Mens rea, actus reus and causation

Question 1

Indirect intention can only be found when…

Answer 1

(1) The harm was a “virtual certainty” of D’s actions
(2) D knew this

Question 2

The two types of intention are…

Answer 2

(1) Direct and (2) indirect

Question 3

Case that sets out the test for indirect intention (a baby is thrown against a wall)

Answer 3

R v Woolin (1998)

Question 4

Recklessness means…

Answer 4

(1) D knew there was a risk
(2) D took the risk anyway

Question 5

Case that confirms that ‘recklessness’ is defined with a subjective, not an objective test (gas meter is torn from wall - D doesn’t realise there is a risk)

Answer 5

R v Cunningham (1957)

Question 6

Case that sets out the doctrine of transferred malice (man hits man with belt but strikes someone else)

Answer 6

Latimer (1886)

Question 7

Thabo Meli v R (1954)

Answer 7

Actus reus and mens rea can be combined through a connected sequence of acts (D thinks V is dead and pushes her off a cliff, although she was still alive and died later)

Question 8

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1986)

Answer 8

Actus reus and mens rea must be combined, but this can be through a continuing act

Question 9

“General malice” is…

Answer 9

… when a person means to do harm in general, but not to a specific person - e.g. a terrorist planting a bomb in a public place

Question 10

Three requirements for criminal liability:

Answer 10

(1) Actus reus (2) Mens rea (3) Causation

Question 11

A person can’t commit a criminal offence by NOT doing something (an omission), unless…

Answer 11

(1) They were under a legal duty to do it
(2) They had to do it for their job / position
(3) They had a relationship of care to the victim
(4) They had started a dangerous sequence of events and not stopped it

Question 12

R v Pittwood (1902)

Answer 12

A railway-crossing keeper fails to shut the gates, when it was his job to do so - a crash results, and his is liable through his omission

Question 13

R v Dytham (1979)

Answer 13

A policeman sees a man being kicked to death, but doesn’t intervene or get help. He can be liable through his omission, because it was his role to help

Question 14

R v Evans (2009)

Answer 14

V’s half-sister and mother fail to get help when she overdoses from heroin - They are liable through their omission to act because of their relationship of care

Question 15

R v Miller (1983)

Answer 15

D is liable for omitting to act when he has started a dangerous situation (man falls asleep while smoking, starting a fire - when he wakes up he does nothing to put it out)

Question 16

Case that sets out the test for factual causation in criminal law

Answer 16

R v White (1910) (man tries to poison his mother’s tea, but she dies before poison can take effect)

Question 17

The rule about injuries to people with particular vulnerabilities is…

Answer 17

The ‘thin skull rule’ - you take your victim as you find them

Question 18

Case showing that negligent medical treatment doesn’t break the chain of causation in criminal law, if D’s actions are still an “operating” and “substantial” cause of death

Answer 18

R v Smith (1956) (soldier stabs another - V is dropped by stretcher carriers on way to hospital, injuring him further - D is still liable)

Question 19

R v Cheshire (1991)

Answer 19

D is guilty of V’s murder when V dies due to a faulty operation, when V was only in hospital because D stabbed him

Question 20

Case where negligent hospital treatment did break the chain of causation

Answer 20

R v Jordan (1956) - D stabs V, and when in hospital doctors negligently give V antibiotics to which he is allergic

Question 21

R v Malcherek (1981)

Answer 21

Switching off a life support machine doesn’t break the chain of causation - D is still liable

Question 22

R v Roberts (1972)

Answer 22

Girl is injured jumping from car when D tries to sexually assault her - D is still liable, as her response to his actions was one D could have reasonably foreseen

Question 23

R v Marjoram (2000)

Answer 23

V’s action doesn’t break chain of causation when it is a response to D’s acts that D should reasonably have foreseen (V is injured jumping from hotel window when D comes to the door to threaten him)

Question 24

R v Williams and Davis (1992)

Answer 24

If a victim’s response to D’s actions is unreasonable, then this will break the chain of causation and D will not be liable (V jumps from car to escape theft of small change)

Question 25

A victim getting injured through doing something to evade D due to D’s actions will not break the chain of causation if…

Answer 25

…the victim’s response was reasonably foreseeable (R v Roberts, R v Marjoram)

Question 26

R v Blaue (1956)

Answer 26

V refuses treatment which would have saved her as she is a Jehovah’s Witness. D is still liable.