1/25
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
whats actus reus
the guilty act committed (or omission)
what is mens rea
translates to guilty mind , the intention to commit the actus reus
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)
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
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
generally what is the rule around voluntaryness of actions
generally to be found guilty the defendant must have voluntarily committed the action
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
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
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 )
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
whats factual causation
if the consequence would of not happened but for the defendants conduct
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
what is legal causation
prosecution must prove it is fair to blame the d for the consequence caused by their conduct
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
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
what can break the chain of causation
third party acts/ intervening acts
the victims own actions
unpredictible natural events
(medical treatment rarely)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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