2. Foundations - Scots Criminal Law And Evidence

Front 1

What is means by the maxim Actusnon facit reum nisi mens sit rea?

Back 1

conviction of a crime requires proof of a criminal act and intent./an act does not make a defendant guilty without a guilty mind

Front 2

What is meant by the actus reus of a crime

Back 2

The forbidden situation

Front 3

What types of situation may fall under an actus reus?

Back 3

Acts, omissions or states of affairs.

Front 4

What terms means an act does not make a defendant guilty without a guilty mind

Back 4

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Front 5

What is the term for the forbidden situation of a crime?

Back 5

The actus reus

Front 6

What was held in Hogg v. MacPherson1928

Back 6

A horse drawn van was blown over by a gust of wind. The driver failed to pay for a fin imposed for 'accidental or negligent damage' and was prosecuted. It was held on appeal that as there was no voluntary act there could be no criminal liability.

Front 7

What case concerns a horse drawn van knocking over a streetlamp and shows that there must generally be a voluntary act to satisfy the actus reus of a crime.

Back 7

Hogg v. MacPherson 1928

Front 8

What are the facts, and what was held in R v White 1910?

Back 8

A man tried to kill his mother by placing poison in her tea. She drank a quarter of the tea and died, but it was found that her death was due to a heart attack and was unconnected to the poison. As there was no causal link between the act and the result, the but for test was not satisfied and the accused could only be convicted of attempted murder.

Front 9

What case concerns a tea being poisoned but the victim dying due to a heart attack; and shows that there must be a causal link between an act and the result in order to satisfy the actus reus of a crime?

Back 9

R v White 1910

Front 10

What were the facts, and what was held in H.M. Advocate v Kerr & others 1871?

Back 10

A number of youths assaulted a girl with intent to rape her. One accused only watched and did not attempt to prevent the attack. It was held that as he had not committed anything, and was not within a class to whom a duty to intervene had been imposed he could not be prosecuted. This shows that generally there cannot be criminal liability for omissions.

Front 11

What exceptions are there top the general rule that there can be no criminal liability for omissions?

Back 11

By:

1. Statute

2. Contract of Employment

3. Family Relationship

4. Creation of Dangerous Situations.

Front 12

What case, where a number of youths assaulted a woman, but one who did not (but did watch) shows that there is generally no criminal liability for omissions?

Back 12

H.M. Advocate v Kerr & others 1871

Front 13

What is the mens rea of a crime?

Back 13

The mental element

Front 14

What forms may means rea take?

Back 14

Intent, recklessness, negligence.

Front 15

What is the difference between recklessness and negligence?

Back 15

A reckless act is one where the damaging outcome is not desired but one which will occur no matter what alongside the main act. A negligent act is one where damage will only occur if the act is not performed with sufficient care.

Front 16

What are the facts, and what was held in Quinn v. Lees 1994?

Back 16

A man was charged with assaulting 3 boys by setting his dog on them. He stated he had only called the dog to attack as a joke. It was held he had intended the dog to attack the boys. This shows that a joke may only be a motive and does not affect mens rea.

Front 17

Which case concerns a 'joke' of calling a dog to attack some boys, and shows that a joke is merely a motive and does not affect mens rea?

Back 17

Quinn v. Lees 1994

Front 18

What definition of recklessness is given in Patonv. H.M.Advocate 1936

Back 18

A criminal indifference to the consequences.

Front 19

What case gives the definition of recklessness as a criminal indifference to the consequences.

Back 19

Paton v. H.M. Advocate 1936

Front 20

What are the facts, and what was held in Thabo Meli v. R [1954]

Back 20

Several accused assaulted a man, and thinking that he was dead rolled him over a cliff. He died after being rolled down the hill. The accused later claimed that when he died they did not have the requisite mens rea. It was held that while there must be concurrent mens rea and actus reus, a continuous act could give the mens rea. They were convicted.

Front 21

Which case shows that a conduct may be treated as a continuous act for the purposes of establishing mens rea?

Back 21

Thabo Meli v. R [1954]

Front 22

What were the facts, and what was held in Roberts v Hamilton 1989?

Back 22

A man aimed a blow at another, but struck a third party. As the mens rea for assault is intent to injury the person of another it was held that his intent may be transferred form the mam at whom the blow was aimed and the person it eventually hit. Transferred intent operates within crimes but not across them.

Front 23

What case shows that within crimes, intent may be transferred between the intended victim and the ultimate victim?

Back 23

Roberts v Hamilton 1989

Front 24

What crimes have elements of causation involved in their prosecution?

Back 24

Fraud, assault, murder and culpable homicide.

Front 25

What was held in H.M. Advocate v. Robertson andDonoghue (1945)?

Back 25

The accused shook a shopkeeper who died of heart failure due to having a weak heart. Thought the accused did not know of this, you take your victim is you find them. This is the thin skull rule.

Front 26

What case concerns the thin skull rule and a shaken shopkeeper?

Back 26

H.M. Advocate v. Robertson andDonoghue (1945)

Front 27

What was held in McDonaldv. H.M.Advocate 2007?

Back 27

A victim had been seriously assaulted by the accused and locked in a 3rd floor flat. Within 30 minutes he had climbed out of the window to make his escape, but fell to his death. It was held that the actions of victims do not necessarily break the chain of causation, his death was a result of the initial assault.

Front 28

What case concerns a 3rd story jump from a victim being locked in a flat, and shows that victims contribution is not necessarily a novus actus interveniens?

Back 28

McDonaldv. H.M.Advocate 2007

Front 29

What was held in H.M. Advocate v. Fraser &Rollins 1920

Back 29

A woman enticed a victim into a park, where two others then attacked, robbed and killed him. It was held that even though she had not actually killed the man, there had been prior agreement to rob the man before hand and each were art and part liable for the crime.

Front 30

What case concerns a woman enticing victims into a park where they are then killed, and shows the idea of art and part liability.

Back 30

H.M. Advocate v. Fraser &Rollins 1920

Front 31

What was held in H.M.Advocate v. Gallacher 1951

Back 31

A circus came to Hamilton. Residents and the circus had a feud. The victim was mistaken for being a member of the circus and assaulted. Witnesses then joined in on the assault. The victim later died. Though there was no prior planning, all 3 attackers were held art and part liable for the murder through 'spontaneous coming together'.

Front 32

Which case concerns a mistaken belief that the accused were attacking a circus member, and were held art and part liable for his murder, though there was no common plan, through 'spontaneous coming together'?

Back 32

H.M.Advocate v. Gallacher 1951

Front 33

What was held in Boyne v H.M. Advocate 1980?

Back 33

The accused killed the victim through stabbing. All had agreed to attack the victim but not to stab him. They could be held liable if the Crown could establish that they knew about the knife and that it was liable to be used or, if they dude not know that one of them had a knife but when it was used they continued their attack anyway. As the use of the knife when beyond the 'common plan' two of the murder convictions were quashed.

Front 34

What case concerns a knife being produced during an attack and shows how one can step 'outside the common plan' in terms of art and part liability.?

Back 34

Boyne v H.M. Advocate 1980

Front 35

What is the definition of an attempt?

Back 35

Where an accused has gone from preparation to perpetration.

Front 36

What is meant by an attempt being beyond recall?

Back 36

A person will be guilty of an attempt when its action is out of their control. i.e placing a bomb in a postbox.

Front 37

What is meant by the last act in terms of attempts?

Back 37

This is the idea that you should only be held guilty of an attempt once the last act is performed.

Front 38

How will the degree of when preparation becomes perpetration be decided?

Back 38

On a case to case analysis.

Front 39

What was held in H.M. Advocate v. Camerons(1911)

Back 39

The Camerons stated they had been robbed intending to commit an insurance fraud. They were caught before they had made a false claim. Neither the beyond recall, or the last act test would provide a conviction for an assault, however the jury still found that there was a degree of preparation which allowed them to be convicted.

Front 40

Which case shows that an accused may still be liable for an attempt even if the beyond recall and last act tests have not been shown positive.

Back 40

H.M. Advocate v. Camerons(1911)

Front 41

What was held in Docherty v. Brown 1996

Back 41

The accused was charged with possession of drugs with intent to supply. He had a quantity of tablets which he thought were ecstasy but were not. He was found guilty for the attempt, even though it was impossible as the intent was the same.

Front 42

What case concerns a man charged with intent to supply drugs which he thought were ecstasy but were not, and was convicted of an impossible attempt?

Back 42

Docherty v. Brown 1996

Front 43

What is the definition of conspiracy?

Back 43

anagreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or crimes, intending tocarry out that crime(s)

Front 44

What is the actus reus of conspiracy?

Back 44

an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or crimes

Front 45

'An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or crimes' is the actus reus of which crime?

Back 45

Conspiracy

Front 46

What is the mens rea of conspiracy?

Back 46

intending to carry out that crime(s)

Front 47

' intending to carry out that crime(s)' is the mens rea of which crime?

Back 47

Conspiracy.

Front 48

What is the difference between conspiracy and art and part liability?

Back 48

Conspiracy is a crime in its self, art and part is liability for a crime.

Front 49

What was held in West v. H.M. Advocate1985

Back 49

The accused were charged with conspiracy to attempt assault an robbery when found loitering suspiciously with weapons. They had made no attempt, but had agreed to the plan.

Front 50

Which case concerns accused being found loitering with weapons and being convicted of conspiracy to commit assault and robbery.

Back 50

West v. H.M. Advocate 1985

Front 51

What is the definition of incitement?

Back 51

invitinganother to enter a conspiracy or commit a crime, with the intention that theother will carry out that crime

Front 52

What is the actus reus of incitement?

Back 52

'inviting another to enter a conspiracy or commit a crime'

Front 53

For what crime is the actus reus 'inviting another to enter a conspiracy or commit a crime'

Back 53

Incitement

Front 54

What is the mens rea for incitement?

Back 54

'with the intention that the other will carry out that crime '

Front 55

For what crime is the mens rea 'with the intention that the other will carry out that crime '

Back 55

incitement.

Front 56

What was held in Baxter v. H.M. Advocate1997

Back 56

A dispute arose between tenants over refurbishment which the victim opposed. He later threatened the victim and met with an employee, asking how much it would cost for the employee to kill the victim. Though there were no solid plans, it was held it was enough that the invitation was serious and he was convicted.

Front 57

Which case concerns a dispute over refurbishment and an employee being asked to kill someone, and shows that while there need not be definite plans, a serious invitation is sufficient for incitement?

Back 57

Baxter v. H.M. Advocate1997