Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
65 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Actus reus |
Physical element of a crime |
|
|
Voluntary act |
Conscious exercise of will |
|
|
Hill v Baxter (1958) |
Defendant was in a driving offence but claimed to be unconscious at the wheel. Convicted as he was driving the car. Hypothetical example - a swarm of bees entering the car. |
|
|
Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963) |
Defendant strangled girl with a pair of tights but claimed to have blacked out so was unaware of what happened. On appeal, stated he would have had to shown the act was in absence of mind. |
|
|
Omission |
Failure to act when there is a duty to such as through contractual duty. No general principle of liability under English law. |
|
|
Contractual duty to act |
Duty arises from a contract as part of your profession such as a teacher. |
|
|
R v Pittwood (1902) |
Railway crossing gate keeper failed to close the gate when he went for lunch so was liable for the death of a train driver who crashed into a passing hay cart as he had a contractual duty to close the gate when a train was oncoming. |
|
|
Failure to act under statute |
Statutes can make it a criminal offence to fail to act. |
|
|
S1 of Children and Young Persons Act 1933 |
Actus reus of this offence is the failure to provide children with the necessary medical care. |
|
|
Assumed responisbility |
Assumed responsibility for care of aged or inform person. |
|
|
Stone v Dobinson (1977) |
Unmarried couple invited Stone's sister to live with them. They were aware of her anorexia and that she neglected herself but failed to provide her with the correct care so were liable for her death of toxaemia through assumed responsibility of her. |
|
|
Duty through relationship |
A duty can arise through a relationship |
|
|
R v Gibins and Procter (1918) |
Defendant and common law wife failed to feed their 7 year old child, Nelly, who later died from starvation. Wife hated Nelly so obviously moved the force. Both liable as the law imposed a duty to act as there was a relationship present. |
|
|
Creation of a dangerous situation |
Liability exists where the defendant has created a dangerous situation through their own standards. |
|
|
R v Miller (1983) |
Squatter dropped a lit cigarette in a derelict building but failed to attempt to put it out or call the emergency services. Liable for arson as he created a dangerous situation to which he did not act upon. |
|
|
Requirement to protect others |
Particular occupations require you to protect others such as a police officer. |
|
|
R v Dytham (1979) |
Off duty police officer witnessed a citizen being kicked to death but did nothing about it. Liable because he was compelled to protect society through his occupation. |
|
|
State of affairs |
"Being" rather than "doing". Convicted even though they had no intention to commit the act or did so voluntarily. No need to prove mens rea. |
|
|
R v Larsonneur (1933) |
Defendant ordered to leave the UK so moved to Ireland, but was deported back to the UK. Arrested upon arrival for "being an illegal alien to whom leave to land in the UK had been refused". Did not matter that she didn't want to go back or that she did it involuntarily. |
|
|
R v Winzar (1983) |
Police officers placed a drunk man on a highway, and then arrested him for being drunk on a highway, which is an offence under English law. Defendant did not choose to be in this situation or act voluntarily however he was found there so was liable. |
|
|
Causation |
Links the actions of the defendant to the end consequence. |
|
|
Chain of causation |
Must be a direct and casual link between the actions of the defendant and the end consequence. Chain of causation is when more than one factor contributes to the end result. |
|
|
Factual causation |
Deals with actions of the defendant |
|
|
"But for" test |
"But for" the actions of the defendant, the consequence would still have occurred = not factual cause. "But for"the actions of the defendant, the consequence wouldn't have occurred = factual cause. |
|
|
R v White (1910) |
Defendant intended to kill mum by poisoning her drink but she had a heart attack which caused her overall death before she could finish it. "But for" Mr White poisoning his mum's drink, her heart attack would still have occurred so he is not the factual cause. |
|
|
R v Pagett (1983) |
Defendant used his victim as a human shield from police gunshots and she was killed. "But for" Mr Pagett using his victim as a human shield, her death would not have occurred so he is the factual cause. |
|
|
Legal causation |
Did the defendant make a "significant contribution" to the end result? |
|
|
R v Chesire (1991) |
Defendant shot victim who got complications weeks later in hospital and died. Chesire was the legal cause because the victim wouldn't have been in hospital in the first place if he wasn't shot. |
|
|
Novus actus interveniens |
New intervening act. Must be unforeseeable and so overwhelming as to invalidate the original actus reus. |
|
|
Medical treatment / actions of a 3rd party |
Victim later dies due to mistreatment. |
|
|
R v Smith (1959) |
Victim got a bayonet wound and was being carried to get medical treatment. He was dropped twice and a doctor also misdiagnosed a punctured lung. Smith still convicted of murder as this was not enough to break the chain and the wound was the overall cause of death. |
|
|
R v Jordan (1956) |
Victim had recovered in hospital but was given a drug to which he was allergic. It was confirmed that this was the cause of his death and not his initial injury. This broke the chain of causation as it was so overwhelming and wouldn't have happened with the correct medical treatment. |
|
|
Victim's own act |
The victim does something "so daft" to break the chain of causation. |
|
|
R v Roberts (1971) |
Defendant made sexual advances to a girl in his car which alarmed her so she jumped out while it was still moving and she was hospitalized. Roberts was the factual and legal cause as she wouldn't have jumped out the car if he didn't scare her. |
|
|
Natural and unpredictable event |
Natural disasters such as earthquakes which end up causing the death of the victim. This breaks the chain as unforeseeable. |
|
|
Thin skull principle |
"Taking your victims as you find them". The intervening cause is a pre-existing medical condition of the victim such as brittle bone syndrome. |
|
|
R v Blaue (1975) |
Victim was a Jehovah's Witness and so refused a blood transfusion in hospital so they died. The defendant claimed he didn't know this but was still liable as he took his victim as he found them. |
|
|
Mens rea |
Mental element of an offence. |
|
|
Direct intention |
True desire to bring about the consequence. |
|
|
R v Mohan (1975) |
Defendant acknowledged a police officer's signal to pull over but decided to accelerate towards the officer. Charged with attempt to cause bodily harm by dangerous driving. |
|
|
Indirect intention |
Foresight of consequences to the point of virtual certainty. |
|
|
2 part test for indirect intention |
The consequence is a virtually certain result of the act AND The defendant knows that it is a virtually certain consequence |
|
|
R v Moloney (1985) |
Defendant shot his step father accidentally while intoxicated despite their good relationship. Convicted as the defendant must have known this was a virtually certain consequence, even though he did not intend to shoot his victim. |
|
|
R v Woollin (1998) |
Defendant threw his 3 month old baby at its pram but it hit a wall instead and died. The jury were satisfied that this was a result of the act and the defendant must have realised this was a possibility so he was found guilty. |
|
|
Recklessness |
The taking of an unjustifiable risk. The defendant realised this risk and decided to take it. |
|
|
Cunningham (1957) |
The defendant tore a gas meter from the wall of a house to steal the money inside, however left a ruptured pipe which affected the health of a resident in a neighbouring house. The defendant had not intended to cause harm, nor had he taken a risk he knew about. |
|
|
Transferred malice |
Mens rea is transferred from the intended victim to the unintended victim. Only transferred if the same crime intended is committed, not if a different crime happens as a result. |
|
|
R v Latimer (1886) |
Defendant struck a man with his belt but it bounced back and hit a woman nearby who suffered severe wounding. The malice was transferred as the same offence of wounding was committed. |
|
|
R v Pembilton (1874) |
Defendant threw a stone intending to harm his victim however missed and broke a window instead. Malice not transferred as defendant had no mens rea to vandalise. |
|
|
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea |
The AR and MR must both be present at or around the same time, place and on the same victim. Mens rea only implies to do a present act, not a future one. |
|
|
R v Thabo Meli (1954) |
Defendant's intended to kill victim so beat him up and threw "dead" body off a cliff. The victim wasn't dead, but later died from exposure. Liable as the act of beating him up and throwing him off a cliff was a "continuing act". |
|
|
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) |
Defendant drove over policeman's foot when instructed to park near the kerb. The actus reus was present but Fagan was unaware of what he was doing so no mens rea. He then stopped to swear at the police officer and failed to move when asked so he developed the mens rea. Liable through a "continuing act". |
|
|
"Continuing act" |
When the actus reus goes on and the mens rea develops at some point to coincide. |
|
|
What are strict liability offences? |
"No fault" offences where no mens rea is to be proved. Less serious and come from statutory and common law. |
|
|
Who is affected by strict liability? |
Businesses and health and safety organisations. Those involved in minor driving offences. Situations of protection of minors. |
|
|
Why use strict liability? |
Encourages greater vigilance. Encourages businesses to follow the law in fear of being held accountable as no mens rea is required. Saves court time as most people please guilty. Holds businesses accountable for their actions. |
|
|
Sweet v Parsley (1970) |
Schoolteacher let her house out to students who used it as a place to grow and smoke cannabis. She was unaware of this activity but was still charged for being concerned with the management of premises which was being used for drug taking, contrary to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 which provided no mens rea for this offence. Conviction dropped in the end as the crime was one of truly criminal nature so the mens rea had to be proved. |
|
|
Callow v Tillstone (1990) |
Butcher sold infected meat to the public despite having it examined by a vet who declared it fit for consumption. Offence was one of strict liability because the butcher had a duty to sell safe food to the public, and mens rea did not need to be proved has he didn't sell safe food. |
|
|
Shah (1999) |
Defendant owned a newsagents that advertised within the shop that lottery tickets would not be sold to anyone under 16. The defendant accidentally sold one to someone under 16 even though he believed he looked to be the legal age. Liable as he had still sold a ticket to a minor, despite having taken all the necessary precautions. |
|
|
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward (1972) |
Factory owner allowed pollution to enter a river contrary to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. The offence related to an underground pipe that became disconnected due to a blockage, however the owner was not aware of this and it was a case of strict liability. |
|
|
Gammon v Attorney General of Hong Kong (1985) |
Defendant was a builder who deviated from plans in the construction of a building. It was an offence to do this in a substantial way, however the defendant claimed he had only deviated in a minor way. |
|
|
R v Blake (1997) |
Defendant broadcasted a pirate radio station that could have affected emergency services. Offence was one of strict liability as it was a public safety concern. |
|
|
Statute excludes mens rea |
Larsonneur (1933) |
|
|
Truly criminal nature |
Sweet v Parsley (1975) |
|
|
Social concern |
R v Blake (1997) |
