Elements Of A Crime Flashcards by Yash Pande

what 3 things must be in a crime

actus reus
mens rea
principle of coincidence

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

what is actus reus

physical voluntary act
to murder someone

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

what is mens rea

guilty state of mind
“i am going to murder someone”

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

what is principle of coincidence

AR/MR must happen at the same time

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

what does the AR have to be
what case / what is said

has to be voluntary
Bratty v NI AG (1963) “involuntary act = controlled by muscle, not the mind eg tourrettes, sneezing”

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

case of involuntary act
-what happened

Leicester v Pearson (1952)
-D. crashed into, hit pedestrian

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

what is an omission

failing to do something

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

what does actus reus by omission mean

had a duty (5) to act, but did not

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

what are the 5 duties to act

contract, relationship, voluntary assumption of responsibility, public position, person creates dangerous situation

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

case of duty to act - contract
-what happened

R v Pitwood (1902)
-D. worked for railway
-man died after D. left gate open

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

case of duty to act - relationship
-what happened

R v Gibson & Proctor (1918)
-child starved to death
-D.’s GF didn’t feed child

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

case of duty to act - voluntary assumption of responsibility
-what happened

R v Stone & Dobinson (1977)
-D. cared for elderly sister rather than putting her in a home
-sister died
D. + GF charged

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

case of duty to act - public position
-what happened

R v Dytham (1979)
-D. (police officer) walked past fight
-did not intervene
-man died

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

case of duty to act - person creates dangerous situation
-what happened

R v Miller (1983)
-D. slept with lit cigarette
-caused fire
-ignored it and slept somewhere else

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

what is factual causation proving

consequence wouldn’t have otherwise occurred

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

what is legal causation proving

D.’s actions were a significant cause of consequence

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

factual causation test + 2 cases

“but for test”
[consequence] wouldn’t have happened but for [action]

R v Pagett (1983)
-kidnapped pregnant GF
-used her as shield when he shot at police
-she died
“the GF would not have been shot but for D. using her as a shield and shooting at police” - this makes sense, and factual causation is proven.

R v White (1910)
-D. poisoned mothers tea
-she died of unrelated heart attack
“the mother would not have had a heart attack but for D. poisoning the tea”? -this does NOT make sense, and factual causation cannot be proved.

legal causation test + case

operative and substantial test

** R v Smith (1959) **
-soldiers get into fight
-D. stabs V.
-V. recieves poor treatment + dies

what is the name of the things that break the chain of causation?
what 3 things are they? (4?)

new intervening acts
actions of 3rd parties (medical)
actions of victim
acts of god

what do NIA have to be to break the chain? (med)

unreasonable, unforeseeable (palpably wrong)

actions of 3rd party case
extra; medical case

R v Pagett (1983)
-claimed police shot woman, not him
-however police shot was not independent
-chain not broken
-GUILTY

R v Jordan (1956)
-patient came in for stabbing treatment
-was allergic to antibiotics; it was noted
-Dr ignored; DEAD
-PALPABLY WRONG; it was worse than the stabbing

actions of 3rd party case 1 = case 2

R v Roberts (1971)
-V. jumped out of car to avoid advances
-this was NOT unforeseeable/unreasonable - chain NOT broken

R v Williams (1992)
-V. jumped out of car to avoid robbery threat; DEAD
-this WAS unreasonable - chain WAS BROKEN, D. NOT guilty

act of god examples

-eruption
-earthquake
-tsunami
-tornado

thin skull rule
-phrase
-what does it apply to?
-case

-D. is required to take V. as they find them; any conditions dont matter. if they die they die
-applies to physical, mental, religious (eg weaknesses, mental illness, views)

R v Blaue (1975)
-D. stabs V.
-V. needed blood transfusion
-as a jehovah’s witness, couldn’t receive it; DEAD
-D. argued V.’s refusal broke chain; due to TSR, D. GUILTY

3 types of mens rea? what are they?

direct intention; D. aimed to bring consequence oblique intention; D. denies intending, but evidence infers he should've known recklessness; D. saw risk but carried on regardless

direct intention **case**

**R v Mohan (1975)** -police told D. slow down -D. slowed, then rapidly sped up -ran over police *being "in a rage" = direct*

oblique intention **case 1** + test + **case 2** + apply test

**R v Woollin (1998)** -man caring for baby -frustrated; tries to put it down -throws it; DEAD -argued he wasnt seeing straight and didnt mean to; NOT GUILTY **Woollin test** -part 1 objective - consequence was virtually certain (99%+) -part 2 subjective - D. knew it was v certain **R v Matthews & Alleyne** -D. threw V. in river -V. cries he cant swim -D. argued they didnt mean to kill **apply test** -objective = river was very deep; conseq is v certain -subjective = D. knew he'd die; v. crying out he cant swim

recklessness **case** + **test**

**R v Cunningham** -ripped gas meter for the £££ -gassed neighbours to death -unaware; pt.2 of woollin test FAILED; NOT GUILTY **test** -D.D.R.R.R -Did Defendant Realise Risk + carry on Regardless(any % of risk)

transferred malice meaning + **case 1** + **case 2**

court takes MR from intended V. to who suffered AR; ONLY LIKE OFFENCES (eg only building/only person) **R v Latimer (1886)** -bar fight -man shouldve been hit; woman hit -MR transferred **R v Pembilton (1874)** -threw stones into crowd -broke window -NOT a like offence (building vs person) NOT GUILTY

courts can force contemporaneity - meaning? theory 1 **case**. theory 2 **case**

can force principle of coincidence - make MR and AR coincide Single Act Transaction theory - MR B4 AR **R v Thabo-Meli (1954)** -beat v. -thought he was dead -threw over cliff to dispose, then he died Continuing Act Theory - AR B4 MR **Fagan v MPC (1964)** -ran over foot accidentally -stayed on it

Exam structure

FALIAC F - explain Factual causation + test A - Apply L - explain Legal causation + test I - explain new Intervening acts A - Apply to case C - Conclude; legal caus proved?

What does the Thin Skull Rule state?

Defendant is to take the victim as they find them

Do any conditions matter under the TSR

No, any conditions don't matter

What types of conditions does the Thin Skull Rule apply to?

* Physical conditions * Mental conditions * Religious views

What is an example of a mental condition that might be relevant under the Thin Skull Rule?

Mental illnesses, phobias

What is the case associated with the Thin Skull Rule?

R v Blaue (1975)

In R v Blaue, what action did the defendant take against the victim?

Made sexual advances on the victim

What happened to the victim in R v Blaue after the defendant's actions?

The victim got stabbed by the defendant

What medical procedure did the victim need after being stabbed in R v Blaue?

Blood transfusion

Why could the victim not receive a blood transfusion in R v Blaue?

She was a Jehovah's Witness

What was the defendant's argument regarding the victim's refusal of the blood transfusion in R v Blaue?

The victim's refusal broke the chain of causation

What was the verdict in R v Blaue?

Guilty

Elements Of A Crime Flashcards

AR, MR, F/L causation, NIA, TSR, TM, Contemporaneity