Chapter 1- Principles Of Criminal Liability

Question 1

Who enforced criminal law

Answer 1

Criminal law is enforced by the state and most prosecutions are undertaken in the name of the crown

Question 2

Basic aims of sentencing

Answer 2

Punishment 
Deterrence
Protecting the public 
Reparation 
Rehabilitation

Question 3

Three elements of criminal liability

Answer 3

Actus Reus- guilty act
Mens Rea- guilty mind
Absence of any defence

Question 4

To prove guilty of an offence ..

Answer 4

To be guilty of an offence D must have committed all elements of Actus reus as well as having the relevant men’s rea

Question 5

Three elements to actus reus

Answer 5

Conduct
Circumstances
Consequences

Question 6

Define acts & omissions

Answer 6

Act- D doing something

Omission-D failing to do something (fail to stop/withholding information)

Question 7

Two ways liability for omission can arise

Answer 7

1- the definition of the crime is written in such a way it makes sense to say an omission will suffice (destroy or damage property for failing to put out a fire)

2- D has a duty to do a positive act and failed to do it

Question 8

Types of duty

Answer 8

1- special relationship (parent/family)
2- D has contractual duty (employee under contract)
3- voluntary assumption of D responsibility(voluntarily placed themselves in a dutiful position)
4- deliberate or accidental creation of a dangerous situation by D
6- pUblic office (police failing to act)

Question 9

Vountariness

Answer 9

No criminal liability where the D conduct was involuntary - no proof required unless D conduct was voluntary

Question 10

4 things prosecution must prove against D

Answer 10

Their actions were voluntary
The circumstances of the offence
That the D caused consequences of the offence (attacking victim etc)
Causation between D conduct and the consequence

Question 11

Prosecution to prove break in chain of causation?

Answer 11

P to prove that Ds conduct caused a consequence

• cause in fact of the consequence (but for)
• cause in law of the consequence (significant contribution to V injury or damage)

Question 12

Test for factual causation

Answer 12

White 1910- but for test

Question 13

Points causation in law

Answer 13

1- D conduct must be more than a trivial cause of the consequence in questions
2- D conduct need not be the sole cause
3- Case of death or less If injuries inflicted by D make a significant contribution towards the consequence then D causes that consequence no matter what had happened after D inflicted injury
4- Alleged intervening events were they reasonably foreseeable consequence of D conduct - Padgett

Question 14

Examples of break in causation

Answer 14

Refusal of medical treatment or aggravated injury - Blaue

Especially susceptible victim- Thin skull rule Blaue confirmed ‘whole v as a person’ including religious belief to take victim as you find them.

Injuries resulting from V attempted escape- Majoram ‘reasonably foreseeability what would a reasonable person in D position have foreseen?’

Negligent / poor medical treatment- Cheshire states poor medical treatment would be break in causation if it in itself was the sole cause of death.

Question 15

Drug difficulties causation

Answer 15

If D self injects V then V dies D will be liable. Cato

If D gives drug to V and V self administered it
Dalby case failed to convict D of offence

Kennedy confirmed Free and voluntary act by the V will always break causation.

Question 16

Common types of Mens Rea

Answer 16

Intention

Recklessness

Question 17

Two definitions of intention

Answer 17

Direct intention- V death aim or purpose (Moloney)

Indirect / Oblique intention - V death is not D aim or purpose but certain to occur if D achieves their primary aim or purpose (Nedrick)

Question 18

Two types of unjustified risks for recklessness

Answer 18

Objective recklessness- obvious risk (criminal damage only)
Subjective recklessness - D believed unjustified (G and another)

NB 2003 recklessness now only subjective

Question 19

House of Lords recklessness definition

Answer 19

Recklessness involves the conciliatory taking of an unjustified risk. D will have given thought to and will have recognised the risk but will have still proceeded.

Question 20

Can transferred malice apply

Answer 20

Yes providing mens rea can be transferred to the victim - D meant to hurt X but accidentally hurt V. D intent tk hurt X is enough to find D guilty

LATIMER

Question 21

Can transferred malice apply to recklessness

Answer 21

Yes, providing actus Reus is the same crime. case or MITCHELL two old people in queue at post office

Question 22

Does actus and mens need to coincide

Answer 22

Yes, mens does not need to be at the same time. It can come later if the crime continues (FAGAN accidentally drove over police foot but remained on the foot when realised what he did)

Question 23

What is a strict liability offence

Answer 23

An offence which is general public concern and doesn’t require mens rea

It’s statutory and will not have the words intentionally or knowingly in the stat as mens rea needs to be proven in those instances

Question 24

Strict liability offence 2 examples

Answer 24

Damage to environment/ pollution
Adulterating food or drink
Selling food unfit for human consumption
Road traffic offences such as speeding
Breach health and safety regs
Breach planning and building construction requirements
Misdescribing quality and price of goods

Question 25

Privy counsel guidelines to establish if an offence is strict liability

Answer 25

• severity of punishment (lower is likely to be strict)
• if an offence applies only to specific members of the public or activity (will be strict lib)
• of an offence deals with issues of social concern or public safety (will be strict lib)
• court will consider if offence is strict lib whether it will promoter greater vigilance to prevent offence being committed

Question 26

Justification for strict lib offences

Answer 26

• people comply with rules so makes it easier to abide by
• minor nature of strict libs means little stigma is attached to the offence
• proving fault would be difficult and take up a lot of the court time
• disproportionate time and effort would be necessary to establish D possessed mens rea

Question 27

Imposing arguments for strict Lib

Answer 27

Parliament doesn’t make it clear

Corporations often at fault and the strict lib doesn’t act as a deterrent

Mens rea makes D blameworthy. Uncomfort comes from D being ‘non fault’ of the crime