General Elements to Criminal Liability

Question 1

Actus Reus

Answer 1

• Physical element of a crime
• Can be:
  > A voluntary act
  > An omission
  > A state of affairs

Question 2

Omissions

Answer 2

• A failure to act
• Normally can’t make someone guilty
• Are 6 exceptions, where omissions can form actus reus

Question 3

What are the 6 omissions that can form actus reus?

Answer 3

1. Government statutes
2. Contractual duty
3. A duty because of a relationship
4. A duty taken on voluntarily
5. A duty through official position
6. A duty which arises because D set in motion a chain of dangerous events

Question 4

A voluntary act

Answer 4

• Can be an act or omission
• If D has no control, then no actus reus
• Hill v Baxter 1958 = not a voluntary act

Question 5

State of affairs

Answer 5

• D found guilty, even though they acted involuntarily
• Is a type of strict liability

Question 6

What is causation?

Answer 6

• Prosecution must prove actus reus & mens rea
• Is the link between D’s actions and the consequence
• Has 3 elements (must prove all)
  > Factual causation
  > Legal causation
  > No intervening act that broke chain of
  causation

Question 7

Factual Causation

Answer 7

• D guilty if event wouldn’t have happened ‘BUT FOR’ D’s actions
• Pagett 1983 = D uses pregnant girlfriend to shield shot from police. She died. V wouldn’t have died ‘BUT FOR’ D’s actions

Question 8

Legal Causation

Answer 8

• D’s actions were ‘MORE THAN A MINIMAL CAUSE’
• Need not be a substantial cause
• Take V as you find them - Thin Skull Rule
• R v Blaue 1975 = Woman stabbed. Couldn’t have blood transfusion due to religion. She died. D guilty because of thin skull rule

Question 9

Chain of Causation

Answer 9

• Must be direct link between D’s actions and consequence
• May be no liability if the chain is broken by an intervening act

Question 10

What are the 3 Intervening Acts

Answer 10

• Act of 3rd party
• Victims own act
• Natural but unpredictable event

Question 11

Act of 3rd Party - Intervening Act

Answer 11

• E.g. A car accident on the way to the hospital
• Medical treatment doesn’t break chain of causation unless ‘‘extraordinary’’

Question 12

Victims Own Act - Intervening Act

Answer 12

• If V acts unreasonably then it will break chain of causation and D won’t be liable
• If D causes V to act in a foreseeable way then D will be liable for consequences
• Williams 1992 = Jumped from car as D tried to steal wallet. C died. Held that C’s actions were unreasonable so D was not guilty

Question 13

Mens Rea

Answer 13

• Mental element of a crime
• Do not need mens rea for strict liability cases
• 2 main type
  > Basic intention = recklessness
  > Specific intention = intention

Question 14

Intention - Mens Rea

Answer 14

• Mohan 1975 = ‘the decision to bring out the prohibited consequence’
• Motive is irrelevant

Question 15

Oblique Intention

Answer 15

• When D’s main aim is not actually what happened, but another crime happened instead
• D must know consequence was a virtual certainty

Question 16

Recklessness

Answer 16

• D must either intend the consequence or realise there was a risk of it happening and took the risk anyway
• Cunningham 1957 = Gas seeped into house next door as D tore gas meter from wall. Neighbour injured. D not guilty as didn’t realise risk of gas escaping

Question 17

Transferred Malice

Answer 17

• D intends to commit similar crime but against another V
• Mens rea cannot be transferred
• Offence MUST BE OF SAME KIND
• Latimer 1886 = D intends to him man, but hits woman instead. D still liable

Question 18

General Malice

Answer 18

• No intended victim
• Mens rea applies to anyone injured
• E.g. A terrorist attack

Question 19

Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea

Answer 19

• Both must be evident at the same time
• Exception is a CONTINUING ACT

Question 20

Continuing Act

Answer 20

• E.g. Thabo-Meli v R 1954 = D hit V over head. D thought V was dead. D threw body off cliff. This was actual cause of death. No mens reas as thought V was already dead. So no continuing act

Question 21

Strict Liability

Answer 21

• Only actus reus needed to be proven
• No need for mens rea

Question 22

Presumption of Mens Rea

Answer 22

• If unclear if offence is strict liability or not then judges presume all cases require mens rea
• This presumption only changes when it involves an issue of social concern
• E.g. Selling alcohol to minors, gambling