null
US
Info
Ratings
Comments
Mind Map
by
Molly Hope
, created
more than 1 year ago
A-Level Law (UNIT 4) Mind Map on Where we see Fault in Law, created by Molly Hope on 22/03/2017.
Pinned to
20
0
0
No tags specified
law
fault
alevellaw
law
unit 4
a-level
Created by
Molly Hope
over 8 years ago
Rate this resource by clicking on the stars below:
(0)
Ratings (0)
0
0
0
0
0
0 comments
There are no comments, be the first and leave one below:
To join the discussion, please
sign up for a new account
or
log in with your existing account
.
Close
8221036
mind_map
2017-06-14T10:33:06Z
Where we see Fault in Law
Mens Rea
The key demonstration of
fault in operation in
criminal law - Did they
intend the crime?
The hierarchy of levels
of mens rea is often
known as
blameworthiness for
i.e. fault
Direct intent - most fault
Oblique intent - medium fault
Recklessness - least fault
A lack of mens rea will mean
that a person is not guilty at all
for example R v Clarke (1972)
states that a moment of absent
mindedness is not substantial.
Negligence
It must be fair, just and
reasonable to impose a
duty on someone in the
case of Hill v Chief
constable of West
Yorkshire (1990)
With the exception of public
services such as the police
because they are only doing
their job, thus there is no fault
Harm must be foreseeable from the case of Roe
v Minister of Health - If you forsee the harm then
society considers it to be your fault
Causation and proximity -
The Wagon Mound
Defences
If one of the defences applies (either partial or full) then the defendants acquitted
(or sentcen or reduced) as the law considers that they are not at fault or less at
fault.
M'Naghten (1984) - Insanity
Graham (1982) - Duress
Gladstone and Willams (1987) - Automatism
But what about intoxication? Kingston (1994) says
that if you are entirely intoxicated and cannot form
a mens rea then you will be acquitted.
If you claim a defence then you're not fully at fault.
Actus Reus
you must commit the actus reus of any crime voluntary - Hill v Baxter
Ommissions - where the defendant is held to be at fault even
though they did not act:
Stone and Dobinson - voluntary acts
Gibbins and Proctor - duty because of a relationship
Causation - the rules of causation are rules
which prove a link between the defendant's
actions and the consequence to establish
that the defendant was at fault
If there is a novus actus then the chain of
causation is broken and the defendant is no
longer put at fault - R v Williams
Double click this node
to edit the text
Click and drag this button
to create a new node
New
0
of
0
Go to link
Track All
Untrack All
8221036
mind_map
2017-06-14T10:33:06Z
You need to log in to complete this action!
Register for Free