GDL - Core principles of criminal liability

Question 1

Examples of indictable-only offences

Answer 1

murder, manslaughter, causing grievous bodily harm with intent and robbery

Question 2

How does the prosecution succeed in proving the defendant’s guilt?

Answer 2

by making the jury sure of it

Question 3

Acts of a third party can break the chain of causation when

Answer 3

free, deliberate and informed

Question 4

To break the chain of causation, the medical malpractice must be

Answer 4

so independent from the defendant’s actions and potent in causing the death to equal a break in the chain of causation (NAI)

Question 5

medical negligence will not break the chain of causation if the original wound is

Answer 5

still an operating and substantial cause

Question 6

the victim’s fight or flight reaction only breaks the causation if it were an act that was

Answer 6

‘so daft’ that no reasonable person could have foreseen it

Question 7

Does the victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment break the chain of causation?

Answer 7

No, because the defendant must take the victim as they find them (thin skull rule)

Question 8

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

Answer 8

1. the injuries inflicted by the defendant have healed before the victim goes on to die by suicide
   OR
2. it was a voluntary and informed decision of the victim to act

Question 9

Natural events will only break the chain of causation if they are

Answer 9

‘extraordinary’ and not reasonably foreseeable

Question 10

Can a defendant be criminally liable for a failure to act?

Answer 10

No, there is no general duty to act to prevent harm

Question 11

In which “special relationships” may a duty of care arise?

Answer 11

doctors/patients
parents/children
Spouses

Question 12

Why was Pittwood liable for an omission?

Answer 12

He was a gatekeeper and had a contractual duty to close the level-crossing, which he failed to do. A man was killed as a result of his failure to meet his contractual duty.

Question 13

if a defendant creates a dangerous situation, they have a duty to

Answer 13

take reasonable steps to counteract the dangerous situation created

Question 14

direct intention

Answer 14

the aim or purpose of the defendant’s act

Question 15

oblique intent

Answer 15

where the consequence is not the defendant’s purpose but rather a side effect that D accepts as an inevitable or certain accompaniment to D’s direct intention

Question 16

who decides whether the accused acted with necessary intent?

Answer 16

the jury

Question 17

factual causation test

Answer 17

‘But for’ the acts or omissions of the defendant, the relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did

Question 18

test for oblique intention (R v Woollin)

Answer 18

the jury are not entitled to find the necessary intention unless they feel sure that the death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s action and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case

Question 19

Oblique intent is only to be used in rare circumstances, such as

Answer 19

when the facts require it and when intention is the only form of mens rea for the offence e.g. murder, s.18

Question 20

When should you NOT refer to oblique intent?

Answer 20

if the rules of the offence allows mens rea in the form of intention or recklessness (eg s.20)

Question 21

When is motive relevant?

Answer 21

motive can be used as evidence of intention

Question 22

Test for recklessness (R v G)

Answer 22

• D foresaw a risk of harm and went ahead anyway; and
• in the circumstances known to the defendant, it was an unreasonable risk to take

Question 23

the continuing act theory

Answer 23

a defendant can be guilty of an offence using the continuing act theory if they form the mens rea for the offence during the actus reus continuing.

Question 24

The doctrine of transferred malice operates to allow the mens rea against X

Answer 24

to be transferred and joined with the actus reus that causes the prohibited harm to Y (eg if you go to hit X, X ducks, and you hit Y)

Question 25

transferred malice will not assist where the defendant has

Answer 25

the mens rea for one crime and the actus reus for another

Question 26

Can the D avoid liability if they did not know they were breaking the law?

Answer 26

ignorance of the law is no excuse

Question 27

How can mistake negate the mens rea?

Answer 27

while ignorance of the law will not prevent criminal liability (Bailey), the defendant may make a mistake which can mean that the mens rea of the offence is not fulfilled and will escape criminal liability as a result (R v Smith).

Question 28

Key q for intoxication defence

Answer 28

did the defendant form the mens rea even though intoxicated?

Question 29

With less serious crimes of basic intent, the intoxicated defendant will be deemed reckless if they would have

Answer 29

foreseen the risk of harm if sober

Question 30

When is consent available as a defence for assault or battery?

Answer 30

if the victim consented or the defendant honestly believed that they were consenting

Question 31

When is consent not available as a defence?

Answer 31

If the defendant intended to cause the offence of ABH or above

Question 32

Which question will the court ask to establish whether an involuntarily intoxicated defendant can avoid criminal liability?

Answer 32

Did D form the mens rea even though intoxicated?

Question 33

What kind of intent is not available if recklessness is in the mens rea?

Answer 33

oblique intent