Criminal Law: Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Causation, and Non-Fatal Offences

Comprehensive vocabulary flashcards covering general principles of English criminal law, including actus reus, omissions, causation, mens rea, non-fatal offences against the person, murder, and voluntary manslaughter.

Actus Reus

The conduct element of a criminal offence that must be proved by the prosecution, usually consisting of a physical voluntary act or omission, conduct, consequences, and/or circumstances.

Conduct Crime

An offence where the prosecution must establish that the defendant acted in a prohibited manner under certain circumstances, without having to prove any specific consequential harm (e.g., theft).

Result Crime

An offence where the prosecution must establish not only the defendant's conduct, but also that specific prohibited consequences flowed from that conduct (e.g., murder).

Factual Causation ('But For' Test)

The requirement that the prohibited outcome would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's conduct, demonstrating an empirical causal link (R v White).

Legal Causation

The requirement that the defendant's conduct must be a substantial and operating cause of the result—making a more than negligible contribution without needing to be the sole or main cause.

Novus Actus Interveniens

An independent intervening event or human action that breaks the causal chain between the defendant's conduct and the eventual harm, relieving the defendant of criminal responsibility.

Thin Skull Rule (Eggshell Skull Rule)

The legal principle that a defendant must take their victim as they find them; pre-existing physical or medical vulnerabilities in the victim do not break the chain of causation (Blaue; Master).

Free, Deliberate and Informed Intervention

A voluntary decision made by an autonomous adult of sound mind that normally breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's initial actions and the resulting harm (Kennedy (no. 2)).

Negligent Medical Treatment (Causation)

Medical negligence only breaks the chain of causation in extraordinary cases where the treatment is palpably wrong, completely independent of the defendant's acts, and so potent in causing death that the defendant's contribution is insignificant (Cheshire; Jordan).

Direct Intention

The core form of mens rea defined in R v Mohan as a decision by the defendant to bring about, in so far as it lies within their power, the commission of the offence, regardless of whether they desired that consequence.

Indirect (Oblique) Intention

A form of intention found where the prohibited result was not the defendant's aim or purpose, but was foreseen by the defendant as a virtual certainty flowing from their conduct (R v Woollin).

Cunningham Recklessness

The subjective test of recklessness requiring proof that the defendant actually recognised an unjustifiable risk and nevertheless chose to take that risk (R v Cunningham).

Caldwell Recklessness

The former objective test of recklessness under which a defendant was liable if they created an obvious risk and either recognised it or failed to think about whether the risk existed.

R v G (2003) Recklessness Test

The current subjective standard restoring Cunningham, asking whether the defendant personally recognised the risk and whether it was unreasonable to take it, accounting for age and experience.

Doctrine of Transferred Malice

The legal rule that if the defendant acts intending to cause harm to one person (V1) but accidentally causes that same harm to an unintended victim (V2), the intent transfers to V2 (Latimer).

Contemporaneity (Concurrence)

The legal requirement that the actus reus and the mens rea of an offence must coincide in point of time (Wright (2011)).

Continuing Act Doctrine

The principle from Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner that if an actus reus is ongoing, the mens rea and actus reus coincide if the defendant forms the requisite intent at any point while the act continues.

Duty Arising from Creating a Dangerous Situation

The principle established in R v Miller that an individual who accidentally creates a dangerous situation incurs a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate the harm upon becoming aware of it.

Common Assault (Psychic Assault)

An offence charged under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 where the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence (Fagan; Venna).

Battery (Physical Assault)

An offence charged under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 defined as any act by which the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicts unlawful personal violence upon the victim without consent (Collins v Wilcock).

Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)

Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim that is more than merely transient and trifling, including recognised psychiatric injury (s.47 OAPA 1861; Miller; Donovan; Chan-Fook).

Mens Rea of S.47 OAPA 1861

Intention or subjective recklessness as to the underlying assault or battery only; there is no requirement to prove intention or recklessness regarding the actual bodily harm caused (R v Savage).

Wound (OAPA 1861)

An injury that pierces and breaks both the outer and inner layers of the external skin (Moriarty and Brooks; JCC v Eisenhower).

Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH)

Harm given its ordinary and natural meaning of 'really serious harm', assessed as a question of fact considering the totality of injuries and the victim's age and health (DPP v Smith; Bollom).

S.20 OAPA 1861 (Malicious Wounding / Inflicting GBH)

An offence where the defendant unlawfully wounds or inflicts GBH with 'malice', meaning intention or subjective recklessness as to causing some physical harm (Mowatt; Savage).

S.18 OAPA 1861 (Wounding / Causing GBH with Intent)

An offence sharing the actus reus of s.20 but requiring specific intention either to cause grievous bodily harm or to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension of any person.

Malice Aforethought

The mens rea for murder, requiring either an express intention to kill (direct or oblique) or an implied intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

Loss of Self-Control Defence

A statutory partial defence to murder under ss.54–55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 that reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter if loss of control, a qualifying trigger, and an objective comparison standard are satisfied.

Fear Trigger (Loss of Control)

A qualifying trigger under s.55 CJA 2009 where the defendant's loss of self-control is caused by fear of serious violence from the victim against themselves or another identified person.

Anger Trigger (Loss of Control)

A qualifying trigger under s.55 CJA 2009 where the loss of self-control is attributable to things said or done of an extremely grave character causing a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

Sexual Infidelity Limitation (R v Clinton)

The rule under s.55(6)(c) CJA 2009 that sexual infidelity alone cannot form a qualifying trigger, but may be considered if it forms an essential part of the surrounding context alongside other triggers.