CRIMINAL Flashcards
(46 cards)
Three Types of Offences
3 types of offence:
Summary
Indictable-only
Either-way
How do you establish criminal liability?
IDENTIFY:
– D
– D’s acts or omission
– offence
DEFINE the law - the AR and MR of the offence
EXPLAIN the law with help of statute and/or case law
APPLY the law to the facts of the case
Basic three components of criminal liability?
Criminal Liability = Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Absence of a Valid Defence
FOUR types of ACTUS REUS
4 Types of AR:
- Conduct - here action is all that is required e.g. fraud by false representation under s2 Fraud Act 2006 does not require victim deceived by representation, just that D makes false representation.
- Result - here action not enough, must lead to specific consequences - so much be shown action leads to result e.g. murder - D must cause death of C.
- Circumstances - e.g. s1(1) Theft Acrt 1968 requires appropriate of property ‘belonging to another’
- Omission - e.g. on duty lifeguard would be liable for gross negligence manslaughter.
What do result crimes require in terms of AR?
Result crimes require that D’s actions CAUSED particular result e.g. murder, manslaughter, criminal damage and Assault occasioning ABH.
What are the TWO aspects of criminal causation?
(1) Factual causation and (2) Legal causation.
Test for FACTUAL causation
Factual causation - it must be proved that ‘but for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, the relevant consequences would not have occurred in the way that it did
= but-for test 💼R v White: but for acts/omissions of accused, relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did.
💼R v White: W puts poison ☠️in drink intending to kill mother. She was later found dead. Not clear whether she drank any of the liquid from class. Medical evidence showed she had died from heart failure, not from poisoning. W acquitted of murder, no causal link between consequence and his act. Was guilty of attempted murder though.
💼R v Dyson: Child with meningitis at time before this was curable - D threw child down stairs and she died. Argued child was going to die in any event, and actions of D had not caused death. Any action which accelerates death is a cause.
THREE requirements for Legal Causation
Legal causation
D must be the OPERATING AND SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE of the prohibited consequence (R v Pagett)
Meaning of ‘substantial’ ⭐ 💼R v Hughes: important where there are multiple legally effective causes – ‘it NEED NOT BE THE ONLY OR THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE. IT MUST, HOWEVER, BE A CAUSE WHICH IS MORE THAN DE MINIMIS, MORE THAN MINIMAL’.
What does ‘operating’ mean: there is no NAI or intervening act which breaks the chain of causation. Apply any rules on medical negligence, acts of TPs, acts of Vs and thin skull rule etc.
More case law re legal causation:
⭐D must be CAUSED BY D’S CULPABLE ACT ⭐- 💼R v Dalloway: D driving horse and cart without reins - child ran in front of cart and killed. Even if D was holding reins, he could not have stopped the cart in time. Held: If D had not been driving the cart, V could not have died, but the court said needed to go further, actually needed to link D’s negligent driving to V’s death. Given could have died even if holding the reins, D’s conduct not to blame for killing and he was acquitted of manslaughter.
⭐D’s act NEED NOT BE THE ONLY CAUSE of prohibited consequence ⭐- 💼R v Benge: Bence was foreman of some railway track layers. He thought the next train not due for several hours, ordered tracks to be taken up. Send a man with a red flag down the track to stop any trains. Signalman did not go the correct distance, the driver not keeping a good lookout. Train crashed, killed several people, and D tried for manslaughter. IF D’S NEGLIGENCE MAINLY/SUBSTANTIALLY CAUSED ACCIDENT, IRRELEVANT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF OTHER PERSON WAS NOT NEGLIGENT. D CAN STILL BE LIABLE EVEN WHEN OTHER CAUSES WERE RELEVANT.
What are Novus Actus Interveniens?
Intervening Acts (Novus Actus Interveniens)
= subsequent event or act of either victim or TP which renders D’s part in consequence v small, breaking chain of causation and meaning D not criminally liable
NAI in Medical Negligence cases?
Medical Negligence:
💼R v Smith: Smith stabbed V during fight at barracks and pierced his lung. Soldier tried to carry him to the medical station, dropped him twice. Not realised how serious his injuries were and so V received inappropriate treatment that was harmful to him, and he died. D convicted of murder, as his acts remained substantial, operating cause. Medical negligence while a cause, was not sufficient cause to sever chain of causation. “Only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that death does not follow from the wound”.
💼R v Chesire: C shot V x2. Following extensive surgery V required tracheotomy, scar tissue formed around the tracheotomy hole, doctor’s dismissed V’s difficulty to breathe as anxiety. He died. At time of death, V’s original wounds had healed. Held: Poor medical treatment did not break the chain.
⭐overall, courts reluctant to allow medical malpractice to break the chain of causation.
NAI in Acts of TP cases?
Acts of TPs
💼R v Pagett: D used pregnant girlfriend as human shield while shooting at police, who were attempting to arrest him. Police returned fire and killed girl. Judge stated had to be sure that D fired first at officers and that that act caused officers to fire back, with result girl was killed. Jury also had to be satisfied that in firing back, police were acting reasonably - either by self-defence, or performance of police duties. Jury convicted D. D appealed. Held: appeal rejected. Break in chain of causation only possible if actions of TP were ‘free, deliberate and informed’. Police actions here were neither free nor deliberate. Instead, was a reasonable act performed for the purpose of self-preservation.
NAI in Acts of Victim cases - fright of flight?
‘Fright or flight’ cases - C may attempt to escape attack - could this amount to NAI. big Q = was escape FORESEEABLE?
💼R v Roberts: V was passenger in Roberts’ care. V was terrified of R’s unwanted sexual advances, jumped out moving car, suffered injuries. Held: D convicted of assault occasioning ABH. To consider whether D caused her injuries , V’s reaction would only break chain of causation if it were actthat was ‘so daft’ that no reasonable person could have foreseen it. Question to ask was this something that could reasonably have been foreseen as the consequence of what he was saying or doing?
💼R v Williams & Davis: As gave lift to hitchhiker, tried to rob hitchhiker, who jumped from car and died from head injuries 🚗🪦Held: Convicted of manslaughter. As appealed.
Q1: reasonably foreseeable that some harm, albeit not serious harm, was likely to result from the threat itself;
Q2: was D’s reaction in jumping from a car within range of responses which might be expected from a V placed in a situation which he was in.
Important to bear in mind that the victim may in agony of the moment do the wrong thing. Jury should have in mind any particular characteristics of the V and the fact that in agony of the moment he may act without thought and deliberation.
Judge said failure of judge to give any direction on causation was misdirection and conviction on this count must be quashed.
Court approved 💼Roberts case - so generally thought ‘characteristics’ referred to were those which would be visible to reasonable man present at time fo D’s act i.e. jury have same knowledge as D had at time D committed act.
NAI in Acts of Victim cases - Refusing Medical Treatment?
💼R v Blaue - D stabbed women, pierced lung, V refused blood transfusion as contrary to her religious beliefs. ✝️She died. D convicted of manslaughter. D appealed conviction arguing V’s refusal was NAI. Held: Argument rejected ❌- Ds must take their Vs as they find them - both mind and body.
💼R v Holland - V attached by D, suffered wounds including finger cut. 🩸 Surgeon advised finger amputation to avoid infection. V ignored the surgeon’s advice. Wound became infected, and C died. D argued the cause of death was refusal to accept treatment. Held: No defence. Doesn’t matter that wound became cause of death due to V rejecting treatment.
💼R v Dear - A’s 12yr old daughter told him V had sexually assaulted her. A slashed V with knife 🔪. V received treatment, but wounds later opened up, V died. D claimed chain of causation broken as V had died by suicide either by reopening wounds or, wounds having opened naturally, by failing to take steps to staunch consequent blood flow. D convicted of murder. Held: CA rejected D’s appeal. Q: were injuries by D OPERATING AND SIGNIFICANT CAUSE OF DEATH? In present case, cause of death was bleeding from artery which D had severed. Whether or not resumption/continuation of bleeding was caused by V, jury entitled to find D’s conduct made operative and significant contribution.
NAI in Acts of Victim - Suicide?
Suicide
⛔V’s suicide may not break chain of causation if:
V dies from original wound (R v Dear)
Act reasonably foreseeable (e.g. D causing brilliant pianist to lose fingers, or keen sportsman to be paralysed - rule in R v Roberts and R v Williams and Davies).
D’s unlawful act = significant + operating cause of death and at time of attack it was reasonably foreseeable that V would die by suicide as result of V’s injuries (R v Wallace).
✅V’s suicide may breach chain of causation if:
Injuries inflicted by D have healed, but V goes on to die by suicide (distinguishing R v Dear)
Voluntary and informed decision of V to act (R v Kennedy) – here Kennedy supplied heroin in syringe, handed to V, V injected himself, suffered reaction. V died. HL said person who supplies drugs to another has no cause drug to be administered.
What is the Thin Skull Rule?
⚡💀Person who inflicts harm on another cannot escape liability if V, owing to some pre-existing infirmity or peculiarity, suffers greater harm than would have been expected as result of what the accused has done.W
When will natural events break the chain of causation?
Will only break the chain of causation if:
‘extraordinary’
and
not reasonably foreseeable.
General rule re omission?
No general duty to act to prevent harm - R v Smith (William).
To secure prosecution based on failure to act, the prosecution must prove any of what FIVE situations?
Crime one that is capable of being committed by omission (R v Lowe).
Accused under legal duty to act
Accused breached duty
Accused caused AR of offence to occur; and
Should offence so require, accused had required MR.
Example - Statutory Duty?
e.g 📖s6(4) Road Traffic Act 1988 = an offence to fail to provide breath specimin
Example - Special Relationship?
Special Relationship - e.g. doctor-patient, parent-child, spouse-spouse
💼R v Hood - D held liable for manslaughter of wife who died from broken bones from fall 3 weeks before. D failed to summon medical help for wife. His relationship of marriage was basis of duty.
💼R v Gibbons and Proctor - G lived with his girlfriend, P, together with his child, N, and P’s other children from previous relationship. G gave P money for food for family. P deliberately starved N. Held: G living in same house as N. Must have been aware of daughter’s condition. G convicted of murder based on breach of duty as father not to neglect her.
Re A (Children (Conjoined Twins)) - both children certain to die in absence of surgical procedure to separate them. Operation would save one twin, parents did not give consent. Held: parents had legal duty to twin who could be saved. By denying that twin a chance to live, they might be guilty of killing her under the principle in Gibbons and Proctor.
Example - Voluntary Assumption?
Voluntary Assumption
💼R v Nicholls - If person chooses to undertake care of person who is helpless either from infancy, mental illness of other infirmity, he is bound to execute responsibility.
💼R v Gibbons and Proctor - P also convicted of N’s murder, o basis P was living in same household, in role G’s de facto wife. She was looking after ‘the family’ while G went out to work, and received money for housekeeping and food from Gibbons.
💼R v Instan - I lived with elderly aunt. Aunt gave I money to provide food for both of them. Aunt became bedridden as ill. I used money to buy food for herself but not aund, not did she seek medical attention for aunt. Aunt died, I convicted of manslaughter due to voluntary assumption of care.
💼R v Stone and Dobinson- Stone lived with mistress Dobinson. Both low IQ. accepted S’s elderly, anorexic sister in to home (F). Tried to make her eat but gave up. F confined to bed, S and D failed to get medical help. F died. Held: S and D convicted of her manslaughter, and their convictions upheld, on basis that, although neither under duty imposed by law to care for an ailing relative, they had voluntarily assumed this duty upon themselves.
💼R v Ruffell - V was at R’s house, taking drugs together. V passed out, R tried to revive. R phoned V’s mother next day. R said V was ill and sitting on R’s doorstep. Mother told R to take V inside and keep warm. R agreed but didn’t. V found by passer-by, latre died in hospital. Trial judge found DOC could be assumed. Jury convicted R. Held: CA followed approach in Stone and Dobinson and upheld conviction.
Example - Contractual?
Contractual
💼R v Pittwood - employed as level-crossing gatekeeper. Failed to close gate when train coming, man killed by train. Held: failed to close gate = AR of manslaughter by omission, as under contractual duty to do so when train approaching.
Example - Creating a dangerous situation?
Creating a dangerous situation: in such sitch, person must take reasonable steps to counteract dangerous situation created. Steps need only be reasonable, person not expected to risk own life to save lives of others, but would be expected to e.g. summon help, warn any occupants in house etc.
💼R v Miller - Squatter fell asleep in bed holding lit cigarette, Found mattress smouldering. Didn’t put it out, moved to different room, feel asleep. House was damaged. Miller convicted of arson (s1(1) and 1(3) of Criminal Damage Act 1971. Held that if person inadvertently sets in motion chain of events that causes risk of damage, becomes aware of this and can prevent further damage through action, his omission can become AR of criminal damage.
💼R v Evans - Evans (24yr F), purchased heroin supplied to sister C. C self-injected but then complains of symptoms of overdose. E decided not to seek medical assistance as fear they or C would get in trouble. C died. E chased with gross negligence manslaughter. E appealed on grounds no DOC to C. Held: E was older half-sister, so court said - unlike C’s mother who did - E did not come without familial duty doctrine. However, E had DOC as created dangerous situation and failed to do anything to remedy it. However, didn’t C create a dangerous situation for herself by self-injecting - E effectively convicted on grounds that helped sister create a dangerous situation for herself.
Example - Public Office Holder?
💼R v Dytham: D = police, in uniform, early in morning saw man being evicted from club who had been beaten so badly that later died. D didn’t interview and when the incident ceased, he drove off. Held he was guilty of wilfully neglecting to perform his duty.
