Intro to Criminal Law

law paper 2

The measure of proof in criminal law is…

Beyond reasonable doubt!

The actus reus is…

What the defendant has done or not done!

The mens rea is…

The mental element, what the defendant is intending, thinking or failing to think about

A conduct crime is…

the conduct of the accused forms the offence, no required result from that conduct.

THINK THEFT. Conducf of appropriating is the theft, no required result such as spending money.

A result crime is…

Must be result for an offence to be committed.

THINK CRIMINAL DAMAGE- Must prove that the accuseds acts or ommissions caused damage to or destruction of property belonging to another.

Actus reus can be:

1. An act

2. A failure to act (An omission)

3. A state of affairs

Voluntary nature of actus reus (Give a case)

If a defendant has no control over their actions, they have not committed the actus reus!

Hill V Baxter 1958– If a driver lost control of his vehicle because he was stung by a swarm of bees, struck on the head by a stone or had a heart attack.

State of affairs cases (Give a case)

Your actions beinh voluntary or involuntary does not matter in state of affairs cases.

RvLarsonneur 1993 —French woman Deported from UK , goes Ireland, deported back to UK, arrested ane convicted of being an illegal immigrant.

What situations can have Omissions as actus reus (Lord that agreed… in what case…)

1. An act of parliament states an offence

2. A contractual duty to act exists

3. A duty exists because of a relationship between the victim and the accused

4. A duty towards the victim has been taken on voluntarily by the accused

5. A duty to act arises as a consequence of the accused’s official position

6. A duty to act arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events

Lord Diplock in RvMiller 1983

An Act of Parliament

Public safety issues- failing to take a breath test as a driver.

Only require proof of actus reus; strict liability offences.

A contractual duty to act exists (Give a case)

RvPittwood (1902) D was railway crossing keeper, opened and closed the gate between a road and railway. Left to munch without closing, train collided with horse and cart- killed cart driver. Guilty of murder

A duty exists because of a relationship between the victim and the accused (case)

RvGibbins and Proctor 1918– Father+Partner didnt feed kid, kid died. Guilty of murder

A duty towards the victim has been taken on voluntarily by the accused (case)

RvStone and Dobinson (1977)—Stone’s shosho sister comes to live, sick+cantcareforherself=died. Stone owed sister duty. Dobinson owed duty too since undertook some care. Didnt help or summon help, convicted of manslaughter.

A duty to act arises as a consequence of the accused’s official position. (Case)

RvDytham 1979– Police officer, bro saw violent attack and drove away🤣🤣. Guilty of willfully and unreasonably neglecting to perform his duty.

A duty towards the victim arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events. (Case)

RvMiller 1983- homeless guy, sleeps in rando house, drops sigara on the joodari and starts a fire, bro moved to another room and slept there, guilty of arson under c.damage act 1971.

Doctor’s Duties!🧑‍⚕👩‍⚕👨‍⚕

If discontinuing treatment is in patients best interest, all good! Airedale NHS trust v Bland 1993.

Causation: The prosecution must proveeeee that

1. The defendants conduct was the factual cause of that consequence and,

2. The defendants conduct was in law the cause of that consequence and,

3. There was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation

With factual cause, the defendant… (Case)

Can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened but for the defendant’s conduct.

RvPagett 1983— D used pregnant gf as a shield while he shot at armed police. Manslaughter

RvWhite 1910- Tried to poison mum w cyanide, got heart attack before she could drink. Not murder but attempted murder.

With the Think Skull Rule the defendant must take a victim assssss….. (Case)

THEY FIND THEM!

RvBlaue 1975— Woman stabbed, refused blood transfusion due to religion so died—D convicted of murder.

The chain of causation is…

The link between the act and the consequence Need both legal and factual causation to convict someone.

The chain of causation can be broken by…

1. An act of a third party

2. The victim’s own act

3. A natural but unpredictable event

For the defendant to not be responsible, the intervening act must be…

1. Sufficiently independent of the defendants conduct.

2. Sufficiently serious.

Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless…(Case Example)

It is is so independent of the defendant’s acts and in itself so potent in causing death.

RvSmith 1959- Soldiers fought, stabbed in lung,cpr, worse, died. Defendants actions were the overwhelming cause of death.

RvJordan 1956- Stabbed, hosi, antibiotic given but allergic so they stopped, next day another doctor ordered to administer largeeee dose, bro died, defendant was not guilty of murder.

Victim’s own act (Case)

If D causes V to react in a foreseeable way, any injury to V will have been caused by D.

RvRoberts 1971— girlie jumped from the baabur to escape sexual advances. injured, D held liable.

But if V’s reaction is unreasonable… (Case)

This may break the chain of causation.

RvWilliams— jumped out due to attempt to steal their wallet, died of head injuries, car was 50kph.

A natural but unpredictable event

If injury or loss was caused by stuff like earthquake.

Mens rea can consist of

1. Intention

2. Recklessness

The only offences that do not require mens rea are

Strict liability offences!

Direct intent

clear intention, RvMohan1975,the defendant decides to bring out the prohibited consequence.

Indirect/oblique/Foresight of consequences (Case)

Evidence of intention, prohibited consequence was not main aim but saw that their actions would also cause those consequences.

RvWoollin 1998- threw baby towards pram, baby died.

Recklessness (Case)

Taking an unjustifiable risk. Must prove that D realised the risk, but took it.

RvCunningham 1957— Tore prepayment gas meter to steal money, not guilty since bro didnt know gas would seep.

Transferred Malice (Case)

If intend to commit a similar crime against a different victim.

Latimer 1886— Bro tried hitting back w belt, that bs bounced off and struck a girl in the face. Guilty of offence of assault.

Mitchell 1983- pushed old man, landed on old lady who broke her leg and died.

But if the mens rea is for a completely different offence… (Case)

Pembilton 1874— wanted to hit some people w a stone, hit a window instead; cannot transfer intention to hit people to hitting the window.

what rule says we need both actus reus and mens rea (Case)

contemporaneity rule

FaganVMetropolitan commissioner- drove on police officers foot, refused to move and swore.