Law (Criminal Law)

Front 1

Actus Reus

Back 1

The physical element of the crime, the wrongful act, in certain circumstances a failure to act

Front 2

Omission

Back 2

Failure to act(will not carry criminal liability). The exception to this is when there is a duty to act.

Front 3

Duty to act

Back 3

There are 5 common law situations where there is a duty to act. (Contractual, relationship, voluntarily, official position, creation of danger)

Front 4

Duties/omissions

Back 4

1) a contractual duty (Pitwood)

2) a duty because of a relationship (Gibbins and Proctor)

3) a duty taken on voluntarily (Stone and Dobinson)

4) a duty through ones official position (Dytham)

5) a duty from the creation of danger (Miller)

Front 5

Coincidence of AR/MR

(Contemporaneity Rule)

Back 5

If the AR and MR do not coincide, then no crime has been committed.

Eg, intended to assault neighbour but do nothing = no crime.

Fagan- car on foot AR but no MR

Refusing to move MR formed

AR continued + MR = crime committed.

Front 6

Strict Liabiltiy

Back 6

Strict liability offences only require that D commits the actus reus, but no mens rea is needed.

R v Prince (irrelevant that he thought the girl he abducted was 18 not 13, as the court held it was strict liability and no mens rea was required).

Front 7

Advantages of Strict Liability

Back 7

Only minor offences - speeding, parking, minor motoring offences.

Important as protect society - promote careful behaviour.

No social stigma attached.

Easier to prove - save court time and money.

Front 8

Disadvantages of Strict Liability

Back 8

Unfair - R v Prince (abducting girl who he thought was 18 was 13).

Front 9

Causation

Back 9

What links D's actions to the resulting consequence

Front 10

Causation in fact

Back 10

"BUT FOR" test (but for D's actions would the resulting consequence occurred?)

E/G PAGETT, "but for" D using his pregnant girlfriend as a gun shield, she would not have died.

Front 11

Causation in Law

Back 11

Asks whether D's actions were the most significant cause of V's injury or was there an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation? (Jordan)

Front 12

Breaking the chain of causation (causation in law)

Back 12

The chain of causation can be broken by the acts of a third party (PAGETT); medical treatment (JORDAN); or V's own actions (ROBERTS).

Front 13

Thin Skull Rule

Back 13

"D must take their victim as they find them" a weakness in V's health will not break the chain (BLAUE)

Front 14

Mens Rea

Back 14

The mental element of the crime, the guilty mind. There are 2 levels of mens rea - Intention and Subjective Recklessness.

Front 15

Intention

Back 15

Can either be direct or oblique.

Direct intention is someone's main aim or purpose (Mohan).

Oblique intention is used when DI is not clear, where foresight of consequences are important. (Woolin, did D foresee the consequences as a virtual certainty?)

Front 16

Subjective Recklessness

Back 16

Taking an unjustified risk.

"Did D foresee the consequence as a virtual certainty" - Cunningham.

Front 17

Transferred Malice

Back 17

Principle of transferred malice applies to mens rea.

D's mens rea is transferred from their intended victim to their actual victim if the crime is similar(Latimer/Pembilton).