THEORY/ GENERAL ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Question 1

What is an Actus reus? What is a case that explains AR?

Answer 1

It is a voluntary deliberate act. In Hill v Baxter, it was held that it would not be a voluntary act if the driver was caused to crush due to a swap of bees or due to an illness.

Question 2

What is an omission?

Answer 2

An omission is a failure to act. Under English law there is not liability for failure to act but sometimes the law imposes a duty to act in certain circumstances.

Question 3

What are the types of duty to act and cases?

Answer 3

▪︎Duty to act under contract as Pittwood
▪︎Duty to act if you voluntarily take on responsibility for else- Stone and Dobinson
▪︎ duty to act when someone creates a dangerous situation- Miller
▪may arise from an Act of Parliament, the Road Traffic Act 1988 states that failing to report an accident or to wear a seatbelt or to provide a breath specimen is an offence. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 states that neglecting a child is an offence.
▪︎Duty to act when you are in a position of public responsibility-Dytham
▪︎Duty to Act in certain relationships -Gibbins and Proctor

Question 4

Explain causation.

Answer 4

The Prosecution must must prove that the defendant’s(D) conduct caused the victim’s(V)consequence. To prove this there must be a factual and legal causation.

Question 5

Explain factual causation

Answer 5

Factual causation is decided by using the but for test. But for the Ds action if the result would not have not occurred then he is the factual cause. WHITE.

Question 6

Explain legal causation.

Answer 6

For legal to exist, the original act must the operation and substantial cause of death or injury. SMITH
-Sometimes a novus actus interveniens can break the chain of causation. The D’s actions do not have to be the only factor but a significance contribution- CHESHIRE :
▪︎Acts of third parties when it is reasonably unforeseeable- SMITH AND PAGETT
▪︎CHESHIRE shows how medical treatment rarely breaks the chain of causation but it did in JORDAN as it was palpably wrong.
MALCHEREK and STEEL provides that switching off the life support machine of a brain dead person does not break the chain.
▪︎Victim’s own acts if he acts in a daft way or reasonably unforeseeable way-WILLIAMS. If he acts in a reasonable foreseeable way, it will not break the chain-ROBERTS

Question 7

Explain the thin skull rule.

Answer 7

The characteristics of the V will not break the chain as the D must take the V as he finds him and the D must then be liable for the full extent of his actions as provided by the thin skull rule-BLAUE.