Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Criminal law > 6 week test revision > Flashcards

6 week test revision Flashcards

(92 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Define actus reus

A

an act omission or state of affairs that is the voluntary prohibited conduct together with any required consequences caused by the conduct of an offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Define mens rea

A

the mental element (guilty mind) or the fault element in an offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the standard of proof?

A

‘beyond reasonable doubt’/’sure’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Who has the burden of proof?

A

The prosecution has the burden of proof.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is a conduct crime?

A

A crime where it is not necessary for any consequence to be proved

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is a consequence crime?

A

The actus reus is only committed where there is also a particular prohibited consequence caused by the defendants conduct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is a state of affairs crime?

A

A state of affairs which the defendant is responsible for e.g. having a weapon in a public place or being in possession of drugs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is a case for voluntary nature of actus reus?

A

Hill v Baxter

R v Mitchell

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Hill v Baxter 1958

A

The court gave examples of where a driver of a vehicle could not be said to be doing the act of driving voluntarily. If they lost control of the vehicle because they were stung by a swarm of bees, or if they were struck on the head by a stone or had a heart attack.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Case for involuntariness (state of affairs)

A

R v Larsonneur

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

R v Larsonneur

A

The defendant had been ordered to leave the UK but was deported back by the Irish police. She was convicted regardless of being sent back against her will

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

‘Good Samaritan’ law

A

It makes a person responsible for helping other people in an ‘emergency situation’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Can omissions make a person guilty?

A

Usually no

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

When can a omissions make a person guilty?

A 
A statutory duty
A contractual duty
A duty because of a relationship
A duty which has been taken voluntarily
A duty through one's official position
A duty in a chain of events
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is an example of a statutory duty?

A

The Children and Young Persons Act 1993. This puts parents who are legally responsible for a child under a duty for providing food, clothing, medical aid and lodging for their children.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Case for a contractual duty

A

R v Pittwood, a railway keeper omitted to shut the gates resulting in a person crossing to get hit by a train. He was charged with manslaughter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Case for a duty because of a relationship

A

R v Gibbins and Proctor. Father and step mother deliberately let daughter starve. They were both convicted of murder.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Case for a voluntary duty

A

R v Stone and Dobinson. Stone’s elderly sister who lived with them became bedridden and couldn’t take care of herself. She died from malnutrition and they were convicted of manslaughter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Case for duty in an official position

A

R v Dytham. Police officer watched man kicked to death without interfering and left the scene. He was convicted of misconduct in a public office.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Case for duty in chain and events

A

R v Miller. D was a squatter who fell asleep with a cigarette in his hand. His mattress caught fire and he did not attempt to put it out and the rest of the house caught fire. He was convicted of arson.
DPP v Santa-Bermudez, D said he had nothing sharp in his pockets that could hurt the officer. A needle in his pocket caused the officer to bleed. He was convicted of ABH.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Issues with law on omissions

A

Whether there should be wider liability for omissions such as the Good Samaritan law
Problems of deciding when a duty should be imposed so that an omission is sufficient for the actus reus of the defence
Whether a person should be liable for failure to act when they assume a duty
Omissions in medical
The justification for statutory imposition of liability for an omission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Where a consequence must be proved, what does the prosecution need to show?

A

The defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence and it was the legal cause of that consequence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Factual causation test

A

the ‘but for’ test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Factual causation cases

A

R v Pagett
R v Hughes
R v White (opposite situation)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
R v Pagett
D used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield and she was shot by the police and died. D was convicted of manslaughter.
26
R v Hughes
D was driving fine but collided with an another driver who was on heroin killing V. D was uninsured and did not have a full licence. Conviction was quashed as although D was the cause this was not enough to be a legal effective cause as his driving was faultless.
27
R v White
D put cyanide in his mothers drink. She died of a heart attack unrelated. The defendant was not the factual cause of her death so he was guilty of attempted murder.
28
What is the test for legal causes?
Conduct must be more than a 'minimal' cause of the consequence. The defendants conduct need not be substantial.
29
Case for legal cause
R v Kimsey
30
R v Kimsey
D lost control of her car in a high-speed chase killing her friend. Evidence was unclear before D lost control. The judge said the driving did not have to be 'the principal, or a substantial cause of the death'. Cause must be 'more than a slight or trifling link'.
31
What is the think skull rule/ take your victim as you find them?
Defendant is responsible for more serious injury caused by pre-existing conditions.
32
Thin skull rule case
R v Blaue
33
R v Blaue
Young women refused a blood transplant after being stabbed as she was a Jehovah's witness. She died and was D was convicted of her manslaughter.
34
What is an intervening act?
When something else happens after the defendant's act or omission and, if this is sufficiently separate from the defendant's conduct, it may break the chain of causation.
35
What can the chain of causation be broken by?
An act of causation, the victims own act, a natural but unpredictable event.
36
Cases for medical treatment
R v Smith | R v Jordan
37
R v Smith
Two soldiers fought and one was stabbed in the lung. V was dropped on the way to the hospital and given artificial respiration that made it worse. D was still found guilty as the stab wound was a substantial cause.
38
R v Jordan
V had been stabbed in the stomach. His wounds were healing but died after he was given antibiotics he was allergic to. The doctors were held to be an intervening act and the defendant was not guilty.
39
Cases for intervening acts
R v Jordan R v Pagett R v Malcherek
40
Case for life support machines
R v Malcherek
41
R v Malcherek
D stabbed his wife in the stomach and she was put on life support. Doctors turning of life support does not break the chain of causation
42
Victims own act
If D causes V to react in a reasonably foreseeable way, then any injury to V will be considered to be caused by the D
43
Cases for victims own act
R v Robert
44
R v Roberts
V jumped from a car to escape D's sexual advances. Roberts was held to be liable for her injuries.
45
What are the levels of mens rea?
Intention (specific intent) Direct and Oblique intention Subjective recklessness
46
What is specific intent?
Most culpable. A decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power, no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not.
47
Mohan
Police man steps in road to stop D speeding. D slows down then speeds up again towards the police man causing the officer to jump out of the road.
48
Moloney
D shot step-father in 'quick on the draw' incident. | Foresight on consequences is not intention; it is evidence of intention
49
Hanock and Shankland
Miner dropped lumps of concrete onto road, killing taxi driving. The greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and if that consequence was foreseen, the greater the probability that the consequence was also intended.
50
Nedrick
Poured paraffin through letter box, causing fire in the house in which a child died. Jury not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty and that the defendant appreciated this.
51
Woollin
Threw baby at pram, causing death. The direction in Nedrick should not use the word 'infer'. Instead, the jury should be told they are entitled to find intention.
52
Re A
Doctors wanted to operate on conjoined twins, but knew this would cause one of them to die. Court thought Woollin made it law that foresight of consequences is intention.
53
Matthews and Alleyne
Threw V into river, where he drowned Woollin meant that foresight of consequences is not intention. It is a rule of evidence. If a jury decides that the defendant foresaw the virtual certainty of death or serious injury, then they are entitled to find intention but they do not have to do so.
54
Where have the courts struggled with the concept of intention with foresight?
Natural and probable consequence Difficulty for jurors in applying tests (after Hancock and Moloney) The change in Woollin from inferering intention to finding intention The fact that there are still two interpretations of the judgement in Woollin
55
Subjective recklessness (basic intent)
Lower level of mens rea. Where the defendant knows there is a risk of the consequence happening but takes that risk.
56
Case for subjective recklessness
Cunningham
57
Cunningham (1957)
D tore a gas meter from the wall to steal money. Gas harmed the women next door. It was held that he was not guilty since he did not realise the risk of gas escaping into the house next door and had not intended to cause harm.
58
Problems with subjective recklessness
There used to be two levels of recklessness: Subjective, where the defendant realised the risk, but decided to take it Objective, where an ordinary prudent person would have realised the risk, the defendant was guilty even if he had not realised it
59
Transferred malice
The defendant can be guilty if he has intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim.
60
Cases for transferred malice
Latmier | Gnango
61
Latmier (1886)
D tried to hit man who attacked him with a belt but it bouced of his face and hit a women. D was guilty of assault against the woman, although he had not meant to hit her.
62
Gnango (2011)
Gnango was in a soot out with another man. The other man killed a passerby. Gnango was tried and convicted of her murder. Because of Gnango's participation in attempted murder he was also guilty of the murder himself.
63
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
In order for an offence to take place, both the actus reus and mens rea must be present at the same time
64
Cases for coincidence of actus reus and men rea
Thabo Meli v R (1954) | Church (1965)
65
Thabo Meli v R (1954)
Ds attacked man and believed they had killed him. They then pushed his body off a cliff and he actually died of exposure. It was held that Ds were guilty of murder.
66
Church (1965)
D knocked a women out. He tried unsuccessfully to bring her back around. He thought she was dead and put her in a river but she drowned. He was convicted of manslaughter.
67
Continuing act
Where there is a continuing act for the actus reus and at some point while the act is still going the defendant has the necessary mens rea.
68
Case for continuing act
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1986)
69
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1986)
Fagan drove his car on to police officers foot with realising. It took several attempts of the police officer asking Fagan to remove his car. Fagan was convicted of assaulting an officer in the execution of his duty.
70
Types of common assault
Assault | Battery
71
Assault definition
An act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force, intentionally or recklessly.
72
Battery definition
The application of unlawful force to another person intentionally or recklessly
73
Actus reus of assault case
Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983)
74
Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983)
D looked through V's bedroom window late at night. | Fear of what D would do next was sufficient for the actus reus of assault
75
Actus reus of assault
An act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful violence.
76
Actus reus of battery cases
``` Collins v Wilcock (1984) Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008) Fagan v Metropolitan Police (1968) DPP v K (1990) DPP v Santa-Bermudez (2003) ```
77
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
A police officer held the arm of a suspected prostitute to stop her walking away, she scratched him. Court held officer had committed battery and she was entitled to free herself. Any touch may be battery and always is if there is self restraint.
78
Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008)
An officer took hold of W's arm to check their identity. This was a battery by the police and W entitled to struggle to himself.
79
Case for battery through an indirect act
DPP v K (1990)
80
DPP v K (1990)
D put acid in hand drier - the next person who used it was sprayed with acid. An indirect act can be the actus reus of a battery.
81
Case for battery through omissions
DPP v Santa-Bermudez (2003)
82
DPP v Santa- Bermudez (2003)
D failed to tell policewoman that he had a needle in his pocket and she was injured when she searched him. An omission is sufficient for the AR of battery
83
Case for mens rea of battery
DPP v Majewski
84
DPP v Majewski
D, who had taken drink and drugs, attacked the landlord of a pub and police officers. Getting drunk is a reckless course of conduct and is sufficient for the mens rea of battery.
85
ABH (s 47) definition
Assault or battery which causes actual bodily harm to V and D intends or is subjectively reckless to whether the victim fears unlawful force or is actually subjected to unlawful force.
86
Actus reus of ABH
Assault or battery occasioning actual bodily harm
87
Cases for actus reus of ABH
T v DPP (2003) | DPP v Smith (2006
88
T v DPP (2003)
D and a group of youths chased V. V fell to the ground covering his head and he was kicked. He momentarily lost consciousness. Loss of consciousness was held to be ABH.
89
DPP V Smith (2006)
D cut his girlfriends ponytail off. | Court held physical pain was not necessary for ABH.
90
Consequence required for ABH
Bruisin, scratches, grazes Loss of consciousness (R v DPP) Psychiatric harm (Chan fook)
91
Mens rea of ABH
Intention or subjective recklessness as to causing fear of unlawful violence or of applying unlawful force
92
Cases for mens rea of ABH
R v Roberts (1971) | R v Savage (1991)

Criminal law (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions