General elements of liability

Actus reus and Mens rea

What are the conduct crimes?

it is not necessary for any consequence to be proved ;

doing smth is enough to get smn convicted

What are the consequence crimes?

consequences matter more than actions (e.g. injuries, bruises, blood)

What are the state of affairs crimes?

D creates the situation; e.g. D is having an offensive weapon in public place; being in possession of drug, situation for which D is responsible

What is the general rule about omissions? in which case it may lead to conviction?

omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence ( failure to act) ; if there is a duty established

What is the “Good Samaritan” Law ? and +/-

it makes a person responsible for helping other ppl in an emergency situation

pros:

• improve safety

• saving smns life

  cons:

• a “rogue” might pretend to be seriously hurt in order to lure the stranger

• untrained person might hurt

Exceptions to the rule about omissions are… (6 bits)+ expl

• statutory duty ( wilful neglect; e.g. failing to provide a specimen of breath; to report a road traffic accident)

• contractual duty ( failure to do their duty e.g. lifeguard in a pool leaves their post) - Pittwood

• a duty because of a relationship (parents might fail their duty to take care of young children) - Gibbons and Proctor

• a duty which has been undertaken voluntarily ( e.g. failure to take care of an elderly relative) - Evans

• a duty through ones official position ( e.g. police officer going off the duty without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform their duty) - Dytham

• a duty which arises bc D has set in motion a chain of events ( as a result of a dangerous situation created by the defendant) - Miller

What does the prosecution must prove where the consequences must be proved? (3)

• Ds conduct was the factual cause of the consequences

• it was the legal cause of the consequences

• there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation

What means by the factual cause? +1 case

D can only be guilty if the consequences would not have happened “but for” Ds conduct e.g. R v Pagett 1983

What must Ds conduct be to satisfy legal causation? +1 case

must be more than “minimal” cause of the consequences e.g. R v Kimsey 1996

What does the thin skull rule mean?

if the victim has smth unusual about their physical/mental state which makes injury more serious

D is liable for more serious injuries e.g. R V Blaue

What is the chain of causation?

direct link from Ds conduct to the consequences

In which case D wont be responsible for the consequences when the chain of causation was broken? +case

the intervening act must be sufficiently independent and sufficiently serious e.g R V Jordan

In which case D will be responsible for the consequences when the chain of causation was broken?

Ds conduct causes a foreseeable action by a third party —> D is likely to be held to have caused the consequences e,g, Pagett 1983

How can the chain of causation be broken?

1. an act of a third party

2. the Vs own act

3. a natural but unpredictable event

Can the medical treatment break the chain of causa?

It is unlikely, unless it is so independent that it makes Ds actions insignificant e.g. R V Smith ; R V Jordan

Does switching off the life support machine when its been decided by the doctor break the chain of c? + case

NO, as Ds conduct caused Vs injuries and led them to be supported by life support machine = R V Malcherek

In which case D will be still liable of the Vs injuries, even tho Vs own act takes place?

If D causes V to react in a way that is foreseeable

e.g. R V Roberts ( V jumped from a car to avoid Ds sexual advances, she died , D is liable)

In which case D will NOT be liable of the Vs injuries, when Vs own act takes place and break the chain of c ? + case

if Vs reaction is unreasonable, e.g. R V Williams and Davis ( When V jumped from Williams car and died from head injuries while Williams was trying to steal Vs wallet —> in this case Vs act was unreasonable act and was not proportioned to the threat)

what is the highest level of mens rea?

specific intent (more blameworthy)

what is the other types of mens rea?

basic intent ; subjective recklessness; negligence

what offences do NOT require mens rea?

strict liability (speeding; water/food safety)

is the Ds motive for committing a crime significant for proving MR when he committs the crime ?

NO, motive is not the same as intention and irrelevant in deciding whether D has the mens rea required

direct intent is…

D intends specific consequences to occur

oblique intent is…

D does NOT necessarily desire an outcome

why can foresight of consequences cause a problem? + 2 cases

if Ds main aim was NOT the prohibited consequences, then intended smth else; Moloney( D shot step-father in 'quick on the draw' incident). Hancock and Shankland (D pushed a concrete block onto a road where a taxi with another miner was driving,which they wanted to prevent from going to work, taxi driver was killed, convictions were quashed)

What did happen in case Nedrick + law?

poured paraffin through letter box, causing the fire in the house in which the child died = Jury not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty and that the defendant appreciated this.

what did happen in Woolin case + law?

threw baby at pram, causing its death = The direction in Nedrick should not use the word 'infer' Instead, the jury should be told they are entitled to find intention.

What is the current law after the case Mathews and Alleyne?

threw V into river, where he drowned = If a jury decides that D foresaw the virtual certainty of death or serious injury, then they are entitled to find intention but they do not have to do so;

Is foresight of consequences an intention?

no, but can be used as evidence of intention

subjective recklessness is…

a lower level of mens rea than intention when D takes the risk; D knows there is a risk but takes the risk

cases for subjective recklessness (2)

Cunningham; G and another ( the decision was confirmed in this case - D is only liable if he realised the risk and decided to take it)

what is negligence?

the lowest mens rea if D fails to meet the standarts of a reasonable person he may be liable under civil law

what is the transferred malice? 2 cases

D can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different V e.g. Latimer( D was guilty of an assault against a woman even though he planned a blow at a man but the belt bounced off and struck a woman in the face ); Gnago

general malice is …

when D does not have a specific V in mind eg a terrorist ; then Ds mens rea is held to apply to the actual V

coincidence of actus reus and mens rea is…

when both actus reus and mens rea must be present at the same time e.g Thabo Meli (D attecked a man and beliived they had killed him ; they pushed his body over a low cliff, the man actually died of exposure when unconscious at the foot of the cliff= D is guilty of a murder); Church

What is the continuing act as an example in case?

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

When D knew that car was on the police officers foot - mens rea; he did not move the car off even though knew - actus reus = was convicted