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;
34 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the definition of Actus Reus? |
This is the positive, physical, voluntary or omission which causes the crime |
|
|
Can one be guilty of a crime if it is 'unvolunatry'? |
No, so for an individual to be guilty of the Actus Reus, they must have committed the crime voluntarily. |
|
|
What is the general rule in the English law? |
That there is no general duty to act to save another. |
|
|
What does omission mean? |
Failing to act |
|
|
How can an individual by guilty of an omission? |
They must be under a duty |
|
|
How many exceptions are there to the rule of omission? |
6 |
|
|
Name the examples and the cases connected of the types of duties that make an individual guilty of omission |
- Duty arising from a contract - Duty arising from an official position - Voluntary duty - Duty arising from a special relationship - Duty arising from started chain of events - Duty imposed by statute |
|
|
What are the cases connected to the duties that make an individual guilty of omission? |
R.v. Pittwood (contract) Dytham (official position) R.v. Stone and Dobinson (voluntary) R.v. Gibbins (special relationship) R.v. Miller (chain of events) s. 25 of Road Traffic Act 1984 |
|
|
What does causation refer to/mean? |
It is whether the defendants conduct caused the harm or damage |
|
|
What are the 2 types of causation on criminal liability? |
Causation in Fact and Causation in Law |
|
|
What test is applied in causation in fact? |
the 'but for' test. Because 'but for' the defendant's actions would the injury have happened |
|
|
What must the defendant be to be guilty of causation in law? |
the defendant must be the 'operative and substantial' cause of the injury |
|
|
Give 2 examples of causation in fact |
Pagett and White |
|
|
What happened in Pagett? |
In Pagett, the defendant used his girlfriend as a shield whilst shooting at armed policemen. The police officer's shot back and the girl was killed. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter because she would not have died 'but for' him using her as a shield |
|
|
what happened in R.v. White? |
In White, the defendant put cyanide into his mother's drink with the intention to poison and kill her. She died of a heart-attack before she could drink it. Although the defendant was not guilty for murder, he was found guilty for attempted murder |
|
|
What happened in smith? |
The defendant was a soldier who stabbed another soldier with a bayonet and despite the victim being dropped by the ambulance twice, the defendant was found to be the legal cause since the stabbing was the ' operative and substantial' cause of death. |
|
|
What is the Chain of causation? |
This is everything that happens from the defendants actions until the final injury. There must be a direct link from the defendants conduct to the consequence. If something really unexpected or sufficiently serious happens, after the defendants conduct then the chain of causation is broken. |
|
|
What are the 2 examples of medical intervention that could break the chain of causation? |
Jordan and Cheshire |
|
|
What happened in the case of Jordan? |
The defendant stabbed the victim, and at the hospital, medical negligence took place,because of medical intervening, this broke the chain f causation. Thus the defendant was not the cause in law. |
|
|
What happened in the case of Cheshire? |
The defendant shot the victim. The hospital healed the wounds but he died of medical negligence. The defendant was still liable for the death as he was found to be the 'operative and substantial' cause of the death. |
|
|
Explain the examples used for the victims own act which could possibly break the chain of causation? |
In both Roberts and Williams, the victims both jumped out of a moving car, however in Roberts the defendant touched her inappropriately and she jumped out of the car. Her actions was seen as foreseeable, therefore the defendant was the cause in law. Whereas in Williams, the victim was being robbed and it was found that the victims actions was found to be intervening and broke the chain of causation as it was unexpected. Therefore defendant was not the cause in law. In R.v. Lewis the defendant chased the victim into the road and the victim was accidentally run over. The intervening act did not break the chain of causation because it was foreseeable that the victim would run into the road if chased and would get run over by a car. |
|
|
What is the definition of the Tin skull rule? |
That the defendant must 'take the victim as he finds him' |
|
|
what happened in R .v. Blaue? |
The defendant stabbed the woman several times. The hospital wanted to give her a blood transfusion but she refused it on religious grounds because she was a Jehovah's witness. She died as a result. The defendant argued that she was responsible for her own death and he did not know about her religion. The court held that he was the cause in law, as he must take the victim as he found her |
|
|
What does Mens Rea mean? |
This is the mental or physical element of an offence. |
|
|
What are the 3 different levels of Mens rea? |
- Direct Intent - Indirect Intent - Recklessness |
|
|
What does Direct intention mean? |
This is the decision to bring about the consequence whether the defendant desired it or not. This was the defined in Mohan. In Mohan: The defendant had accelerated towards a police officer, but the officer moved out the way |
|
|
What does Indirect Intention mean? |
This is where the defendant foresees the injury as a virtual certainty. This was established in Woolin. In Woolin: the defendant threw his baby at a pram, missed and killed the baby |
|
|
What does Subjective Recklessness mean? |
This is where the defendant knows the risk and takes them. The explanation of recklessness comes from the case of Cunningham. In Cunningham: the defendants breaks open a coin operated gas meter, this causes gas to seep into the house next door and where a woman was affected. |
|
|
What does 'contemporaneity' mean? |
In order for an offence to take place, there must be the 'coincidence' of Actus Reus and Mens Rea both present at the same time for the same crime. |
|
|
For a 5 marker question what are the cases that are needed to be included? |
- Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - R .v. White |
|
|
For a 7 marker question, what are the case needed to be mentioned |
- Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - R .v. White - R .v. Church |
|
|
What happened in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner? |
In this case, the defendant drove his car onto the police constables foot. The courts was not sure of whether he meant to do this, so the Mens Rea is not present at this stage. However, when the constable asked the driver to move his vehicle off his foot, the drive replied saying "F--k off, you can wait" after swearing he kept his car there a while longer. The Divisional Court upheld the conviction because by this stage the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea were present at the same time as the Actus Reus was a 'continuing act' |
|
|
What happened in R.v. White? |
A woman was to be poisoned by her son but she died off a heart attack before she could drink it. The court held that the defendant was not guilty of murder but because he had the Mens Rea (intention) to kill her, but had not actus reus |
|
|
What happened in R.v. Church? |
The victim mocked the defendant because he failed to satisfy her, the defendant strangled the victim and then tried to revive her. Thinking she was dead, he threw her body into a river a few hours later. However the cause of death was of droning. The court held that the defendant was guilty of murder as he had the Mens Rea to cause serious injury/death and the Actus Reus was a 'continuing cact' |
