the elements of a crime Flashcards
How does an offence take shape?
How does an offence take shape?
AR + MR (-defence) = Liability
Breakdown of equations
AR = Actus Reus MR = Mens Rea Defence = insanity, self defence, loss of control etc Liability = the liability to be found guilty of the offence
all offences have two very basic elements
Actus Reus and Mens Rea
These are the foundations of the offences you deal with
Actus Reus
the guilty act (physical aspect)-
prohibited by the law
Mens Rea
the guilty mind (thinking/mental aspect)
to have an offence which liability can exist
AR and MR must connect
Example of when an offence is not an offence
The D(efendant) walks into the V(ictim) and head butts her
There are two possible outcomes here
a) Intentionally committed a non-fatal offence
b) Tripped, fell and made contact with her head
This is where the use of MR is important, it can change the entire meaning of an offence
Actus Reus extended
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
An act is not necessarily a guilty act unless it is accompanied by a guilty mind.
in law context is everything
Lord Steyn in R (Daly) v Home Secretary [2001]
what will the AR of every offence be defined in
the statute (OAPA 1861) or in the common law
- It can either be very vague – ‘harm’ or there may be further definition within the statute
Actus Reus requires
- Murder: Stab, shoot, etc
- Battery: Touch, push, etc
- Actual bodily harm: Punch, bruise, cut, etc
- Theft: “Appropriation of property belonging to another”
Three categories of AR
1) A positive act
2) An omission
3) A state of affairs
positive act
Physically doing something: such a strangling, hitting, stabbing etc…
It must however be voluntary – if there is an involuntary act, then the effect will not be the same
Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland: The requirement that [the act of the accused] should be a voluntary act is essential… in every criminal case. No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily
Omissions
A failure to do something, generally involving some form of a duty to care
There are 5 types of omissions
As citizens, there is no requirement for us to act and help other people
There is in France, Paps arrested at Princess Diana’s death due to their lack of assistance
5 types of omissions
special relationships
dangerous circumstances
contractual
quasi employment through statute
assumed responsibility
special relationships
- Is the victim dependent – such as an adult with learning difficulties? Is there parental care?
- Gibbins v Proctor: Children starved to death, murder by omission – parents owed their children more action than what they did
dangerous circumstances
- Where the defendant has created a dangerous situation and then fails to rectify said situation
- R v Miller: created a fire by falling asleep with a cigarette, when saw fire they simply left the fire and offered no help – lack of response was the omission
contractual
- Where a contract to act exists in some form and the D doesn’t do this, such as teachers and their ability to look after those in their care
- R v Pittwood: railway worked failed to do what they were obliged to do, and the deaths as a result were their fault
Quasi Employment through statute
- Typically less common, but covers police officers and Mp’s who have a duty to act in a certain way down to their employment contracts and obligations
assumed responsibility
- Where D has voluntarily assumed responsibility, but if they then stop with the care they are held responsible
- Stone v Dobinson – D begun volunteering but when the person became seriously ill, they stopped caring and left them seriously unwell without alerting authorities
state of affairs
- final type of AR
- comes from the situation that the defendant finds themselves in
- Technically, sleeping in your car after a heavy night means you are drunk in charge of a vehicle – your situation becomes the act, although you aren’t necessarily driving, you’re actions are enough
- You’ve found yourself in a set of circumstances and this is the act which is enough to satisfy the AR
chain of events
Although involuntary acts do negate the liability of the person who has committed (such as involuntary spasm, swarm of bees etc)
If the D sets off a chain of events, then they are responsible for all the injuries or results of that decisions
R v Mitchell: D pushed a man in a queue, who knocked over an elderly man who died – resp for the death
What is MR
- Mens Rea- aka the guilty mind
- There is a big difference between an AR with no MR and an AR with a guilty mind
types of MR
- Different levels of MR, no 1 being the most serious and blameworthy and the 4th the least blameworthy
levels of MR
- . Intention
- recklessness
- negligence
- SLO
where to find the MR
- The mr for each offence will always be found in the statute, again such as with AR, there will be a hint as to what the level is
- Most offences have two types of MR allocated to them, most commonly allowing either intention or recklessness
intention
The most severe, and blameworthy frame of mind
- To have intention means to have a desire, plan or aim to commit a criminal act, making the defendant blameworthy
- Hard to prove and to attempt to prove this as a mindset, the courts will look to the physical items or actions which indicate a mindset
- Mohan (1975) ”intention is an aim or decision to bring about certain consequences”
- It is a conscious decision to bring an action to fruition and there are 2 different types of intent
- Direct and Oblique (also called indirect)
direct and oblique intention
- Oblique intent is generally reserved for murder, and it is suspiciously close to recklessness which is not available for murder
- Intent and foresight are intrinsically linked- it is a way in which to ensure the D has got intent
direct intention
D desires and aims for consequences that eventually occur
oblique intention
includes when outcome is desires but when an outcome is not directly desired but was clearly inevitable- must be foreseen by D
foresight
- To establish whether there was foresight of consequences
1) Is harm a natural consequence of D’s voluntary act?
2) Did the D foresee that cons as being a natural consequence of the act - If yes, then it is proper to infer that D intends the consequence
intent and foresight link
- Foresight is not that same as intent, but when the Jury are satisfied that D did foresee for virtually certain to cause the action- than the jury could say he intended the result
recklessness
- D most frequently behave recklessly when performing the AR of an offence
- Therefore, AR can be considered to be not as sinister as intent but more akin to stupidity
- It is the MR for several offences as well as intention
a part 2 test to establish recklessness
1) The D saw the risk of harm being caused by their act and decided to act anyway
2) The D’s taking of the risk was unjustified
understanding the test
- The decision on whether the D saw the risk is currently subjective- est in R v G (2003) meaning that the test based on the eyes of the D- did the D see the risk
unjustified risk
- The second element is whether the risk was justified, and is assessed objectively
- If it is objectively justifiable then D is not reckless- although rare to happen it does exist
- E.g. swerving to avoid a child but then hitting a parked car
offences requiring recklessness
- Unlawful Act MS
- Reckless MS
- S20 OAPA 1861
- S47 OAPA 1861
- Assault/Battery
- Criminal Damage
negligence
- Actually a civil action and relatively uncommon within the criminal law- but does still concern some offences
- Est in Donoghue v Stevenson: the D owed the claimant a DoC and that DoC was breached
DoC
- The criminal law is only involved if the breach is GROSS
- R V Bateman: Gross Neg is when the standard of reasonable care falls far short of what is expected by the law
- Typically used for Gross Negligence MS
test for GNM
- R v Adomako: defined GNM and therefore negligence as a whole
1) There must be a breach of a DoC
2) Which then causes death
3) And be grossly negligent
SLO
- An AR without the MR
- The courts do not need to prove intent, recklessness or even negligence
- D can be convicted even though the MR has not been satisfied
- It is only regulatory offences that have SLO, these will carry a fair lighter sentence and very low moral stigma
- The idea is that by using SL for regulation, public safety we can ensure that there will be greater vigilance and protection
