Non-Fatal Offences Definitions

Actus Reus

Guilty act; an act, omission or state of affairs that is prohibited

Mens Rea

Guilty mind; the mental or fault element of a crime

Actus Reus: Conduct Crimes

Act is prohibited (theft, drunk driving)

Actus Reus: Consequence crimes

Act the D takes is not illegal, but consequences after are - MUST be an Actus Reus to cause the consequence

State of affairs

D found in particular circumstance / situation at particular time, enough to constitute Actus Reus (e.g possession of offensive weapon)

Statutory duty

Act of parliament creates an offence involving an omission - legal obligation imposed by an Act of parliament

Involves matters such as prevention of pollution, public safety matters

Contractual duty

Legally binding obligation a party must perform as part of a contract

R v Pitwood (1902)

Relationship

Obligation for individual to take care due to relationship (e.g parent & child)

R v Gibbins & Procter (1918)

Voluntary duty

Duty which has been taken on voluntarily - can give a rise to Actus Reus where duty is not carried out

R v Stone & Dobson (1977)

R v Evans (2009)

Official position

Can give rise to a duty to act

Failure to act can then become the Actus Reus to a crime

R v Dytham (1979)

Defendant caused events

Concept of owning a duty and being liable through omission in a chain of events

R v Miller (1983)

Chain of Causation

• Factual cause

• Legal cause

• Multiple causes

• Thin-skull rule

• Intervening acts

• Medical treatment

• Victims own acts

A break in the chain may lead to D not being liable for the offence

Factual cause

D only guilty if consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the D’s conduct

R v Pagett (1983)

R v Hughes (2013)

Legal cause

More than a minimal factor - may be more than 1 act contributing to the consequence

Act can be made by D, or people other than D

D guilty if his conduct was ‘more than a minimal factor’ of the cause

R v Kimsey (1996)

Thin-skull rule

D must also take V as he finds him - if V has something unusual about physical / mental state which makes injury more serious then D liable for more serious injury

R v Blaue (1925)

Intervening acts

Must be direct link from D’s conduct to consequence - some situations something else happens after D’s act / omission and if sufficiently separate from D’s conduct, may break chain of causation

If intervening act is sufficiently independent of D’s conduct & sufficiently serious, breaks chain of causation but D is not liable

Medical treatment

Unlikely to break chain of causation unless so independent of D’s acts and ‘in itself so potent in causing death’ that the D’s acts are insignificant

R v Smith (1959)

R v Cheshire (1991)

R v Jordan (1956)

Victims own acts

If D causes V to react in a forseeable way, any injury to V will be considered caused by D

R v Roberts (1972)

R v Marjoram (2000)

R v Kennedy (2007)

Direct intent

A decision to bring about a particular consequence

R v Mohan (1975)

Oblique intent

D claims not to have intended the consequence

R v Hancock & Shankland (1986)

R v Moloney (1985)

Subjective recklessness

Where D knows there’s a risk of a consequence happening but proceeds regardless

Negligence

D owes V a duty of care. D’s acts / omissions are so far below what is expected that it creates criminal liability

Strict liability offences

D has Actus Reus of offence, but no Mens Rea is required

Transferred malice

When actual V is different to intended V

Coincidence of AR & MR

AR & MR of offence must be present together at the same time

Continuing acts

D has Actus Reus of offence & develops Mens Rea during it

Fagan V MPC

Strict liability offence

D has Actus Reus of an offence but no Mens Rea is required

Harrow v Shah & Shah

Cundy v Le Coq

Callow v Tillstone

Assault: Actus Reus

An act which causes V to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force with either intention to cause another to fear immediate, unlawful personal violence or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused

An act

For assault to have taken place, must be an act, omission will not constitute an assault, however does not have to be physical - can be words (constanza) or silence (Ireland)

Assault: Mens Rea

Done through either intent or recklessness

Battery

The application of unlawful force to another person either intending to apply unlawful force or being reckless as to whether such force is applied

Application of unlawful force

For battery to have taken place, must be an act that occurs; omission can constitute a battery on rare circumstances

Act (or omission) must be physical but can be minor

Force must be unlawful

ABH

Any injury or hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of V

S.47 OAPA 1861

Mens Rea for ABH

Intent to cause fear of unlawful violence / the application of unlawful violence OR being reckless in causing fear of unlawful violence / the application of unlawful violence (D doesn’t need intent or recklessness to have caused ABH)

R v Savage - same as common assault

GBH - S.20

Malicious wounding / inflicting GBH with intent or recklessness in causing some harm

GBH - S.18

Directly causing GBH with intent to cause serious harm or resisting arrest