Studied by 0 people
Actus reus( conduct, acts and omission and state of fairs causation; consequences) Mens rea ( intention, recklessness, negligence) No fault( strict liability, coincidence of 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)
a duty because of a relationship (parents might fail their duty to take care of young children)
a duty which has been undertaken voluntarily ( e.g. failure to take care of an elderly relative)
a duty through ones official position ( e.g. police officer going off the duty without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform their duty)
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)
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?
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?
an act of a third party
the Vs own act
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)
flowchart of rules of causation
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? + case
the lowest mens rea if D fails to meet the standarts of a reasonable person he may be liable under civil law, Adomako 1994
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
Note 
Flashcard (24)