Criminal Key Terms/Rules

Actus Reus

Definition: "the bad act"; the event of harm which the law wants to stop from happening.

Comprises of:

1. Conduct (voluntary act, state of affairs, omissions)

2. Consequences (physical or psychological, tangible real-world outcome)

3. Circumstances (where required e.g. consent, property belonging to another)

Mens Rea

Definition: "the guilty mind"; mental element of the crime.

Comprises of:

1. Intention (D's aim/consequence is to bring about a criminal result (direct intention) or they foresee the consequence as virtually certain and take it anyway (oblique intention))

2. Recklessness (D foresees a risk that a circumstance exists or will exist and unreasonably takes that risk)

3. Negligence (D fails to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person, even though they did not foresee the risk)

4. Knowledge (D is aware that a fact or circumstance exists, even if it is not their purpose to cause a particular result)

Contemporaneity

Definition: The AR and MR must align at one point in time except for strict liability offences

Cases: Fagan v MPC, Thabo Meli

Causation

Definition: Whether D’s conduct is legally responsible for the harm that occurred (issue of causation rests with jury)

1. Is D’s conduct a but-for cause

2. Is D’s conduct potentially a legal cause

3. Is there a novus actus intervenus between D’s conduct and the prohibited result

But-For Causation

Definition: But-for D’s conduct, the event would not have occurred as it did

Cases: White, Hughes

Legal Causation

Definition: D’s conduct need not be the sole or direct cause or the prohibited result. It need only be more than de minimis (trivial/insignificant) and a salient, culpable cause (primary/most closely linked to outcome)

Cases: Dalloway, Hughes

Novus Actus Intervenus

Definition: “New intervening act”; An intervening act or event that breaks the causal chain

1. Natural events

Will only break causal chain if not foreseeable as likely by a reasonable person (CASE)

2. Actions of the third parties

A free, deliberate, and informed act by a human agent will break the causal chain

Cases: Pagett, Kennedy no 2, Jordan, Blaue

Omission

Definition: A failure to act. Generally, there is no liability for this unless there is a prior legal duty to act

1. Specific statutory and common law offences

Case: Children and Young Persons Act 1933

2. Duties imposed on persons in a special relationship to the V

Cases: Rex v Russel, Stone & Dobinson, Morby, Broughton

3. Duties imposed on persons with a special relationship to the harm

Cases: Miller, Evans

4. Duties imposed on persons with a prior contractual duty

Case: Pittwood

5. The continuing act doctrine

Case: Fagan v MPC

Omission-Based Liability

This should normally be possible when the offence does not require a specific act, and the AR is mainly about the result or the situation that occurs rather than requiring a specified positive act (e.g. possession requires no positive act)

Cases: Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, Larsonneur, Finau v Department of Labour, Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice

Strict Liability Offences

Definition: Crimes which require no MR with regard to one or more elements of the AR

Case: Sweet v Parsley

Factors for identifying strict liability offences (Gammon Principles):

1. Regulatory vs truly criminal offences

2. Social/public concerns

3. Crimes that carry heavy penalties/stigmas

4. Statutory wording

Case: Gammon v AG of HK

Intention

Definition: The mental purpose, design, or desire to achieve a specific consequence through one's actions. Not often defined by trial judge when directing jury, instead allowing them to rely on their common-sense understanding of the word (exception for cases of oblique intention)

Case: Re A Children

1. Foresight of consequences

Foresight of consequence may amount to intention where the D foresaw death or serious bodily harm as highly probable

Case: Hyam v DPP

2. Golden rule

Foresight of consequences is not enough for intention if the D did not foresee the consequence as a natural consequence; the jury could infer intent but is not required

Case: Moloney

3. Virtual certainty test

Rewrote Golden rule; a jury can find the necessary intention only if they are sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty, and the D appreciated this (oblique intention requires judge to direct jury)

Case: Woolin

Direct Intention

Definition: D's awareness and conscious decision to perform an act which is considered unlawful

Oblique Intention

Definition: D recognised that the AR was a virtually certain consequence of his actions , even if that outcome is not his main goal.

Case: Woolin

Test of Failure

Definition: If D intends to kill V but V does not die, D would regard the outcome as having failed

Future Intent

Definition: Sometimes, the intentional doing of an AR is not itself an offence until done with some further intention (e.g. carrying crowbar for the purpose of burglary)

Conditional Intent

Definition: It is enough that D knows or believes with no significant doubt that the circumstances will exist (e.g. thief stealing handbag meaning to steal its contents)

Transferred Malice

Definition: Satisfies the MR requirement so long as the D intended the AR on someone (however, not possible to convict someone of the basis of an AR for one offence but the MR for another unless consequence was foreseeable)

Recklessness

1. Subjective test

D foresees the risk and takes it anyway

Cases: Cunningham, R v G&R

2. Objective test

Where D has not given any thought to the there being any obvious risk or has recognised that there was some risk involved and has nonetheless gone on to do it (not used)

Case: Caldwell