

Answer 2

Self-defence, and loss of control

Question 3

What must the jury be to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt?

Answer 3

The jury must be sure that the defendant did it

Question 4

What are the three elements of actus reus?

Answer 4

Conduct (acts or omissions)
Circumstances (facts making defendant liable)
Result (outcome)

Question 5

What are the two requirements for a failure to act to amount to a criminal offence?

Answer 5

Defendant:

Had a duty to act
Breached the duty by failure to act sufficiently

Question 6

What are the five situations in which a duty to act will arise?

Answer 6

Statute, e.g. to stop at scene of accident
Special relationship, e.g. parent-child, doctor-patient
Voluntarily assumed duty of care for victim
Contract, e.g. railway guard
Defendant created dangerous situation and is aware of having done so

Question 7

What are the two stages in the test for causation?

Answer 7

Factual causation
Legal causation

Question 8

What does factual causation consider?

Answer 8

Whether the result would have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct

Question 9

If there is more than one cause, and defendant’s action slightly accelerates the result, is there sufficient factual causation?

Answer 9

Yes
]Compare with legal causation under which the cause must be substantial.

Question 10

What is the purpose of legal causation?

Answer 10

The prevent factual causation test from being overinclusive, where issues like lack of foreseeability would make conviction unfair

Question 11

What are the two requirements of a defendant’s action before it will be a legal cause?

Answer 11

It must be:
1. Substantial, i.e. more than minimal, slight, or trifling, and
2. Operative, i.e. actually cause the result and is negated by a more substantial intervening act or event

Question 12

However, what is the thin skull rule which is somewhat of an exception to the intervening act part of legal causation?

Answer 12

Causation is not negated if the defendant does more damage than expected due to the particular vulnerabilities of the victim, or a victim’s condition worsens because they refuse medical treatment on religious grounds

Question 13

When will medical treatment break the chain of causation?

Answer 13

When the treatment is so bad that the original injury becomes the background

Question 14

What is required for intervention of the following parties to break the chain of causation?
Defendant
Natural event
Victim
Third party

Answer 14

Defendant: New act
Natural event: Unforeseeable
Victim: Voluntary, and unforeseeable, i.e. so daft as to be unforeseeable
Third party: Free, deliberate, and informed

Question 15

What are the two types of intention?

Answer 15

Direct
Indirect

Question 16

When will a defendant directly intend an outcome?

Answer 16

When the outcome is the defendant’s aim or purpose

Question 17

When will a defendant indirectly intend an outcome?

Answer 17

When the outcome is a virtual certainty of the act, and the defendant realises this