General Principles

Question 1

Defence’s standard of proof

Answer 1

Balance of probabilities

Question 2

What defences must the prosecution disprove?

Answer 2

Self-defence, and loss of control. Defence only has evidential burden.

Question 3

What are the two requirements for a failure to act to amount to a criminal offence?

Answer 3

Defendant:

1. Had a duty to act
2. Breached the duty by failure to act sufficiently

Question 4

What are the five situations in which a duty to act will arise?

Answer 4

1. Statute, e.g. to stop at scene of accident
2. Special relationship, e.g. parent-child, doctor-patient
3. Voluntarily assumed duty of care for victim
4. Contract, e.g. railway guard
5. Defendant created dangerous situation and is aware of having done so

Question 5

What are the two stages in the test for causation?

Answer 5

1. Factual causation
2. Legal causation

Question 6

What does factual causation consider?

Answer 6

Whether the result occurred but for the defendant’s conduct

Question 7

If there is more than one cause, and defendant’s action slightly accelerates the result, is there sufficient factual causation?

Answer 7

Yes.

Compare with legal causation under which the cause must be substantial.

Question 8

What is the purpose of legal causation?

Answer 8

The prevent factual causation test from being overinclusive.
- Lack of foreseeability = unfair conviction

Question 9

What are the two requirements of a defendant’s action before it will be a legal cause?

Answer 9

It must be:
1. Substantial, i.e. more than minimal, slight, or trifling, and
2. Operative, i.e. actually cause the result and is negated by a more substantial intervening act or event

Question 10

Thin-skull rule

Answer 10

Defendant must take their victim as they find them.

Question 11

When will medically negligent treatment amount to an intervening act?

Answer 11

If the poor medical treatment was so independent from original action and potent in causing V’s death that the defendant ought not to be liable.

Question 12

What is required for intervention of the following parties to break the chain of causation?

1. Natural event
2. Victim
3. Third party

Answer 12

1. Natural event: Unforeseeable
2. Victim: Voluntary, and unforeseeable. i.e. so daft as to be unforeseeable.
3. Third party: free, deliberate, and informed act

Question 13

What are the two types of intention?

Answer 13

1. Direct
2. Indirect (oblique)

Question 14

Factual causation

Answer 14

Defendant’s act is but-for cause

Question 15

When will a defendant indirectly intend an outcome?

Answer 15

When the outcome is a virtual certainty of the act, and the defendant realises this

Question 16

Basic intent offences

Answer 16

Can be committed recklessly or with direct intention.

Question 17

What is a specific intent offence?

Answer 17

An offence which can only be committed with intent, not recklessness

Question 18

Specific intent Offence

Answer 18

Only be committed with intent, cannot be committed recklessly.

Either oblique or direct intent.

Question 19

What is the doctrine of transferred malice?

Answer 19

If defendant has intent to commit an offence against victim A, but inadvertently commits the offence against victim B.

MR is nevertheless satisfied (transfers over).

Question 20

Limitation of transferred malice

Answer 20

Resulting offence must be the same as the one intended.

ie. intention to cause property damage does not transfer to intent to commit battery.

Question 21

Where a person is guilty of a crime under transferred malice, what other offence will they usually also be guilty of?

Answer 21

Attempt against victim A

Question 22

Test for recklessness

Answer 22

(i) Is D aware of risk/potential risk?;

and

(ii) In circumstances known to D, was it an unreasonable risk to take?

Question 23

Can one be criminally liable for an omission to act?

Answer 23

Only if duty of care exists, which is subsequently breached.

Question 24

Direct intention

Answer 24

Aim and purpose was to bring about AR.

Question 25

Continuing act theory

Answer 25

Coincidence between MR and AR is satisfied even if:

D begins and act w/out requisite mens rea, but during course of act, subsequently forms it.

Question 26

R v Fagan

Answer 26

Accidentally drove on police officer’s foot with car, but then deliberately refused to move car.

Question 27

R v Thabo Meli

Answer 27

Coincidence of MR and AR

Defendant hit victim with his car with intent to kill.
In reality, victim survived injuries from first act, but later died after D rolled V off a cliff to cover their tracks.

MR - satisfied during first act.
AR - met during second act.

Question 28

Series of acts

Answer 28

Two separate acts, each satisfying AR and MR separately, can be seen as forming part of one larger transaction - meaning coincidence is satisfied.

Question 29

Chandler v DPP

Answer 29

Not about the defendant’s intention behind the immediate act, but instead whether intended the same method of achieving it.

Question 30

R v Cheshire

Answer 30

Medical negligence did not break causal chain.

Victim was shot by D and doctors conducted tracheotomy to help her breathe.

After procedure, woman complained she still could not breathe, but doctors dismissed her complaints, and she later died after scar tissue formed in her throat. D was liable for her death.

Question 31

R v Padgett

Answer 31

Not free, informed, and deliberate act by third-party.

D was liable for V’s death when using her as human shield during police stand-off.

Police officers had no choice but to fire back.

Question 32

R v Bleau

Answer 32

Victim’s decision to refused medical treatment on religious grounds did not break causal chain.

Question 33

Will a victim’s decision to commit suicide as a result of injuries sustained break causal chain?

Answer 33

No provided that:
(i) D’s unlawful act is a significant and operating cause of death.
and
(ii) Reasonably foreseeable victim would commit suicide from injuries sustained.

Question 34

R v Wallace

Answer 34

D was guilty of manslaughter after V went to Belgium to get euthanise.

Left severely disfigured after D threw acid on his face.

Question 35

R v Dear (legal causation)

Answer 35

D is still responsible even if V after medical treatment is “complete” if D’s act is an operative cause of death.

Satisfied when V died after stitches came undone.

Question 36

What is one key point to note if asked to re-state the correct legal test for oblique intention?

Answer 36

Jury is invited to find intention, and not infer intention.

• Woollin [1999] AC 82 approved the direction given in Nedrick [1986], but changed the word ‘infer’ to ‘find’.