crim 201 test

Unlawful act

s160(2) (a)

Actus reus

established on the facts and must be the breach of an act

Mens rea

presumed needed unless stated otherwise -can be broken using case law

Waaka v Police

Statue about public welfare rather than criminal - no mens rea needed

Millar v M.O.T (Ministry of Transport)

Regulatory offence - special skills and lincence - mens rea unlikley

unlikley to be absollute liability as we have strict liablity

Wareham

No stigma atttached - no mens rea needed

R v Strawbridge

Strength of the penaly imposed - informs the likleyhood of mensrea being needed

Hobbs v Winchester

If diffucult to enforece without strict liability - no mens rea needed

Strict liability

Absence of fault defence can be raised - burden of proof swaps to the defence and is on the balance of probabilites

Absence of fault defence

Prove defendant was not negligent - Mackenzie

R v Lee

act has to be likely to cause “more than trivial harm” - unlawful act must be dangerous

Causation test

Subsativie and operative cause of death - Smith (uk) Myatt, Mckinnon

R v Young

doesn't matter if they have a prior medical condition - take your victims as a whole - codified in s 165

R v Blaue

victim can refuse medical treatment without breaking causal chain

R V Kennedy (No 2) & R v Leatua

informed adults of sound mind can make their own decisions - exceptions if they are young or vulnerable

Vaughan v R

victims actions not overwhelming cause - no breach

R v Kirikiri

medical treatment in good faith does not break causation

R v Tarei

turning off life support doesn’t break the chain

R v Cheshire

there can be multiple cuases of death

Omissions

s 162 (b)

151 - vulnerable adult -actual care or charge, provide nessicairies, protect from injury

Unable to withdraw themselves from care or provide for themselves

R v Kahn

Vulnerability can be a temporary state - 151

R v Proude

Charge is about control - 151

Taktak

assume care of a stranger - secluded her so others could not help - 151

152 - parent or person in place or parent - child under 18 - actual care or charge

provide necessaries and take reasonable steps to protect from injury

R v Lunt

Supports loco parentis - 152

JF v Police

Risk of injury is enough - 152

155 - undertaking acts that are dangerous to life  - surgical or medical treatment - or other lawful acts which may be dangerous to life

duty to use reasonable knowldege, skill and care

R v Myatt

reasonable possibility of death - 155

R v Yogasakaran

execption for cases of necessity - 155

156 being in charge of dangerous things

legal duty to take reasonable precautions and care

R v Mwai

HIV dangerous thing - no viral load because of meds = question for the jury - 156

R v Vanner

dangerous thing (quad bikes)  proved part of farming life “fact of life” - 156

R v Crossan

exclusive control not nessicary - 156

R v Turner

different roles in facotry mean differnt duties of care - 156

157 - undertaking to do something that prevents danger to life

under legal duty to do so, must be reasonable possibility that failing to act will endanger someone’s life - say you will do it you are bound to do it

R v Miller, R v Evans, R v Wacker

Common law duty - create a danger - take resoamble steps to minimise it - duty when you are aware and ought to be

S 150 A

Major departure from the standard of a reasonable person in the shoes of the defendant

R v Hamer

150A is an objective test - no personal characterisitcs

R v Gedson

150A is a circumstantual inquriy - knows the same thigns as the defendant but may have different opinions

R v Kahn

Abuse is a circumstance for 150A

kuka test

But for the defendant’s omission the deceased would not have died or probably would not have died.

s 160 (2) (d)

Fright response

Tomars

substantive and operative cause still important - but restricted by foreseeability for fright responce

R v Lucas

Distills Tomars into 3 steps

R v Lucas step 1

the actions of the defendant caused the deceased through fear of violence to act in the way they did

R v Lucas step 2

that it was the kind of action that could reasonbly have been forseen by a reasonable and responsible person in the shoes of the defendant

R v Lucas step 3

that the act contributed ina not insignifcant way to their death

Leiv v R

a reasonable person does not have to predicit all teh specific details of the victim’s responce

Perry v R

the victim’s respnce does not need to be proportional to the threat they are under

s 167

intentional or reckless murder

s 167 (a) Means to cause death

intention or obligue intention (wentworth) knwoledge that it is a virtual certainty

167 (b) means to cuase injury that is known as likley to cause death and is reckess as to if death ensues

R v Piri - likley means “might well happen”

s 167 (d) does an act for an ulwaful object known likley to case death and kills someone - whether or not intented

recklessness

Shadrock v r - must take place durign the crime