AR and MR in Fagan/Miller; Omissions and Contemporaneity (Notes)

Flashcards cover actus reus, mens rea, contemporaneity, and omissions as discussed in Fagan v Metropolitan Police and R v Miller, including how AR can be a continuing act and how omissions liability is established.

In Fagan v Metropolitan Police, how is actus reus treated when the act is a continuing act?

The AR can be a continuing act and the MR need not be present at the start; MR can be formed during the continuation of the AR.

What was the outcome of Fagan v Metropolitan Police?

The appeal was allowed; the conviction for assault was quashed because Fagan did not meet the elements of assault.

What was Bridge J.’s view in the Fagan case?

Bridge J. dissented, expressing sympathy for the appellant and suggesting a different conclusion from the majority.

In R v Miller, what is the central question about arson and actus reus?

Whether the AR is present when a defendant accidentally starts a fire and thereafter omits to extinguish or prevent damage; can destruction by omission satisfy AR?

What did the court decide in R v Miller regarding omissions and AR?

If, after becoming aware of the fire, the defendant fails to prevent or reduce the risk or seek help, the AR is satisfied; the appeal was dismissed.

What is the principle of contemporaneity of AR and MR?

MR must be present when AR is committed; AR and MR are typically contemporaneous; the two elements must generally coincide in time.

What comprises Actus Reus (AR) according to the notes?

AR includes all elements of the offence definition except the MR; it is usually a positive act but can also be an omission.

What is Mens Rea (MR) and how is it determined?

MR is the mental element; usually subjective and inferred from the evidence when actual mind-state is not directly known; can involve intention, knowledge, or recklessness.

Why is there limited liability for omissions in criminal law?

Criminalizing omissions intrudes on personal autonomy; liability for omissions arises only in limited circumstances where there is a legal duty to act (express or implied).

How can liability for omissions arise?

Express liability (an offence expressly makes omissions punishable) and Implied liability (the offence’s wording reasonably supports omissions; requires a legal duty to act).

What is meant by a 'legal duty to act' in omissions cases?

A duty recognized by law to act, not merely a moral obligation; can be explicit in statute or implied by the statute/offence language.

Provide an example illustrating a legal duty to act for omissions liability.

D has a legal duty to rescue (e.g., a parent or someone with a statutory duty); failing to act to rescue V could be an offence, whereas a mere bystander with no duty would not.