Criminal Liability - Topic 1 - AR and Strict Liability
Studied by 0 people
Learn
Practice Test
Spaced Repetition
Match
Flashcards1/34
Earn XP
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
|---|
No study sessions yet.
35 Terms
Actus Reus
Definition (AO1)
The external/physical element of an offence. The conduct may arise from an ACT, OMISSION or STATE OF AFFAIRS. Must also be voluntary.
AR must be voluntary
Case
(Hill V Baxter)
A case illustrating that the actus reus must be a voluntary action, where the court held that the driver was not liable due to a sudden medical issue.
Omission (Failure To Act)
General Principle (AO1)
D cannot be liable in criminal law for a failure to act, even when their behaviour is morally questionable. There is no ‘Good Samaritan Law’
Omission: Exceptions to rule (there are 2)
(AO1)
Where a Statute defines the AR of a criminal offence as an omission i.e. Failure to stop at the scene of a car accident (Road Traffic Act)
Where Common Law imposes a legal duty to act upon D. Courts have developed 4 main legal duties where one must take positive action.
What are the 4 common law relationships where D owes C a DOC
Under contract
Family relationship
Voluntary assumption of responsibility
Having created or contributed to a dangerous situation
Duty ‘Under Contract’
Definition (AO1)
Where D has a contract which requires him to act. Failure to do so can be the AR of an offence
DOC Under Contract
Case
(R V Pittwood)
Where a railway worker failed to close a gate, resulting in a fatal accident.
DOC arising from a close relationship
Definition (AO1)
Where D’s close relationship with V requires him to act to prevent harm
What is classed as a ‘CLOSE’ relationship
Legal marriages
Parent & Child
DOC arising from a close relationship
Case
(R V Gibbins & Proctor)
Where a father and partner neglected to feed their daughter, leading to the child's death.
DOC from voluntary assumption of responsibility
Definition (AO1)
Where D has voluntarily undertaken to care for a person and that person then becomes dependent upon D. D is then under a legal duty to continue to care for the person. (Dependency must amount over a period of time)
DOC from voluntary assumption of responsibility case
(R V Stone & Dobinson)
Where a couple failed to care for a sick relative, who refused to eat, which resulted in her death due to neglect.
DOC from creation of a dangerous situation
Definition (AO1)
Where the D has created or contributed to a dangerous situation, which they are aware of or ought reasonably to be away has become life threatening. The D is then under a duty to take reasonable steps to save the other’s life.
DOC from creating or contributing to a dangerous situation case
(R V Miller)
Where the defendant accidentally set fire to a bed with a cigarette, after falling asleep, and failed to take action to extinguish it, resulting in a devastating fire.
(R V Evans)
Where the defendant supplied heroin to her half-sister, who subsequently overdosed. The defendant had a duty to assist but failed to do so, leading to the V’s death.
AR - Causation
Definition (AO1)
Where D is charged with a result offence, P must prove that D’s conduct caused the prohibited consequence. There must be a chain of causation between D’s conduct and the prohibited consequence. This must be shown:
In Fact &
In law
D’s conduct need not be the sole or even the main cause of the prohibited consequence - ‘De Minimis Test’
Causation In Fact (Factual Causation)
Definition (AO1)
Would the prohibited consequence have occurred BUT FOR D’s conduct (‘But For’ Test)
Factual Causation (successful)
Case
(R V Pagett)
Where the defendant used his girlfriend as a shield during a shootout with police, resulting in her death. The court found that but for his actions, she would not have died.
Factual Causation (unsuccessful)
Case
(R V White)
Where the defendant attempted to poison his mother, but she died of a heart attack from natural causes. The court ruled that but for his actions, she would have died regardless.
Causation in Law (Legal Causation)
Definition (AO1)
D’s Conduct must contribute in more than a minimal way to the prohibited consequence (The ‘DE MINIMIS’ Test) Low level of fault required
Causation in Law (Legal Causation)
Case
(R V Kimsey)
Close friends were involved in a car crash, and the court determined that D's driving was a substantial cause of the victim's death, establishing a clear link between D's actions and the outcome.
Thin Skull rule
Definition (AO1)
D must take his victim as he finds him:
No knowledge from D on the vulnerability of the victim is required.
Thin skull issues can cover physical , mental vulnerabilities and beliefs.
Thin Skull rule
Case
(R V Blaue)
D stabbed V, who was a Jehovah's Witness, and refused a blood transfusion that led to her death, demonstrating that D is liable for the full extent of V's injuries regardless of her religious beliefs.
Breaking the Chain of Causation
Definition (AO1)
There must be an unbroken chain from the D’s conduct to the end result. If the chain is broken then the D will not be guilty of the offence (as no AR can be established)
There are 3 ways in which a chain may be broken.
How may a chain of causation be broken
(there are 3)
A naturally occurring event
V’s own act
Intervening act of a third party
Naturally Occurring Event
Definition (AO1)
The chain of causation will be broken where an unforeseeable natural event occurs between D’s conduct and prohibited consequence
V’s Own Conduct
Definition (AO1)
The chain of causation will be broken where V acts in an unforeseeable way between D’s conduct and the prohibited consequence
V’s Own Conduct case
(R V Roberts) - Did not break the chain
D (driving car) made unwanted sexual advances to V (a young female) who was the passenger. V jumped out of the moving car and was injured.
(R V Williams Davies) - Broke the chain
D driving car and went to take passenger V’s wallet. V jumped from moving car and died
Act of Third Party
Definition (AO1)
Chain of causation will be broken if an unforeseeable act of a third party intervenes between D’s conduct and the prohibited consequence
Act of Third Party
Case
(R V Pagett)
D used girlfriend as a human shield during a police shootout. The police shot and killed her, which did not break the chain of causation.
Legal Causation - Medical Treatment
Definition (AO1)
Proper medical treatment - will never break the chain of causation
Negligent medical treatment - will not necessarily break the chain of causation
Very Negligent medical treatment - may break the chain
Proper medical treatment
Case
(R v Malcherek)
Switching off a life-support system did not break the chain
Negligent Medical Treatment
Case
(R v Smith) - No break in the chain
D was a soldier who stabbed his comrade in a fight resulting in V having a pierced lung. After receiving negligent medical treatment and dying the doctor said that V would’ve had a 75% chance of survival with the proper medical treatment. D was still found G of murder
(R v Cheshire) - No Break in the chain
D shot V resulting in life threatening injuries. Doctors performed a tracheotomy negligently and V died 2 months later from complications which arouse from the procedure. Even though the gunshot wounds were healing and were no longer an operating cause of death
The test for medical staff
(AO1)
Was the negligent treatment so independent of the defendant’s conduct & in itself so potent, as to be the overwhelming cause (of death). If so, it will break the D’s chain.
Very Negligent Medical Treatment
Definition (AO1)
Where the medical treatment is so palpably wrong i.e. so bad as to be the overwhelming/independent cause. The original injury is no longer an operating cause.
Very Negligent Medical Treatment
Case
(R v Jordan) - Break in the chain
D stabbed V who was taken to hospital where he was given antibiotics. V was allergic to the treatment, leading to complications that caused his death. The court ruled that the negligent administration of antibiotics was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, absolving D of liability.