Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Criminal Law > Core Principles > Flashcards

Core Principles Flashcards

1
Q

What is Actus Reus?

A

Actus reus refers to the guilty act or omission that must be established for any crime.

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

What components are required for criminal liability?

A

Criminal liability requires actus reus (guilty act/omission), mens rea (guilty mind), and absence of a valid defence.

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

Is motive required for criminal liability?

A

No, motive is not required for criminal liability (Chandler v DPP).

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

What are the four types of actus reus?

A

The four types of actus reus are: Conduct, Result, Circumstances, and Omissions.

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

What are conduct offences?

A

Conduct offences require certain acts to have been committed by the defendant to satisfy actus reus.

Example: In blackmail under s21 Theft Act 1968, making a demand with menaces is sufficient.

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

What are result offences?

A

Result offences require the defendant’s action to lead to a specific consequence, which must be proved to have caused the result.

Example: In murder, the defendant’s actions must cause the death of the victim.

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

What does actus reus include in terms of circumstances?

A

Actus reus can include the need for particular surrounding circumstances, such as property belonging to another in theft under s 1 Theft Act 1968.

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

What is the general rule regarding omissions?

A

The general rule is that there is no liability for failure to act, unless a legal obligation to act is imposed.

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

What is causation in result crimes?

A

Causation in result crimes consists of factual causation and legal causation.

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

What is factual causation?

A

Factual causation is established by the ‘but for’ test, proving that ‘but for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, the consequence would not have occurred.

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

What is legal causation?

A

Legal causation requires that the defendant is the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the prohibited consequences.

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

What is novus actus interveniens?

A

Novus actus interveniens refers to a subsequent event or act that breaks the chain of causation, rendering the defendant not criminally liable.

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

What are the contexts in which novus actus interveniens can occur?

A

Novus actus interveniens can occur in contexts such as medical negligence, acts of a third party, acts of the victim, the thin skull rule, and natural events.

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

Will medical negligence break the chain of causation

A

Not if Ds act are a substantial and operating cause
Smith was convicted of murder because his actions remained a substantial and operating cause of the victim’s death despite medical negligence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What was held in R v Cheshire (1991)?

A

The Court held that poor medical treatment did not break the chain of causation, as the original wounds were still a substantial cause of death.

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

What did R v Padgett (1983) establish about acts of third parties?

A

The case established that the chain of causation may only be broken if the actions of the third party were ‘free, deliberate and informed.’

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

Can a victims escape break the chain of causation

A

Yes but In Roberts, the court held that the victim’s reaction to escape was foreseeable and did not break the chain of causation.

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

What was the ruling in R v Blaue (1975)?

A

The court ruled that defendants must take their victims as they find them, including their beliefs, which did not break the chain of causation.

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

What happened in the case of R v Holland?

A

The deceased ignored a surgeon’s advice to amputate a severely cut finger, leading to tetanus and death. The defendant argued that the refusal of treatment broke the chain of causation.

The court held that the cause of death was the wound, not the refusal of treatment.

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

What was the outcome of R v Dear?

A

The appellant slashed the victim, who later died after reopening his wounds. The court held that the defendant’s actions were a significant cause of death, despite the victim’s suicide.

The jury could find that the defendant’s conduct contributed to the death.

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

What did the Court of Appeal decide in R v Wallace?

A

The court held that the jury could find that the victim’s voluntary euthanasia did not break the chain of causation, and the defendant’s actions were a significant cause of death.

The court posed questions regarding the foreseeability of the victim’s suicide.

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

When might a victim’s suicide break the chain of causation?

A

The victim’s suicide may break the chain if the injuries have healed or if the decision to act was voluntary and informed.

Refer to R v Kennedy for the principle regarding voluntary actions.

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

What is the ‘thin skull’ rule?

A

The ‘thin skull’ rule states that a defendant is liable for the full extent of a victim’s injury, even if the injury is greater than expected due to a pre-existing condition.

The defendant must take the victim as they find them.

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

What was the ruling in R v Hayward?

A

Hayward was held liable for his wife’s death due to her pre-existing condition, as he caused her distress that led to her death.

The court emphasized that he must take her condition as he found it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
What breaks the chain of causation regarding natural events?
Natural events only break the chain if they are extraordinary and not reasonably foreseeable. ## Footnote An example is if a victim drowns after being left unconscious on a beach.
26
What is required to establish criminal liability for omissions?
To establish liability, the prosecution must prove that the crime can be committed by omission, the accused had a legal duty to act, breached that duty, and that breach caused the actus reus of the offence. ## Footnote The accused must also have the required mens rea.
27
What establishes a legal duty to act?
Legal duties can arise from statutes, special relationships, voluntary assumption, contracts, or if the defendant creates a dangerous situation. ## Footnote Examples include duties of care between parents and children.
28
Can you be found guilty through contractual duties
Pittwood was held liable for manslaughter due to his failure to close a level-crossing gate, which resulted in a death. ## Footnote His contractual duty to close the gate was central to the ruling.
29
What did R v Miller establish regarding dangerous situations?
Miller established that a person who creates a dangerous situation has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate that danger. ## Footnote Failure to act can result in criminal liability.
30
Can omissions be criminal liable in familial relationships
Yes. Evans was held liable for her sister's death after failing to seek medical help during an overdose, despite knowing the signs. ## Footnote The court emphasized the duty of care in a familial context.
31
What was the cause of Carly's death?
The cause of death was heroin poisoning.
32
What did Evans and Townsend decide to do instead of seeking medical assistance for Carly?
They put Carly in bed with the hope that she would make a miraculous recovery.
33
What was the outcome of Evans's appeal against her conviction?
The appeal was based on the argument that the Crown failed to establish that Evans owed the victim a duty of care.
34
On what basis was the mother convicted of gross negligence manslaughter?
The conviction was based on her familial duty or responsibility to summon assistance for her critically ill daughter.
35
Did the court consider Evans as having a familial duty towards Carly?
No, the court decided that Evans, as an older half-sister, did not come within the purview of the familial duty doctrine.
36
What did the Court of Appeal hold regarding Evans's duty of care?
The Court held that Evans had a duty of care because she created a dangerous situation and failed to remedy it.
37
What is the general rule regarding criminal liability for omissions?
The general rule is that a defendant cannot be criminally liable for a failure to act.
38
What are some circumstances that may create a legal duty to act?
A legal duty to act may arise from a statutory duty, special relationship, voluntary assumption of a duty of care, contractual duty, creating a dangerous situation, and public office.
39
What was the case R v Dytham about?
D was a police constable who saw a man being kicked and did not attempt to stop it, leading to his conviction for wilfully neglecting to perform his duty.
40
Can a defendant cause by omission?
No, the defendant cannot cause by omission.
41
What is the difference between causing and failing to uncause?
The defendant can fail to uncause when they have a duty to uncause, but this is different from causing.
42
What is the general rule regarding omissions in criminal law?
A defendant cannot be criminally liable for a failure to act, as there is no general duty to act to prevent harm. ## Footnote R v Smith (William) (1826) 2 C&P 449: 'Omission, without a duty, will not create an indictable offence.'
43
What must the prosecution prove to secure a conviction based on a failure to act?
The prosecution must prove that: 1. The crime can be committed by an omission. 2. The accused was under a legal duty to act. 3. The accused breached that duty. 4. The breach caused the actus reus of the offence. 5. The accused had the required mens rea, if necessary.
44
What are common situations where a defendant has a legal duty to act?
Common situations include: - Statute - Special relationship - Voluntary assumption - Contract - Creating a dangerous situation - Public office.
45
What is an example of a statutory duty to act?
An example is found in the Road Traffic Act 1988, s 6(4), where it is an offence to fail to provide a specimen of breath.
46
What is a special relationship in the context of legal duties?
A special relationship can exist between doctors and patients, parents and children, or spouses.
47
What was the outcome of R v Hood [2004] regarding special relationships?
D was held liable for the manslaughter of his wife due to his failure to summon medical assistance after her injury.
48
What was the significance of R v Gibbons and Proctor (1918)?
Gibbons was convicted of his daughter's murder for neglecting his duty as a father, as he was aware of her condition.
49
What does voluntary assumption of a duty of care entail?
If a person voluntarily assumes a duty towards another, they can be held liable for failing to carry out that duty.
50
What was the ruling in R v Nicholls (1874) regarding voluntary assumption?
If a person undertakes the care of someone helpless, they are bound to execute that responsibility and can be guilty of manslaughter if they allow harm through gross negligence.
51
What is an example of a breach of contractual duty?
In R v Pittwood (1902), a level-crossing gatekeeper failed to close the gate, resulting in a man's death, which amounted to manslaughter by omission.
52
What duty arises if a defendant creates a dangerous situation?
A person has a duty to take reasonable steps to counteract the dangerous situation they created.
53
What was the outcome of R v Miller [1983] regarding creating a dangerous situation?
Miller was convicted of arson for failing to act after accidentally starting a fire.
54
What was the ruling in R v Evans [2009] regarding dangerous situations?
Evans was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter for failing to seek help for her sister after creating a dangerous situation by supplying heroin.
55
What is the legal duty of public office holders?
Public office holders, like police constables, have a duty to act in their official capacity.
56
What was the ruling in R v Dytham [1979] regarding police duties?
The police constable was guilty of wilfully neglecting to perform his duty after witnessing a man being attacked.
57
What is the relationship between omission and causation?
A defendant cannot cause harm by omission but can fail to uncause harm when they have a duty to do so.
58
What does 'mens rea' mean?
'Mens rea' means 'guilty mind' and refers to the mental state of the defendant when committing an offence.
59
What are the two types of intention in mens rea?
The two types are direct intention (the aim or purpose of the act) and indirect/oblique intention (when harm results from a dangerous act not intended).
60
What constitutes recklessness in criminal law?
Recklessness occurs when someone takes an unjustifiable risk, aware of the potential harm.
61
What is required for mens rea under the Theft Act 1968?
A person is guilty of handling stolen goods if they know or believe the goods to be stolen.
62
What does mens rea entail regarding dishonesty?
The defendant must be found to have been dishonest when handling goods, though 'dishonesty' is not defined in the Act.
63
What is negligence in the context of mens rea?
Negligence occurs when a defendant's actions fall below the standard of a reasonable person.
64
What did R v Bateman (1925) establish about gross negligence?
Gross negligence must show such disregard for the life and safety of others that it amounts to a crime against the state.
65
What does 'mens rea' mean?
'Mens rea' means 'guilty mind'.
66
What are the common types of mens rea?
Common types of mens rea include intention (direct and indirect), recklessness, knowledge and belief, dishonesty, and negligence.
67
What is direct intent?
Direct intent is when the consequence is what the defendant aims to happen. It is the purpose or objective of the defendant's act.
68
What is oblique intent?
Oblique intent is when the consequence is not the defendant's purpose but rather a side effect that the defendant accepts as inevitable.
69
What is the test for oblique intent according to R v Woolin?
The jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's action.
70
What is the difference between motive and intention?
Motive is not the same as intention; however, it can be used as evidence of intention.
71
What constitutes recklessness?
Recklessness occurs when a person foresees a risk of harm and goes ahead anyway, and the risk-taking must be unjustifiable.
72
What is the current definition of recklessness from R v G?
A person acts recklessly when they are aware of a risk that it exists or will exist, and it is unreasonable to take that risk.
73
What is the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?
As a general rule, the defendant must have the relevant mens rea for the offence at the precise moment when they commit the actus reus.
74
What is the continuing act theory?
The continuing act theory allows a defendant to be guilty if they form the mens rea at some point during the actus reus.
75
What is the one transaction principle?
The one transaction principle categorizes the actions of the accused as a series of acts, allowing for mens rea to be present at any time during that transaction.
76
Can the mens rea be formed at any point during a series of acts
Yes. The appellants had the mens rea for murder when they hit V, but not when they caused his death, as they thought he was already dead at that point. ## Footnote The Privy Council stated that the series of acts formed one transaction, and it was sufficient that the mens rea existed at some point during that transaction.
77
What principle was recognized in R v Le Brun [1992] regarding causation?
The court recognized that the act done with mens rea could be viewed as causing subsequent acts, and all acts were part of the same transaction. ## Footnote D was convicted of manslaughter after knocking his wife unconscious and causing her death.
78
What did AG’s Ref (No 4 of 1980) establish about unclear acts causing death?
It was established that it is unnecessary to prove which act caused the death if each act could independently establish manslaughter. ## Footnote D pushed V down stairs and later cut her throat; it was unclear which act caused her death.
79
What is transferred malice?
Transferred malice allows the mens rea for intended harm to be applied to actual harm caused to an unintended victim. ## Footnote For example, if D intends to kill X but accidentally kills Y, D can still be guilty of murder.
80
What was the ruling in R v Latimer (1886) regarding transferred malice?
L's intention to injure C could be transferred to V when the belt he used recoiled and struck V. ## Footnote L's appeal against his conviction was dismissed.
81
Can malice be transferred between different objects e.g. building and a person
No. The court quashed the conviction for criminal damage since the mens rea for the intended harm (to people) did not match the actus reus (damaging property). ## Footnote D intended to hit people but broke a window instead.
82
How does ignorance of the law affect criminal liability?
Ignorance of the law does not excuse criminal liability, even if the ignorance is reasonable. ## Footnote In R v Bailey (1800), D was convicted despite not knowing about the statute.
83
What is the effect of a mistake that negates mens rea?
A mistake regarding an element of the actus reus can prevent the defendant from having the mens rea required for liability. ## Footnote For example, taking the wrong umbrella would negate dishonesty in theft.
84
What was the outcome in R v Smith [1974] regarding mistakes?
The Court of Appeal quashed Smith's conviction because he did not intentionally damage property belonging to another. ## Footnote Smith believed the panels he damaged were his own.
85
What is required for criminal liability?
For a defendant to be criminally liable, they must have both actus reus and mens rea, and no valid defence must exist.
86
What is the significance of self-defence in criminal law?
Self-defence can lead to acquittal if the defendant honestly believed the use of force was necessary and the force used was reasonable. ## Footnote This is found in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s.76.
87
What are the rules regarding consent in non-fatal offences?
Consent is available for assault or battery if the victim consented or D honestly believed they were consenting, but not for actual bodily harm unless public interest exceptions apply.
88
What is the impact of intoxication on criminal liability?
Involuntary intoxication may negate mens rea, while voluntary intoxication may lead to a finding of recklessness for basic intent crimes. ## Footnote This is based on cases like Kingston and Coley.

Criminal Law (7 decks)

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