LAW - CRIM - ACTUS REUS , CAUSATION

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
GameKnowt Play
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/25

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

26 Terms

1
New cards

whats actus reus

the guilty act committed (or omission)

2
New cards

what is mens rea

translates to guilty mind , the intention to commit the actus reus

3
New cards

does the prosecution need to prove both

  • yes

  • except cases of strict liability

  • must also prove AR n MR was contemporaneous (occured at same time)

4
New cards

whats a case that shows a continuing act constituting the co-incidence of mr and ar

case: fagan v met police comiss

facts: D told to pull over, accidentally drive onto police foot, refused to move off foot for some time

outcome: fagan convicted assault , ruled the actus reus of driving the car onto foot was a continuing act and coincided with the mens rea of refusing to move off foot - intend cause harm for police

5
New cards

whats a case that shows the mr and ar co-inciding and a series of acts

case: thabo meli

events: d intend to kill victim , beat him unconscious think he dead, throw off cliff , died from exposure later , argued that they had mens rea to kill when beating him but as he didnt die them there was no AR , when he actually died they did not have mr at that time

outcome: men convicted , his death was caused by a series of events , during which the required mens rea and actus rea were present

6
New cards

generally what is the rule around voluntaryness of actions

  • generally to be found guilty the defendant must have voluntarily committed the action

7
New cards

what case shows the actions of the D must be voluntary m

r v mitchell

events: man punch old man knocking him into a woman knocking her over causing her to die

Outcome: man who knocked into woman not liable for any criminal act as he did not voluntarily knock into her - was caused by the attack

8
New cards

when can an offence be committed even if done involuntarily + case L

case : larsonneur

events: woman ordered to leave uk, travelled to ireland, irish police deported her back uk , arrested for illegally being in the uk upon arrival

Rule: convicted as she had been found illegally in the uk as part of a state of affairs

9
New cards

what are the 3 classes of guilty acts

  • when an action is the direct outcome of the crime , murder

  • when a crime has been committed because of the circumatances ( larsonneur state of affairs)

  • result crime, the act has an end consequence of becoming a crime , eg assault that has greater consequence ( r v pagget )

10
New cards

what is meant by causation + 2 types causation

  • causation refers to the consequence being proved to be as a result of the defendants act or omission

  • factual causation

  • legal causation

11
New cards

whats factual causation

  • if the consequence would of not happened but for the defendants conduct

12
New cards

what case outlines the test for factual causation

case : r v pagget

events : man take preg gf hostage, shoot at police, police return fire killing gf

outcome: d convicted of manslaughter as but for his actions of taking her hostage and shooting police she would not have been killed

13
New cards

what is legal causation

  • prosecution must prove it is fair to blame the d for the consequence caused by their conduct

14
New cards

what case rules on legal causation

case : r v hughes

ruling: r v hughes ruled that when their are multiple causes , the act or omission must be a significant cause , more than a minimal cause - to suffice legal causation

15
New cards

whats the chain of causation and a break in the chain of causation

the chain of causation refers to the fact their must be a direct link between the defendants conduct and the consequence

a break in the chain of causation refers to when an event happens that is sufficentally deperate and singificant enough to break the link between the d actions and the final consequence

16
New cards

what can break the chain of causation

  • third party acts/ intervening acts

  • the victims own actions

  • unpredictible natural events

  • (medical treatment rarely)

17
New cards

when can medical treatment break the chain of causation

medical treatment genrally does not break the chain of causation unless it is so independent from the defendants acts and so significant in the cause of death that it makes the defendants acts insignificant

18
New cards

what is a case that shows medical treatment breaking the chain of causation (as an intervening act)

case: r v jordan

events: man stabbed end up in hospital, suffers allergic reaction to antibiotic, next day another doctor orders a large dose of said antibiotic to be administered, victim died

ruling: the actions of the doctor were held to be an intervening act that caused the death , stabber not guilty murder , docs actions so independent it broke the chain of causation , only broke cos was known he was allergic

19
New cards

what is the rule for a victims own acts breaking the chain of causation

  • if the d causes the victim to react in a reasonably forseeable way , the injury to the victim will be considered to have been caused the the d

20
New cards

whats a case that demonstrates a victims own act not breaking the chain of causation

r v roberts

events: woman jump out car to escape unwanted sexual advances , injured herself

ruling: the d found liable for her injuries as it was reasonably forseeable she would take such action to escape

court ruled if the reaction of v was the ‘natural result’ of d’s actions then it was reasonably forseeable

21
New cards

what is a case that shows the victims own acts breaking the chain of causation ( r v w,d

case : williams and davis

events: men try rob hitchiker they pickup, he jump from car n die from injury

ruling: not liable , victims acts not reasonable or proportionate to the threat of robbery

22
New cards

what case rules on whether supplying drugs that cause death has a sufficent chain of causation (victims own acts)

case: r v dalby

events: d supply drugs, v died

ruling: d not guilty manslaughter as supplying srugs would not have caused harm unless used in a dangerous manner

23
New cards

what is the thin skull rule

the thin skull rule means the defendant must take the victim in the condition they find them, the victim having an abnormality that makes ds actions worse does not break chain causation

24
New cards

whats a case that demonstrates the thin skull rule

case: r v blaue

events: d stabs woman, needs blood transfusion to survive , refuses it as her religion forbids it, died

ruling: d convicted manslaughter, whilst victims refusal made injury fatal , d had to take their victim as he found her

25
New cards

to establish a chain of causation what must the defence do

  • prove factual causation (but for, pagett)

  • prove legal causation (hughes, significant , more than minimal)

  • there was no ntervening act to break chain of causation

  • if all proved , d guilty if ar and mr

26
New cards

what case rules on when d has adminstered drugs to V

r v cato , the defendant has injected the victim with heroin , when the d adminsisters it chain of causation sufficent , no defence of consent to break it