CRIME Criminal Rules

Question 1

What is Actus Reus?

Answer 1

Guilty act of the defendant

Question 2

What is conduct crimes?

Answer 2

To prove the AR is not necessary for any consequence to be proved

Question 3

Examples for conduct crimes

Answer 3

Drink driving
Theft
Battery

Question 4

What is consequence crimes?

Answer 4

To prove the AR the prohibited conduct must also result in a consequence

Question 5

Examples for consequence crimes

Answer 5

Assault causing actual bodily harm

Murder

Question 6

What is a state of affairs crimes?

Answer 6

To prove the AR there must be a state of affairs the D is responsible for

Question 7

Examples of state of affairs crimes

Answer 7

Possession of offensive weapon in a public area- D does not need to do anything with the weapon and it does not need to be visible

Possession of a controlled drug - doesn’t matter if D is going to use the drug

Question 8

Voluntary Nature of AR

Answer 8

Act or omission must be voluntary, If D has no control over his actions then he has not committed AR

Hill v Baxter

Question 9

Involuntariness of AR

Answer 9

Where D can be convicted even though he didn’t act voluntarily - usually involve state of affairs crimes

R v Larsonneur

Question 10

General Rule

Answer 10

Usually a person is not liable for omissions (failure to act) as there would be no AR - guilty act

Question 11

Exceptions where there is a duty to act are….

Answer 11

A statutory duty
A contractual duty
A duty because of a relationship

Question 12

Omissions - A statutory duty

Answer 12

An act of parliament can create liability for an omission

Question 13

Example for a statutory duty …

Answer 13

S.170 Road traffic act 1988

Question 14

Omissions - A contractual Duty

Answer 14

D will have a duty to act if it is part of his contract, if he fails to act this could form the AR of an offence

R v Pittwood

Question 15

Omissions - A duty because of a relationship

Answer 15

D will have a duty to act if it is part of a relationship with V, if he fails to act this could form the AR of the offence

R v Gibbins and Proctor

Question 16

Omissions - A duty which has been taken on voluntarily

Answer 16

D will have a duty to act if he voluntarily takes in a duty, if he fails to act to fulfil that duty properly ; this could form the AR of an offence

R v Stone and Dobinson

Question 17

Omissions - A duty through an official position

Answer 17

D will have a duty to act when it is part of his public position, if he fails to act this could form the AR of an offence

Question 18

Omissions - A duty by creation of a dangerous situation

Answer 18

D will have a duty to act when he becomes aware of a dangerous situation that he has created, if he fails to act this could form the AR of the offence

R v Miller

Question 19

Problem of causation

Answer 19

For consequence crimes, we have to show that D’s act CAUSED a particular consequence

Question 20

Factual Causation

Answer 20

D is only guilty if the consequence would not have happened “but for “ his act

White & Pagett

Question 21

Legal Causation

Answer 21

Link between D’s act and the consequence is the “chain of causation” and must remain unbroken

D’s act must be the “operating and substantial cause” of the consequence

R v Smith

Question 22

Novus Actus interveniens of Third Party

Answer 22

A third party does something which causes the outcome - to be an NAI by 3rd party - the new act needs to be sufficiently different than the actual cause of the outcome

R v Jordan - it must be palpably wrong

Question 23

Cato

Answer 23

D need not have been the only cause of death but was more than a minimal cause

Question 24

Benge

Answer 24

D’s action need not be the sole cause of the resulting harm, but it must be more than minimal

Question 25

Novus Actus Interveniens by Victim

Answer 25

Sometimes v’s actions can count as a NAI and break the chain of causation but if V acts in a foreseeable and reasonable way in circumstances, then v’s act will not break the chain of causation Chain of causation will be broken if v does something daft or so unexpected that the reasonable man could not be expected to foresee it R v Roberts R v Williams

Question 26

The “Thin Skull” rule

Answer 26

General principle is that you have to take your victim as you find them If victim has an underlying mental health or physical condition or religious belief that will make injures worse, D is still liable for full extent of injures R v Blaue

Question 27

Coincidence of Men’s Rea and Actus Reus General Principle

Answer 27

AR and MR must occur at the same time, in the same place and by the same person

Question 28

Coincidence of Men’s Rea and Actus Reus - Continuing Acts

Answer 28

He did form the MR when he refused to move it and the act of placing the car on the foot (AR) remained Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Question 29

Coincidence of Men’s Rea and Actus Reus - series of connected events

Answer 29

MR continued throughout as there was a series of connected events - Thabo Meli MR continued throughout the series of connected events, so included her drowning - Church

Question 30

Mens Rea

Answer 30

Guilty mind

Question 31

Direct intent

Answer 31

D’s aim purpose or motive Direct intention in the decision to bring about the criminal consequence - Mohan

Question 32

Oblique Intent

Answer 32

D’s aim is something different to the actual consequence The consequence had a virtually certain result and D knew that - Woolin Matthew’s abs Alleyne - jury may decided there is intention but they don’t have to

Question 33

Subjective Recklessness

Answer 33

Lower level of mens Rea than intent, D must know there is a risk of the consequence but takes the risk deliberately D MUST foresee the risk and take it anyway - Cunningham

Question 34

Negligence

Answer 34

Person fails to reach the standards of the reasonable man - objective test

Question 35

2 exceptions for negligence ....

Answer 35

Some road traffic offences | Gross negligence manslaughter

Question 36

Transferred Malice

Answer 36

D can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different V - when d’s MR is transferred to the intended V to the actual V MR transferred to actual V from his intended V as the offence was of the same type as he originally intended - Latimer Even though there was no direct contact between D and V, she was injured as a direct result of his actions, and MR was transferred to V - Mitchell If the offence on the net V is different to that which intended, there is no MR - Pembilton