Fichas
Elements of a Crime
Fichas del conjunto (70)
- 1ACTUS REUSPhysical elements of crime
Idea of 'guilty act' - 2THREE WAYS TO PROVE ACTUS REUS1) An act
2) Omissions
3) A state of affairs - 3AN ACTAn act must be voluntary - if D has no control over his actions, he hasn't committed Actus Reus
(Hill v Baxter 1958)
An involuntary action doesn't form Actus Reus of a crime - 4OMISSIONSAn omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence
The law only makes a person liable for his failure to act where he has a duty to act
There are several occasions when this can happen - 5FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SPECIMEN OF BREATH IS AN OFFENCE(Road Traffic Act 1988)
When an act of Parliament requires a person to act - 6DUTY ARISING FROM CONTRACT(R v Pittwood 1902)
D was a gate keeper at level crossing
Left gate open and went for lunch
Hay cart attempting to cross line was hit by train, driver died
D convicted of manslaughter - failure to perform contractual duty - 7DUTY ARISING FROM SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP(R v Gibbons and Proctor 1919)
Man and common-law wife living together with mans 7 year old daughter
Failed to feed child
COA upheld conviction for murder when she starved to death - 8DUTY ARISING THROUGH PUBLIC DUTY(R v Dytham 1979)
Police officer watched a man being kicked to death but failed to intervene or get assistance
Guilty of misconduct in a public officer - 9DUTY ARISING FROM DANGEROUS PRIOR CONDUCT (chain of events)(R v Miller 1983)
D in a squatter house and fell asleep whilst smoking
Woke up and found cigarette had set fire to mattress
Moved beds and did nothing so was convicted of criminal damage; had a responsibility to limit effects of fire - 10VOLUNTARILLY ASSUMING A DUTY AND FAILING TO CARRY THEM OUT PROPERLY(R v Stone 1977)
D were common-law husband and wife, both of low intelligence
They decided to take in Stone's anorexic sister and look after her
Over next few weeks, she became very ill and confined to bed and died of blood poisoning - 11CAUSATIONIt is only used when there is more than one cause
FACTUAL and LEGAL causation need to be proved for there to be criminal liability - 12FACTUAL CAUSATIONDefendant can only be guilty if the consequence would have not happened 'BUT FOR' his act
(R v White 1910) - not proven
(R v Pagett 1983) - proven - 13LEGAL CAUSATIONWhether the defendants conduct was more than a minimal cause of the consequence but doesn't have to be substantial
Actions have to be more than a slight or trifling link
(R v Kimsey) - 14INTERVENING ACTSomething which breaks the chain of causation leading from the act of the defendant to the death of the victim
- 15TEST FOR INTERVENING ACTSThey must be sufficiently independent of the defendant's conduct AND sufficiently serious enough
(R v Smith 1959) - 16ACT OF VICTIMThere will only an intervening act if the victim acted in a unreasonable and unforeseeable way
(R v Roberts 1978) - intervening act
(R v Williams) - no intervening act - 17ACTIONS OF A THIRD PARTYFor there to be an intervening act the third parties actions have to be "so palpable in causing death that the defendants actions are insignificant"
(R v Smith 1959) - no intervening act
(R v Jordan 1956) - intervening act
Now rare that med - 18NATURAL BUT UNPREDICTABLE EVENTeg. earthquake
- 19THIN SKULL TESTD must 'take the victim as he finds him'
D will be liable if he set a chain of events in motion that leads to V's death
If V refuses medical treatment on religious grounds, D will still be liable
(R v Blaue 1975)
Stab victim refused a blood - 20MENS REAIt is the mental element of the crime
Idea of 'guilty mind'
ie. the degree of blame required by the offence in question
The mens rea for most crimes are INTENTION or SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS - 21INTENTION2 types:
Direct intention
Oblique (indirect) intention - 22DIRECT INTENTION'The defendant actually wants the result and sees the result as a certainty'
Defined in Mohan (1975) as 'a decision to bring about the prohibited consequence' - 23OBLIQUE INTENTION'The defendant did not necessarily want the result but foresaw it to a point of virtual certainty, appreciated that and was determined to carry on anyway' - this provides evidence of the necessary intention
(R v Woollin 1998) - 24MATTHEWS AND ALLEYNE (2003)Case stated that oblique intent is only evidence of intention so technically the jury could then say there's no intent
BUT in reality no jury would dismiss the case if they accepted that there was oblique intetion - 25SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS'Defendant knows there is a risk but goes ahead and takes it anyway'
Level of mens rea lower than intention
Difficult to establish as it requires looking inside D's mind
(R v Cunningham 1957) - gas meter
(R v G&R 2003) - wheelie bin on fire - 26TRANSFERRED MALICEThe principle that the defendant can only be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim
Defendant's mens rea is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim - 27R v LATIMER (1886)D got into a fight in the pub with another man and took off his belt to hit him but it flew out of his hand and hit a woman in the face
D was liable for injuries even though he didn't intent to harm her
The mens rea he had to cause harm to the man was transferred to the woman - 28R v PEMBLITON (1874)D threw some stones into a crowd of people
A stone hit and smashed a window -
was convicted but appealed
Conviction stopped because D's mens rea for an offence against the person could not be transferred to a property offence as they are entirely different offences - 29COINCIDENCE OF ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA (CONTEMPORANEITY)Actus reas and mens rea have to occur at the same time
When a series of linked acts or omissions can be treated as a single continuing act - 30R v FAGEND had been instructed by police to pull into the roadside
He did so, but accidentally drove the car onto a police's foot
The constable shouted for D to get off his foot but Fagen refused and turned off the engine
D argued that at the time of the actus reus (the driving onto the foot), he lacked the mens rea of any offence since it was purely accidental
When he formed the mens rea, he lacked the actus reus and did nothing
He was liable as the driving onto the foot and remaining there was part of a continuing act
Therefore, the acutus reus and mens rea did actually occur at the same time - 31R v THABO MELI (1954)D's took V to a hut and hit him over the head to kill him. Believing him to be dead, they threw his body off the cliff. It wasn't until then that he died
D's argued that there had been no coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
It was enough that at some point in the chain of events, the D's had mens rea - 32WHEN THE MENS REA OCCURS BEFORE THE ACUS REUS...it is seen as a series of events and one continuing act
- 33WHEN THE ACTUS REUS OCCURS BEFORE THE MENS REA...the actus reus can be a continuing act
- 34STRICT LIABILITYOffences of strict liability are those where D is guilty because he or she did the actus reus
There is no need to prove mens rea
Can be seen as unfair since the D will be GUILTY EVENTHOUGH THEY HAD NO INTENTION OF COMMITTING ANY OFFENCE - 35WHAT CASES ARE EXAMPLES OF STRICT LIABILITY?State of affairs cases eg. R v Larsonneur
Mainly regulated offences:
1) Speeding
2) Food safety
3) Health and Safety - 36WHICH OFFENCES ARE STRICT LIABILITY?The judges often have difficulty in deciding whether an offence is one of strict liability of not
When there are words indicating mens rea (eg, intentionally, maliciously) the offence requires mens rea and therefore, isn't one of strict liability - 37DISADVANTAGES OF STRICT LIABILITY1) INJUSTICE - D may be liable where it isn't their fault eg. Callow v Tillstone (butcher was liable despite doing everything to get the meat checked out)
2) STIGMA - any criminal offence carries a stigma and can cause damage to a persons' or businesses' reputation - 38JUSTIFICATION OF STRICT LIABILITY1) PROTENCTION OF PUBLIC e.g sale of unfit meat (Callow v Tillstone)
2) EASIER TO ADMINISTRATE - dealt with through the post without the need to go through a court hearing - 39HARROW LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL v SHAHThey informed all of their employees about regulations concerning the selling of lottery tickets and signs around the shop. Despite this, one employee sold a lottery ticket to a boy under 16. Queen's Bench Divisional Court said that this case was one of strict liability. Therefore, Shah and Shah were convicted
- 40GAMMON TEST (1)Mens rea is required before person can be guilty of a criminal offence
Presumption that mens rea is required - 41GAMMON TEST (2)Some offences are considered to be 'truly criminal' in nature and this makes presumption stronger than if it were more of a regulatory nautre
- 42GAMMON TEST (3)Presumption applied to statutory offences in particular
Presumption of mens rea can be rebutted if its found the Parliament has expressly created a strict liability offence - 43GAMMON TEST (4)Judges will only allow presumption to be disregarded if the subject of the statute in question is concerned with social issues e.g pollution
- 44GAMMON TEST (5)If statute is concerned with social issue, the requirement of mens rea will still be needed unless the courts can be satisfied that the creation of a strict liability offence is required in order to emphasise the need for extra vigilance to protect public from these offences in the future
- 45SWEET v PARSLEYD rented out a farmhouse and let it out to students
Police found cannabis there
d didn't know and it was decided that she wasn't guilty as court presumed that the offence required mens rea
(number 2 of gammon tests) - 46S.39 Criminal Justice Act (COMMON ASSAULT) CPS Charging StandardsAll about FEAR of suffering harm
If asleep, cannot suffer an assault - 47COMMON ASSAULT - ACTUS REUSAn act which causes the V to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force
Words are sufficient for an assault (R v Ireland)
Words indicating there is no violence = no assault (Tuberville v Savage)
Level of force need to be serious - fear of unwanted touching is sufficient - 48COMMON ASSAULT - MENS REAIntention of or recklessness as to, causing victim to fear immediate unlawful force
(Intention or recklessness) - 49COMMON ASSAULT - CASE(1983) Smith v Chief Superintendent of Working Police Station
- 50COMMON ASSAULT - SENTENCE6 months imprisonment
(summary offences ie triable in the Magistrates Court) - 51S.39 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988 (BATTERY) CPS charging standardsGrazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swelling, reddening of the skin, superficial cuts, a black eye
- 52BATTERY - ACTUS REUSApplication of unlawful force to another
Unlawful force = unwanted force (Wood v DPP 2008)
Act can be through an indirect act (DPP v K 1990) - 53BATTERY - MENS REAIntention of or reckless as to, applying unlawful force
- 54BATTERY - CASEDPP v K (1990)
(Acid in hot air drier) - 55BATTERY - SENTENCE6 months
- 56S.47 OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 (ASSSULT OCCASIONING ABH) CPS charging standardsLoss or breaking of tooth or teeth, temporary loss of consciousness, extensive bruising, broken nose, minor fractures, any cut requiring stitches, psychiatric injury
- 57ASSAULT OCCASIONING ABH - ACTUS REUS1) Assault or battery (need to prove 1)
2) Causes ABH ABH is 2any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim" (R v Chanfook)
Now add the actus reus for the relevant element (assault or battery) - 58ASSAULT OCCASIONING ABH - MENS REAIntention or recklessness as to causing fear of immediate unlawful force or of applying unlawful force
- 59ASSAULT OCCASIONING ABH - CASET v DPP (2006)
(Even momentary loss of consciousness can be under s47) - 60ASSAULT OCCASIONING ABH - SENTENCE5 years
(Triable either way ie Magistrates or Crown Court) - 61S.20 OFFENCES AFAINST THE PERSONS ACT 1861 (MALICIOUS WOUNDING OR CAUSING GBH) CPS Charging StandardsInjury resulting in permanent disability or permanent loss of sensory function, broken limbs or bones, broken ribs, injuries causing a substantial loss of blood, injuries resulting n lengthy treatment, severe psychiatric injury (medical evidence required)
- 62MALICIOUS WOUNDING OR CAUSING GBH - ACTUS REUS1) Wound (epidermis or dermis must be broken) (JCC v Eisenhower 1983)
or
2) GBH = really serious harm (DPP v Smith 1961) - 63MALICIOUS WOUNDING OR CAUSING GBH - MENS REAIntention or recklessness to cause SOME harm - state relevant test
(R v Parmenter 1991) = no need for D to foresee serious harm but D must realise the risk of the injury - 64MALICIOUS WOUNDING OR CAUSING GBH - CASER v Bollom (2004)
(V's injuries should be assessed according to health and age. What is only transient on a 30 year old, may be far more serious of a 3 year old) - 65MALICIOUS WOUNDING OR CAUSING GBH - SENTENCE5 years
- 66S.18 OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSONS ACT 1861 (MALICIOUS WONDING OR CAUSING GBH WITH INENT) CPS Charging StandardsInjury resulting in permanent disability or permanent loss of sensory function, broken limbs or bones, broken ribs, injuries causing a substantial loss of blood, injuries resulting n lengthy treatment, severe psychiatric injury (medical evidence required)
- 67MALICIOUS WONDING OR CAUSING GBH WITH INENT - ACTUS REUS1) Wound (epidermis or dermis must be broken) (JCC v Eisenhower 1983)
or
2) GBH = really serious harm (DPP v Smith 1961) - 68MALICIOUS WONDING OR CAUSING GBH WITH INENT - MENS REAIntention to cause GBH (state test for intention)
or
Resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person - 69MALICIOUS WONDING OR CAUSING GBH WITH INENT - CASER v Morrison (1989)
(D was seized by a woman police officer. The WPC told D she was arresting him. D then dived through a windowpane dragging the WPC through the glass) - 70MALICIOUS WONDING OR CAUSING GBH WITH INENT - SENTENCELife imprisonment
Información
- Descripción
- Actus Reus, Omissions, Causation and Mens Rea
- Creado por
- Beth_L
- Visitas
- 23
- Valoración