2) Key elements of criminal liability Flashcards

Question

The actus reus of result crimes

Answer 1

Result Crime Factual Causation Legal Causation

Answer 2

The jury must be satisfied that the acts or ommissions of the accused were in fact the cause of the relevant consequence.

Answer 3

Must be established that the acts or omissions of the accused were a legal cause of that consequence.

Answer 4

"unlawful killing of a human being under the King's Peace"

Answer 5

Yes - requires killing.

Answer 6

The "but for" test, the acts or ommissions of the accused would not have occurred in the way that it did. **R v White**

Answer 7

The "but for" test * W put poison into a drink intending to kill his mother. * She was found dead * Not clear she had drunk any liquid. * Medical evidence showed heart failure rather than poisoning.

Answer 8

Acquitted of murder as **no causal link** between the consequence and his act. Was guilty of attempted murder

Answer 9

* Meningitis was not curable * Child had meningitis * Threw child down the stairs

Answer 10

**Any action which accelerates death is a cause**

Answer 11

Will require the **defendant is the "operating and substantial" cause** if the prohibited consequence. **R v Pagett**

Answer 12

Defendant is the **"operating and substantial"** cause of the prohibited consequence **R v Pagett**

Answer 13

* "Substantial" cause - **R v Hughes** * Consequence must be caused by the defendants culpable act **R v Dalloway** * Defendant's act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence **R v Benge**

Answer 14

Defendant act must be the substantial cause of the prohibited harm

Answer 15

Consequence must be caused by the defendant's culpable act

Answer 16

Defendant's act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequences of

Answer 17

Must be a "substantial cause" "Where there are multiple legally effective causes.... suffices that it is a significant or substantial.....**not de minimis"**

Answer 18

* Defendant driving horse and court without holding rails. * Child run over. * Even if holding reins ....could not have stopped

Answer 19

* Dalloway had not been driving the cart, child would not have been killed * Needed to show the death was **due to culpable elements in his act.** * Not guilty

Answer 20

Foreman of some railway tracklayers Thought train wasnt due for a few hours. Sent a man down the track with red flag. Did not go correct distance - crashed.

Answer 21

Defendant's negligence = mainly or substantially caused accident Irrelevant that it might have been avoided if others had not been negligent

Answer 22

A subsequent event or act of either the victim or a third party which renders the defendant's part in the consequence very small, breaking the chain of causation and meaning that the defendant is not criminally liable.

Answer 23

Medical negligence Acts of a third party Acts of the victim Thin skull rule natural events

Answer 24

R v Smith R v Cheshire So overwhelming to make the original wound merely part of the history = independent **Very rare = no case example**

Answer 25

* Stabbed victim in barracks * Soldior dropped twice. * Medical negligence. * DIed

Answer 26

Convicted of murder Smith's actions - substantial and operating cause. Medical negligence was not a sufficient cause to sever chain.

Answer 27

Shot victim twice. Respiratory problems during surgery. Scar tissue over tracheotomy. Dismissed by medics as anxiety. Original wound had healed at time of death.

Answer 28

CoA held that poor medical treatment did not break chain of causation

Answer 29

R v Pagett

Answer 30

* Pregnant girlfriend as shield * Killed in return fire * Police acted in self defene / performance of their dutied

Answer 31

Pagett convicted May only be a break in the chain of causation if actions of third party were **free, deliberate and informed**

Answer 32

* Fright and flight * Refusing medical treatment * suicide

Answer 33

* Whether the escape was forseeable by the reasonable person * If not, defendant is entitled to an acquittal. * No longer deemed to be legal cause

Answer 34

R v Roberts R v Williams & Davis

Answer 35

Victim was a passenger in Roberts car Terrified of unwanted sexual advances. Jumped from moving car

Answer 36

Roberts was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm Natural result of something the assailant did or said. Not so "daft" or unexpected... that no reasonable man could forsee.

Answer 37

Appellants gave a lift to a hitchiker and tried to rob the hitchiker. Victim jumped from moving car.

Answer 38

Appellants were convicted of manslaugter.

Answer 39

Must be **proportionality** between gravity of threat and the action of the deceased toa escape from it.

Answer 40

1) Reasonably forseeable that some harm, albeit not serious harm, was likely to result from the threat. 2) Whether deceased reaction was within the range of responses which might be reasonably expected from a victim. Bearing in mind any agony or act without deliberation.

Answer 41

R v Blaue R v Holland R v Dear

Answer 42

Woman stabbed and pierced lung. Refused blood transfusion for religious reasons - died.

Answer 43

Argument was rejected - defendants must take vicitms as they find them **whole person = body and mind**

Answer 44

Deceased was attacked by Holland and suffered number of wounds = severely cut finger. Neede amputating, refused. Died of tetanus.

Answer 45

No defence Did not matter that wound was not instantly mortal, or whether it later became so.

Answer 46

12 year old daughter sexually assaulted. Appellant slashed victim. Wounds opened up and died. Argued that had died by suicide or wounds opened up naturally.

Answer 47

Were the injuries by the defendant **an operating and significant cause of death**.

Answer 48

R v Wallace

Answer 49

* Defendant through acid over ex boyfriend, paralysed and in constant pain. * Euthanasia by doctors. * Judge withdrew murder - as victims choice to die was free, informed and broke chain of causation

Answer 50

CoA held it was open to find that this death was not voluntary. 1) Unlawful act = significant and operating cause of death. 2) Reasonably forseeable victim would die by suicide as a result?

Answer 51

- Injuries inflicted by defendant had healed. (distinguishin R v Dear) - Voluntary and informed decision of the victim to act (R v Kennedy)

Answer 52

Heroin overdose Person who supplies a drug has not caused that drug to be administered | Suicide - NAI

Answer 53

Person who inflicts harm on another cannot escape liability if the victim suffers greater harm than would have been expected as a result of a pre -existing condition. **Take the vicitm as they find them**

Answer 54

Threatened wife and chased her. Wife died from thyroid condition, meaning fear and phys exertion lead to death.

Answer 55

Hayward caused her death because he had to take her condition as he found it.

Answer 56

They are extraordinary They are not reasonably forseeable.

Answer 57

Use of common sense when deciding which test to use.

Answer 58

Yes **R v Jordan**

Answer 59

Defendant cannot be criminally liable for a failure to act, as there is no general duty to act to prevent harm - **R v Smith (William)**

Answer 60

1) Crime was capable of being committed by an omission. 2) Accused was under a legal duty to act 3) Breached that duty 4) Breach = actus reus 5) Mens rea if offence requries

Answer 61

* Statute * Special relationship * Voluntary assumption * Contract * Defendant creating a dangerous situation * Public offence.

Answer 62

Under statute many offences can be caused by omission. eg offence to fail to provide a speciment of breath (RTA s6(4))

Answer 63

Doctors and patients, parents and children, spouses **R v Hood**

Answer 64

Liable for manslaughter when wife died from broken bones, and he failed to summon assistance. Liability stemmed from relationship on the basis of marriage.

Answer 65

Gibbons lived with cirlfriend, together with child and girlfriends children from prior relations. Gibbons gave money for food. Girlfriend starved boyfriends child to death.

Answer 66

Lived in same house, must have been aware of condition. Gibbons convicted of murder.

Answer 67

Certain to die due to absence of procedure. Parents would not give consent. Parents had a legal duty and may be guilty of killing her under Gibbons and Proctor

Answer 68

Not generally under a duty to care for another in distress. But if voluntarily assume duty - will be liable if fail to carry out that duty.

Answer 69

If a person chooses to undertake care for a helpless person, they are bound to execute that responsibility. Will be guilty of manslaughter if die by gross negligence.

Answer 70

As de facto wife, she was looking after the house and children = voluntary assumption convicted of murder

Answer 71

Instan lived with her aunt who was 73 years old Gave money to provide them both with food. Gangrene in leg Used money for her own food, did not five medical assistance or food. Aunt died = manslaughter

Answer 72

Low intelligence. Looked after anorexic sister. Gave up trying to make her eat, confined to bed and died. Convicted of manslaughter - had assumed responsibility.

Answer 73

Taking drugs, became unconscious. Telephoned mother the next day. Left him on door stop, died. Was a friend, had attempted to revive him. = Assumed duty.

Answer 74

A duty can be owed by the defendant either to the party with whom the defendant is contracted or to a third party **R v Pittwood**

Answer 75

Level crossing gatekeeper. Failed to close gate, man killed. = actus reus of manslaughter by omission, as was under a contractual duty to close gate.

Answer 76

Duty to take reasonable steps to counteract the dangerous situation created. Reasonable steps only.

Answer 77

Squatter fell asleep with a lighted cigarette. Moved rooms to sleep in another. Convicted of arson under CDA 1971 Inaction or omission to prevent further damage - actus reus of criminal damage.

Answer 78

Sister and mother drug addicts. Daughter took heroin and OD'd. They didnt do anything. She died = gross negligence. Mother owed familial duty. Sister created a dangerous situation and did not remedy it.

Answer 79

No, adult siblings are not regarded as the constructive guardian of younger siblings.

Answer 80

She helped create a dangerous situation by supplying deadly drugs, she was aware that her sister had ODd and did nothing.

Answer 81

R v Dytham

Answer 82

Police constable on duty, saw a man being kicked badly. Later died. Did not attempt to stop the disturbance and drove off. **Guilty of willfully neglecting to preform his duty**

Answer 83

If the defendant had acted, they could have made a causal difference

Answer 84

Guilty mind - meaning that in law the defendant has the required mental element for the crime.

Answer 85

The state of mind that the prosecution must prove will vary from crime to crime.

Answer 86

Intention Recklessness Knowledge and belief Dishonesty Negligence

Answer 87

Some offences require that the defendent **intended a certain result** eg murder.

Answer 88

Defendent must **intend to kill the victim** or to cause serious harm **R v Vickers**

Answer 89

1) Direct intention - the aim or purpose **(R v Moloney)** 2) Indirect / oblique intention - rare but where defendent does something **manifestly dangerous** then someone dies, although not the primary aim.

Answer 90

Rare but where defendent does something **manifestly dangerous** then someone dies, although not the primary aim.

Answer 91

Unjustifiable risk, aware of the danger that the prohinited harm may occur upon taking that risk.

Answer 92

Actus reus committed intentionally or in the alternative recklessly such as the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Answer 93

Defendant who is absolutely certain as to the existence of a circumstance, or is possibly aware eg handling stolen goods **Theft Act 1968**

Answer 94

eg required for most offences under the Theft Act 1968 - must also be found to have been dishonest.... not defined in the act but a test was set out in **Ivey v Genting Casinos**

Answer 95

Falls below the standard of the reasonable person. Some criminal offences have negligence as an element of mens rea - but **must be gross**

Answer 96

Distinction between gross negligence and civil negligence "Disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state"

Answer 97

* Some opinion that negligence should not feature at all. * As involves judging a person against a hypothetical person **rather than their own state of mind**

Answer 98

When a person does not intend to cause a harmful result. Sees a risk of harm and goes ahead anyway. Risk taking must be unjustifiable.

Answer 99

Yes but not criminally so as if it is **justifiable** Will be balanced against the degree of harm... only if a **very high degree of probability** of grave harm outweighs social utility will it be condemned as reckless.

Answer 100

R v G and another

Answer 101

Circumstance / result 1) aware of a risk exists or will exist (**foresore risk**) 2) in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.

Answer 102

Risk must have been objectively unreasonable, but under consideration and seen. **Jury should not consider factors not known to the defendant at the time**

Answer 103

1) Direct intention 2) Oblique intention

Answer 104

Consequence is what the defendant aims to happen. **Subjective test from the defendant's point of view**

Answer 105

R v Moloney

Answer 106

Intention should be given **its ordinary meaning**... leave it to the jury's good sense. Differs from desire and motive.

Answer 107

Rare cases Act that is manifestly dangerous, and someone dies as a result, but the primary desire or motive may not have been to harm that person.

Answer 108

Consequence is not the defendant's purpose.... but a side effect that is an inevitable accompaniment to defendant's direct intention.

Answer 109

R v Woolin

Answer 110

Jury to **feel sure that the death or serious bodily ha was a virtual certainty** as a result of the defendant's action And the defendant **appreciated** that this was the case.

Answer 111

Case law suggest so... R v Moloney = state of mind could only be evidence of intentin

Answer 112

Foresight of virtual certainty was only evidence of intention.

Answer 113

The proposition that foresight of virtual certainty can be evidence of intention, without being intention.

Answer 114

Rarely When facts require it, intention is only form of mens rea for the offence.

Answer 115

* More likely to be successful if involuntarily intoxicated.

Answer 116

With involuntary intoxication, court will ask did the defendant form the mens rea even though intoxicated.

Answer 117

If they would have forsaw the risk of harm sober **Coley, McGhee and Harris**

Answer 118

Availability depends on the seriousness of the offence.

Answer 119

If offence is assault or battery, defence of consent is available if the victim consented, or defendant honestly believed they were consenting.

Answer 120

If D intended to cause the offence of actual bodily harm or above, consent is not available **unless some public interest exceptions apply**

Answer 121

* Medical treatment * Sport * Horseplay * Tattooing / piercing * Sexual gratification * Accidental infliction

Answer 122

Cane be used in protection of yourself, another or property. WIll be acquitted if successful.

Answer 123

If defendant honestly believed the use of force was necessary. Level of force the defendant used in response was **objectively reasonable** given all the circumstances.

Answer 124

Mistake of fact or civil law that means mens rea not fulfilled.

Answer 125

These are distinct Having a motive does not mean you intend to kill.

Answer 126

Demonstration against nuclear weapons - non violent immobilisation of RAF aircraft. Charged with conspiracy to commit breach to the **Official Secrets Act 1911**

Answer 127

Two purposes 1) immobilise aircraft 2) influence abandonment of nuclear weapons If guilty of immediate purpose then guilty regardless of longer term benefits.

Answer 128

Motive can be used as evidence of intention

Answer 129

* Coincidence of AR and MR * Transferred malice * Mistake

Answer 130

Generally AR and MR must occur at the same time

Answer 131

* Continuing act theory * One transaction principle

Answer 132

If they form the mens rea at some point during the actus reus occurring, then can be found guilty **Fagan**

Answer 133

Policemans foot Accident But then refused to move - became mens rea Battery continued while the care at rest over the foot.

Answer 134

Courts will sometimes categorise the actions of the accused as a series of acts making up one transaction Enough for the defendant to have mens rea **at somepoint** during the transaction **Thabo Meli**

Answer 135

Clonked defendant over the head. Thinking they killed him, dumped body over cliff. Then died. Mens rea at point of hitting over head, not at dumping of body - but all one transaction

Answer 136

To cover cases where there has been no prior planning. **Le Brun**

Answer 137

Assaulted wife and hit her jaw, dragged her body home. Accidently dropped her and fractured skull. Shd died. **Transaction continued so long as the defendant was trying to cover up the crime he believed he had committed**

Answer 138

Then the defendant must have the mens rea for the relevant crime when does each of the acts constitute the actus reus. **AG's Refs**

Answer 139

Unclear whether victim died from strangulation or stabbing.... unecessary to prove.

Answer 140

When defendants' mens rea is transferred from the intended harm to the actual harm. ie doesnt matter who you end up killing, if you meant to kill someone.

Answer 141

R v Latimer R v Mitchell

Answer 142

Hit the wrong person with a belt. Intention to injure the other person could be transferred. Convucted.

Answer 143

Transferred malice applied to manslaughter. Causing the wrong person to fall to their death.

Answer 144

R v Pembilton * Threw stone at crowd of people - broke glass instead. * Quashed conviction for criminal damage as different mens rea.

Answer 145

Not possible to mix and match the mens rea of different crimes

Answer 146

1) Ignorance of the law 2) Mistakes that negate the mens rea

Answer 147

Defendant does not know - will not escape liability **R v Bailey**

2) Key elements of criminal liability Flashcards

(177 cards)