Ar

Question 1

What are the two elements of a crime?

Answer 1

Actus Reus (AR) and Mens Rea (MR)

Actus Reus refers to the ‘guilty act,’ while Mens Rea refers to the ‘guilty mind.’

Question 2

Define Actus Reus (AR).

Answer 2

Description of the specific, physical act that constitutes the offence

Question 3

Define Mens Rea (MR).

Answer 3

Description of the mental state that is required for D to be guilty of the offence

Question 4

What must the prosecution prove in a theft case?

Answer 4

• The defendant committed the actus reus of theft
• The defendant had the mens rea of theft
• The defendant had no defence in law

Question 5

What are the five elements of theft as per Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 5

• Dishonestly
• Appropriates
• Property
• Belonging to another
• With the intention of permanently depriving

Question 6

What are the three elements that can break down a criminal offence?

Answer 6

• Conduct
• Circumstance
• Result

Question 7

What is the conduct element in a criminal offence?

Answer 7

D’s acts or omissions

Question 8

What does the circumstance element refer to?

Answer 8

Required facts outside of D’s conduct

Question 9

What is the result element in a criminal offence?

Answer 9

Required outcomes or events that D must cause in order to be liable

Question 10

True or False: Not all offences require a particular result.

Answer 10

True

Question 11

What is the principle regarding the duty to act in criminal law?

Answer 11

There is no general duty to act in criminal law

Question 12

What are the five situations where a duty to act has been identified?

Answer 12

• Due to the specifics of an offence
• Under contract
• Familial or special relationship
• Assumption of care
• Creation of danger

Question 13

What is required for liability for an omission?

Answer 13

• Offence capable of being committed via omission
• A legally recognized duty to act
• A breach of that duty

Question 14

In which case was a police officer found guilty of misconduct for failing to act?

Answer 14

R v Dytham [1979] 3 All ER 641

Question 15

What is the significance of the case R v Pittwood [1902]?

Answer 15

Established a contractual duty to act

Question 16

What does the term ‘state of affairs’ refer to in criminal law?

Answer 16

A form of conduct where D is in a certain situation or condition

Question 17

What is the view on criminalizing omissions?

Answer 17

Practical difficulties and interests of autonomy generally outweigh the interest in criminalizing omissions

Question 18

What is the controversy surrounding the act of omission?

Answer 18

Is it fair to be liable when one has ‘done nothing’?

Question 19

Fill in the blank: The ‘Act’ in Actus Reus emphasizes that there is no ______ to act in criminal law.

Answer 19

general duty

Question 20

What case illustrates the creation of danger in relation to omissions?

Answer 20

R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161

Question 21

What does the term ‘actus reus’ literally translate to?

Answer 21

‘guilty act’

Question 22

What is the outcome of failing to fulfill a duty of care, as seen in R v Gibbins & Proctor [1918]?

Answer 22

Liability for neglecting to feed a child

Question 23

What are the two distinct levels of causation in criminal law?

Answer 23

• Factual causation
• Legal causation

These levels clarify how to connect a defendant’s actions to the resulting consequences.

Question 24

Can causation be established by omission?

Answer 24

No, causation is relevant only to the result elements of actus reus.

The act of omission itself does not establish a causal link to a result.

Question 25

What does factual causation refer to?

Answer 25

The physical chain of events between the defendant and the specified result. ## Footnote An example is the link between D throwing a brick and V suffering serious injury.

Question 26

What is the 'But For' test?

Answer 26

A legal test to establish if D's conduct caused the result 'in fact'. ## Footnote It assesses whether the outcome would have occurred without D's action.

Question 27

In which case did D attempt to poison his mother?

Answer 27

R v White [1910] 2 KB 124. ## Footnote This case illustrates the application of the 'but for' test in establishing factual causation.

Question 28

What must D's conduct be to establish legal causation?

Answer 28

* Substantial * Blameworthy * Operative ## Footnote These criteria determine whether D's actions can be legally considered as causing the result.

Question 29

What does 'substantial' mean in the context of legal causation?

Answer 29

D's conduct must be more than negligible or insignificant. ## Footnote This means that the conduct must have a meaningful impact on the outcome.

Question 30

What is meant by 'blameworthiness'?

Answer 30

D's conduct must have some degree of fault that contributed to the result. ## Footnote This concept adds a moral dimension to the assessment of causation.

Question 31

What is the term for an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation?

Answer 31

Novus Actus Interveniens. ## Footnote This principle addresses how new events can disrupt the causal relationship established by D's actions.

Question 32

What case illustrates that voluntary events can break the chain of causation?

Answer 32

R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007] UKHL 38. ## Footnote This case involved a defendant's liability being negated due to the voluntary actions of the victim.

Question 33

What is the 'egg shell skull' rule?

Answer 33

Vulnerabilities of V will not break the chain of causation. ## Footnote This rule means that D is responsible for the full extent of harm caused, even if V has pre-existing vulnerabilities.

Question 34

In which case did V refuse a blood transfusion?

Answer 34

R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411. ## Footnote This case is significant for illustrating the principle that V's actions do not absolve D of liability.

Question 35

What is required for an intervening act to not break the chain of causation?

Answer 35

Intervention must be foreseeable. ## Footnote This ensures that only unexpected or unreasonable actions can disrupt the causal link.

Question 36

What case involved a collision on a motorway hard shoulder?

Answer 36

R v A [2020] EWCA Crim 407. ## Footnote This case demonstrates the principle that foreseeable events will not break the chain of causation.

Question 37

What is the significance of a third party's status in causation?

Answer 37

If the third party holds a duty, their actions are less likely to break the chain. ## Footnote This highlights the importance of context in determining liability.

Question 38

What was the outcome of R v Jordan [1956] 40 Cr App R 152?

Answer 38

The treatment was deemed 'palpably wrong', affecting the chain of causation. ## Footnote This case illustrates how medical negligence can influence the assessment of legal causation.

Question 39

What is the relationship between actus reus and mens rea in criminal law?

Answer 39

Liability requires a proscribed act in conjunction with a specified mental state. ## Footnote This relationship structures offences by separating the physical act from the mental state.