3 - General elements of liability

Question 1

Actus reus

Answer 1

Physcial element of the crime -
* An voluntary act, or
* Failure to act (an omission)
* A state of affairs (very rare)

Question 2

A voluntary act

Answer 2

The act must be voluntary- must mean to do the act (or failure to act)

Question 3

Hill v baxter

Answer 3

Stung by bees while driving, didnt mean to cause harm and did so unvoluntraily

Question 4

State of affairs

Answer 4

Can commit a crime without doing - for example having a weapon in a public place

Question 5

Larsonneur 1933 –

Answer 5

had been ordered to leave the UK so went to Ireland where the Irish Police put her back on the plane to Uk. She did not want to go back to the UK but she was still charged

State of affairs case

Question 6

Failure to act

Answer 6

an ommision usually doesnt make a person liable, no actus reus

Question 7

6 Circumstances where a duty is created and an Omission can form actus reus

Answer 7

1. statutory duty to act (stop at a road collision)
2. contractual duty
3. a duty via relationship
4. a duty undertaken voluntarily
5. a duty through ones official position
6. A duty which arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain of dangerous events

Question 8

Gibbons v proctor 1918

Answer 8

Father and his mistress failed to feed the child and it died of starvation

owed a duty of care as her dad

Question 9

Miller 1983

Answer 9

Squatter accidently started a fire. When he realised he went to sleep in another room

started the chain of events

Question 10

What must be proven to make a D liable

Answer 10

prove mens rea, actus rea and causation

Question 11

Causation

Answer 11

Causation is the link between the D’s actions and the consequence
must prove factual and legal causation/ no intervening act

Question 12

Factual causation

Answer 12

would not have happened “ but for” the defendants conduct

Question 13

Legal causation

Answer 13

more than a “minimal cause” but it need not be a substantial cause

Question 14

Pagett 1983

Answer 14

– the defendant uses his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at the police. The police fired back and killed the girlfriend. She would not have died “but for” the defendants actions

Factual causation

Question 15

Think skull rule

Answer 15

Take the V as you see them

Question 16

Blaue 1975

Answer 16

women was stabbed by the defendant and needed a blood transfusion. She was a Jehovah witness so refused and died. The defendant was guilty because he had to take the victim as he found them.

Thin skull rule

Question 17

Intervening act

Answer 17

Although you may have proven factual and legal causation there maybe no liability if the chain is broken by an intervening act

Question 18

Types of intervening act

Answer 18

1) Act of a 3 party
2) Victims own act
3) Natural but unpredictable event – storm, earthquake, flooding etc

Question 19

Medical intervention

Answer 19

Normally medical treatment will not break the chain unless “extraordinary”

Question 20

Jordan 1956

Answer 20

Stabbed in the stomach but was healing well in hospital. Victim died from an allergic reaction to antibiotics. The allergy was initially spotted but then another doctor ordered a larger dose. This was deemed to be an intervening act and the defendant was not guilty

Was an intervening act

Question 21

Victims own acts

Answer 21

If the defendant causes the victim to act in a foreseeable way then they will be liable for the consequence
if the victim acts in an unreasonable way then it will break the chain of causation and the defendant won’t be liable

Question 22

robert 1971

Answer 22

v jumped from the car as the d assaulted her
d liable as she stated reasonably in trying to escape him

Victims own acts

Question 23

Natural but unpredictable event

Answer 23

storms, erathquakes ect can break the chain of causation

Question 24

Mens rea

Answer 24

The mental element of a crime

Question 25

direct intent

Answer 25

there was aim and purpose to bring about the consoquence

Question 26

oblique intent

Answer 26

2 parts: 1) the prohibited consequences are a virtual certainty 2) the D realises this

Question 27

Recklessness

Answer 27

The defendant must either intend the consequence or realise that there was a risk of the consequence happening and decide to take the risk anyway. Lower level of mens rea than intention

Question 28

Cunningham 1957 –

Answer 28

the defendant tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty house to steal the money. This caused gas to seep into the house next door and injure her. He was held to be not guilty as he did not realise the risk of gas escaping nor had he intended to cause harm | recklessness

Question 29

Woolin 1998 –

Answer 29

Threw his 3 month year old baby towards a pram 3 or 4 feet away and the baby hit the wall and died. The consequence must be a virtual certainty and the Defendant must realise this | oblique intent

Question 30

Negligence

Answer 30

failure to meet the standards of a reasonable person, raely sufficient for mens rea

Question 31

transfered malice

Answer 31

If the defendant intends to commit a similar crime but against a different victim

Question 32

Gnango 2011

Answer 32

in a shootout but shot the wrong person, still liable | Transfered malice

Question 33

Pemblinton 1874

Answer 33

mens rea can only be trasnfered between actus reus that is the same, not onto objects. rock hit a window not a person

Question 34

general malice

Answer 34

Where the defendant may not have a specific victim in mind – eg. A terrorist

Question 35

strict liability

Answer 35

only exception to the rule that there must be mens rea and actus reus Strict Liability is where you are guilty if you have the actus reus There is no need to prove the mens rea

Question 36

coincidence rule

Answer 36

Both actus reus and mens rea has to be evident at the same time for there to be liability

Question 37

continuing act

Answer 37

exception to the coincidence rule

Question 38

Church 1965 –

Answer 38

After a fight he threw her in the river thinking she was dead. However she actually drowned

Question 39

Justirication of stirct liability

Answer 39

Helps protect society Promotes greater care over matters of public safety Encourages higher standards eg. Food hygiene Easier to enforce as no need to prove mens rea Saves time as generally people plead guilty

Question 40

Arguments against strict liability

Answer 40

Makes people who are not blameworthy guilty – Shah - even when they take every reasonable precaution

Question 41

Presumption of mens rea

Answer 41

Problems occur when Act of Parliament aren’t clear if it is a strict liability offence The judges will presume that all criminal cases require mens rea The only situation where there presumption is changes is where the statute involves an issue of social concern. This generally occurs in offences which are regulatory in nature and therefore not truly criminal

Question 42

Creation of stirct liability

Answer 42

most are laid out in statute but some are in common law such as public nuisance

Question 43

Absolute liability

Answer 43

no mens rea required at all