The elements of crime Flashcards
how does an offence take shape
AR + MR (-Defence_ = LIABILITY
what does AR stand for
Actus Reus
AR is the guilty act
what does MR stand for
Mens Rea
MR is the guilty mind
what is defence
insanity, self-defence, loss of control
what is liability
the liability to be found guilty of the offence
what is acts reus
an act is not necessarily a guilty act unless it is accompanied by a guilty mind - an act which is prohibited by the law
where will the AR of every offence be defined
the statue (OAPA 1861) or in the common law
can be vague or may be further definition within the statue
Actus Reus requires:
murder: stab, shoot
battery: touch, push
actual bodily harm: punch, bruise, cut
theft: ‘appropriation of property belonging to another’
what are the 3 category types of AR
a positive act
an omission
a state of affairs
what is a positive act - AR
physically doing something e.g. strangling, hitting, stabbing etc
it must however be voluntary - if there is an involuntary act, then the effect will not be the same
what is am omission - AR
a failure to do something, generally involving some form of a duty to care
there are 5 types of omissions
what are the 5 types of omissions
special relationships
dangerous circumstances
contractual
quasi employment through state
assumed responsibility
special relationships - omission - AR
Gibbins v Proctor - children starved to death, murder by omission - parents owed their children more action than what they did
dangerous cirumstances - omission - AR
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, left the fire and offered no help - lack of response was the omission
contractual - omission - AR
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 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 statue - omission - AR
covers police officers and MP’s who have a duty to act in a certain way down their employment contracts and obligations
assumed responsibility - omission - AR
where D has voluntarily assumed responsibility, but if they then stop with the care they are held responsible
Stone v Robinson - D began volunteering but when the person became seriously ill, they stopped caring and left them unwell without alerting authorities
State of affairs - AR
sleeping in your car after a night out 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
state of affairs - chain of events - AR
although involuntary acts do negate the liability of the person who has committed
if the D sets off a chain of events, then they are responsible for all injuries or results of that decisions
R v Mitchell - D pushed a man in a queue, who knocked over an elderly man who dies - resp for the death
What is MR
If AR is the guilty act, then there needs to be an accompanying mindset to accompany this
The MR is the Mens Rea -the guilty mind
what are the 4 types of MR
intention
recklessness
negligence
SLO
where to find the MR?
The MR for each offence will always be found in the statue, again such as with AR, there will be a hint as to what the level is
Most offences have two types of R allocated to them, most commonly allowing either intention or recklessness
Intention - MR
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
Very hard to prove and to attempt to prove this as a mindset, the courts will look at 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 (indirect)
which is the most severe MR
intention
direct intention
D desires and aims for the consequences that eventually occur
oblique intention
Included when outcome is desired but when an outcome is not directly desired but was clearly inevitable – must be foreseen by D
Oblique intent is generally reserved for murder, and it is suspiciously close to recklessness which is not available for murder
foresight
To establish whether there was foresight of consequences
- Is harm a natural consequence of D’s voluntary act?
- 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
Intent and foresight are intrinsically linked, it is a way in which to ensure the D has got intent
Foresight is not the same as intent, but when the Jury are satisfied that D did foresee for virtually certain to cause the action – then the jury could say he intended the result
recklessness - MR
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
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
The second element is whether the risk was justified, and is assessed objectively
If it is objectively justifiable, then D is not reckless
E.g. swerving to avoid a child but then hitting a parked car
what is the two part test to establish recklessness
The D saw the risk of harm being caused by their act and decided to act anyway
The D’s taking of the risk was unjustified
6 offences requiring recklessness
Unlawful act MS Reckless MS S20 OAPA 1861 S47 OAPA 1861 Assault/battery Criminal damage
negligence - MR
Civil action
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
- There must be a breach of a DoC
- Which then causes death
- And be grossly negligent
SLO - MR
An AR without the MR
The courts do not need to prove intent, recklessness or even negligence
D can be convicted even through 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
