3584382
| Question | Answer |
| ACTUS REUS | Physical elements of crime Idea of 'guilty act' |
| THREE WAYS TO PROVE ACTUS REUS | 1) An act 2) Omissions 3) A state of affairs |
| AN ACT | An 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 |
| OMISSIONS | An 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 |
| FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SPECIMEN OF BREATH IS AN OFFENCE | (Road Traffic Act 1988) When an act of Parliament requires a person to act |
| DUTY 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 |
| DUTY 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 |
| DUTY 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 |
| DUTY 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 |
| VOLUNTARILLY 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 |
| CAUSATION | It is only used when there is more than one cause FACTUAL and LEGAL causation need to be proved for there to be criminal liability |
| FACTUAL CAUSATION | Defendant 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 |
| LEGAL CAUSATION | Whether 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) |
| INTERVENING ACT | Something which breaks the chain of causation leading from the act of the defendant to the death of the victim |
| TEST FOR INTERVENING ACTS | They must be sufficiently independent of the defendant's conduct AND sufficiently serious enough (R v Smith 1959) |
| ACT OF VICTIM | There 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 |
| ACTIONS OF A THIRD PARTY | For 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 |
| NATURAL BUT UNPREDICTABLE EVENT | eg. earthquake |
| THIN SKULL TEST | D 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 |
| MENS REA | It 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 |
| INTENTION | 2 types: Direct intention Oblique (indirect) intention |
| DIRECT 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' |
| OBLIQUE 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) |
| MATTHEWS 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 |
| SUBJECTIVE 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 |
| TRANSFERRED MALICE | The 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 |
| R 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 |
| R 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 |
| COINCIDENCE 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 |
| R v FAGEN | D 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 |
| R 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 |
| WHEN THE MENS REA OCCURS BEFORE THE ACUS REUS... | it is seen as a series of events and one continuing act |
| WHEN THE ACTUS REUS OCCURS BEFORE THE MENS REA... | the actus reus can be a continuing act |
| STRICT LIABILITY | Offences 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 |
| WHAT 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 |
| WHICH 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 |
| DISADVANTAGES OF STRICT LIABILITY | 1) 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 |
| JUSTIFICATION OF STRICT LIABILITY | 1) 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 |
| HARROW LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL v SHAH | They 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 |
| GAMMON TEST (1) | Mens rea is required before person can be guilty of a criminal offence Presumption that mens rea is required |
| GAMMON 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 |
| GAMMON 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 |
| GAMMON 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 |
| GAMMON 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 |
| SWEET v PARSLEY | D 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) |
| S.39 Criminal Justice Act (COMMON ASSAULT) CPS Charging Standards | All about FEAR of suffering harm If asleep, cannot suffer an assault |
| COMMON ASSAULT - ACTUS REUS | An 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 |
| COMMON ASSAULT - MENS REA | Intention of or recklessness as to, causing victim to fear immediate unlawful force (Intention or recklessness) |
| COMMON ASSAULT - CASE | (1983) Smith v Chief Superintendent of Working Police Station |
| COMMON ASSAULT - SENTENCE | 6 months imprisonment (summary offences ie triable in the Magistrates Court) |
| S.39 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988 (BATTERY) CPS charging standards | Grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swelling, reddening of the skin, superficial cuts, a black eye |
| BATTERY - ACTUS REUS | Application of unlawful force to another Unlawful force = unwanted force (Wood v DPP 2008) Act can be through an indirect act (DPP v K 1990) |
| BATTERY - MENS REA | Intention of or reckless as to, applying unlawful force |
| BATTERY - CASE | DPP v K (1990) (Acid in hot air drier) |
| BATTERY - SENTENCE | 6 months |
| S.47 OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 (ASSSULT OCCASIONING ABH) CPS charging standards | Loss or breaking of tooth or teeth, temporary loss of consciousness, extensive bruising, broken nose, minor fractures, any cut requiring stitches, psychiatric injury |
| ASSAULT OCCASIONING ABH - ACTUS REUS | 1) 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) |
| ASSAULT OCCASIONING ABH - MENS REA | Intention or recklessness as to causing fear of immediate unlawful force or of applying unlawful force |
| ASSAULT OCCASIONING ABH - CASE | T v DPP (2006) (Even momentary loss of consciousness can be under s47) |
| ASSAULT OCCASIONING ABH - SENTENCE | 5 years (Triable either way ie Magistrates or Crown Court) |
| S.20 OFFENCES AFAINST THE PERSONS ACT 1861 (MALICIOUS WOUNDING OR CAUSING GBH) CPS Charging Standards | Injury 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) |
| MALICIOUS WOUNDING OR CAUSING GBH - ACTUS REUS | 1) Wound (epidermis or dermis must be broken) (JCC v Eisenhower 1983) or 2) GBH = really serious harm (DPP v Smith 1961) |
| MALICIOUS WOUNDING OR CAUSING GBH - MENS REA | Intention 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 |
| MALICIOUS WOUNDING OR CAUSING GBH - CASE | R 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) |
| MALICIOUS WOUNDING OR CAUSING GBH - SENTENCE | 5 years |
| S.18 OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSONS ACT 1861 (MALICIOUS WONDING OR CAUSING GBH WITH INENT) CPS Charging Standards | Injury 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) |
| MALICIOUS WONDING OR CAUSING GBH WITH INENT - ACTUS REUS | 1) Wound (epidermis or dermis must be broken) (JCC v Eisenhower 1983) or 2) GBH = really serious harm (DPP v Smith 1961) |
| MALICIOUS WONDING OR CAUSING GBH WITH INENT - MENS REA | Intention to cause GBH (state test for intention) or Resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person |
| MALICIOUS WONDING OR CAUSING GBH WITH INENT - CASE | R 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) |
| MALICIOUS WONDING OR CAUSING GBH WITH INENT - SENTENCE | Life imprisonment |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.