Week 4 - Correspondence principles

Question 1

What are correspondence principles?

Answer 1

• each element within the AR of an offence should have a MR element that couples with it.

Question 2

Expectiosn to CP

Answer 2

1- may contain AR element with to MR
2 - May contains MR element with no AR (ulterior MR)

Question 3

AR with no MR

Answer 3

1 - strict laibility - offence requires no MR beyond voluntary movement
2 - strict liability element - offence requires MR for all elements by tone
3 - Constructive lability offences. -basic offence with full AR and MR but includes additional AR element which is constructed on the basic offence to make a more serious crime.

Question 4

Ulterior MR elements

Answer 4

• the object of Ds MR does not form part of the AR
• where corresponding AR would be impractical - e.e.g, theft office never completed with had to permanently deprive
• where to intervene to prevent harm
• committed offence with intention to commit another.

Question 5

Correspondence principles

Answer 5

1 - Transferred malice
2 - coincidence principle

Question 6

Transferred malice

Answer 6

• AR and MR must be focused on same object
• where D MR is directed at one target and causes intended air to unintended V - TM can make them liable.
• AR and MR must be in same category of offence to be transferred

Question 7

Transferred malice - cases

Answer 7

1 -Latimer (1886) – D argues in pub and took off his belt and swung it, he intended to hit person he was arguing with btu missed and hit pub landlady ->Court intended he meant to hit someone other than V but court found him liable to harm to the actual V
2 - same category of offence - Pembliton - D picked up stone and threw it at group he was fighting with, missed group but broke window, D MR to hurt the men but AR for criminal damage -> no transferred malice.
- o Mitchell – D gets int fight with another man at post office and pushes intended victim who fell onto elderly lady who dies, as D intended no fatal offence against intended V, he was liable for manslaughter against V.

Question 8

Limitations of transferred malice

Answer 8

1 - Ds MR can only be transferred where it related to the same offence
2 - cannot be double transferred malice - case of A-G Ref (No3 of 1994) ->In order to find D liable his MR to harm gf would’ve had to have been transferred form her to the unborn child.

Question 9

Coincidence Principle

Answer 9

• D must have the Ar and MR at the same time (coincidence between MR and conduct element of AR)
  1 - Where AR occurs before MR = single continuing act
  2 - where MR occurs before AR = single transaction

Question 10

Coincidence - Single Continuing Act - cases

Answer 10

Fagan [1969] - D accidentally drove over police officer foot and refused to move car, AR first then MR

Question 11

Coincidence - Single transaction cases

Answer 11

• Thabo-Meli [1954] - D planned to kill V with 3 others and in order to make it look like an accident the hit him in head and threw him over cliff, V died of exposure -> acts of D formed single transaction.
• Church [1966] - D and V in argument and D strangles V and she passed out , dragged her body into rover and drowned -> no general plant o kill V but actions seen as one transactions.
• Le Brun [1992] - D argued with V and hit her, tried to cover offence by dragging her from house and hit her head -> the eventual act causing death are parts of the same sequence of events, the same transaction, the fact that there is an appreciable interval of time between the two does not serve to exonerate the defendant from liability.