Introduction to criminal law

Question 1

What is the definition of actus reus?

Answer 1

The guilty act may be voluntary or an omission.

Question 2

Name the three types of AR

Answer 2

Conduct - where the actual doing of the offence is enough,
Consequence - the prohibited act must result in a specific consequence.
State of affairs - a “being” crime, having an offensive weapon in a public place.

Question 3

Hill v Baxter

Answer 3

“suppose a driver had a stroke or an epileptic fit … he could not said to be driving. A blow from a stone or an attack from a swarm of bees” would be similar.

Question 4

What is the definition of an omission?

Answer 4

An omission is a failure to act, this is usually not an offence unless they have a contractual duty to act such as a lifeguard.

Question 5

R V Gibbins and proctor.

Answer 5

Parent starved their daughter to death. failure to feed the child formed the AR for murder.

Question 6

R V Stone and Dobinson

Answer 6

DIed of malnutrition due to the food-lacked nutrients, this formed the AR.

Question 7

R V Miller

Answer 7

His cigarette lit the house on fire, he was accused of arson.

Question 8

DPP V Santa Bermudez

Answer 8

He was accused of ABH due to lying about weapons on himself. The D knew there was a dangerous situation but both failed to stop it.

Question 9

R V Dytham

Answer 9

Bystanders are convicted of the alleged crime as he failed to do his job right.

Question 10

R V Pittwood

Answer 10

Their failure to do their duty could make them guilty of an offence.

Question 11

What is the definition of causation?

Answer 11

Causation has to be proved if there is any doubt. Factual causation proves that there is a “chain” linking the actions of the D with the final harm that occurred. Legal causation then asks if any other act or person broke this chain.

Question 12

Factual: R V White

Answer 12

But for the D’s conduct, the harm would not have occurred.

Question 13

Legal cause: R V Kimsey

Answer 13

If the conduct was more than a minimal cause then it can be said to have caused the death.

Question 14

Legal cause: R V Blaue

Answer 14

If the V has something unusual which then makes the injury more serious then the D is liable for the more serious injury. This is also known as the thin skull rule.

Question 15

Legal - Intervening acts: R V Pagett

Answer 15

A foreseeable reaction by a third party would not break the chain.

Question 16

Legal - Intervening acts: R V Smith

Answer 16

Medical treatment. D act need not be the sole cause of death as long as it is an operating and substantial cause.

Question 17

Legal - Intervening acts: R V Cheshire

Answer 17

D’s act was not the sole cause of death or even the main cause of death.

Question 18

Legal - Intervening acts: R V Jordan

Answer 18

A sufficiently independent act will break the chain of causation.

Question 19

Legal - Intervening acts: R V Malcherek

Answer 19

Switching a life support machine does not break the chain of causation as long as the patient is brain-dead.

Question 20

Intervening acts - victims’ act: R V Roberts.

Answer 20

If the D does something that causes the V to act in the reasonably foreseeable way then any injury to the V will be seen to have been caused by the D, it will not break the chain.

Question 21

Intervening acts - victims’ act: R V Williams

Answer 21

An unreasonable reaction may break the chain

Question 22

Intervening acts - victims’ act: R V Dear

Answer 22

D’s actions, e.g. in reopening the wound will not break the chain as long as the original act is still an operating cause of death.

Question 23

Define “Mens rea”

Answer 23

The guilty mind.

Question 24

MR - Direct Intent: R V Mohan

Answer 24

A decision by the D to bring about the prohibited consequence no matter whether they desired this consequence. “Intending what they were doing”

Question 25

MR - Oblique intent: R V Woolin

Answer 25

They weren’t entitled to find the necessary intention unless they were sure that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty.

Question 26

MR - Oblique intent: R V Matthews and Alleyne

Answer 26

Proof of foresight of virtual certainty is not intention in itself but merely very powerful evidence of it.

Question 27

Recklessness - R V Cunningham

Answer 27

Recklessness is realising there is a risk of the consequence but doing it anyways. in this case, D didn’t realise there was a risk so he wasn’t liable for recklessness. Tore a gas meter.

Question 28

What does the MR of the s18 offence state?

Answer 28

A person is guilty of this offence if he intends to cause really serious harm. (MR challenges)

Question 29

Define “Transferred malice”

Answer 29

This is where an injury aimed at one person falls instead of another. In law, the D is still liable or guilty. It does not matter that the actual victim is different from the intended victim.

Question 30

R V Latimer

Answer 30

Aimed to hit someone with his belt but hit someone else. It had the MR and AR. But if a person has the MR of one crime and commits the AR of another, different crime he will not be guilty of either crime.

Question 31

R V Pembliton

Answer 31

Threw a stone at a person. He intended to cause harm to another person. He didn’t intend to break the window, you cannot transfer the malice for a different offence, no MR.

Question 32

Fagan V MPC

Answer 32

In criminal law, the D must have the MR at the same time as the AR - the two must coincide. Fagan was told by the police to pull into the roadside. He did so, but accidentally drove the car onto a policemans foot. The PC shouted, “Get off, you on my foot”. However, Fagan shouted “fuck you, you can wait” and turned off the engine

Question 33

Thabo Meli

Answer 33

A group of guys threw a person off a cliff into a river, he couldn’t swim so he drowned to death, the group of boys knew he couldn’t swim because he told them before he got thrown.

Question 34

Define “Strict liability”

Answer 34

No need for the prosecution to prove MR for all or part of the AR

Question 35

Smedleys v Breed (1974) HL

Answer 35

Food hygiene case. caterpillar in tin of peas.

Question 36

Harrow LBC V Shah and Shah (1999) QBD

Answer 36

Child protection case

Question 37

Alphacell LTD V woodhard (1972) HL

Answer 37

Protect the environment case

Question 38

Sweet V Parsley (1969) HL

Answer 38

Stephanie sub-let some students smoke cannabis in her classroom. She had no knowledge of this so the judge said this was a truly criminal case and needed the MR.

Question 39

One benefit of strict liability

Answer 39

Saves courts time and money as they are more likely to plead guilty because only an AR is required.`a

Question 40

What does the MR of the s20 offence state?

Answer 40

Intention or recklessness to cause some harm.

Question 41

Parmenter (1991)

Answer 41

At least be reckless for the injury (see a risk of some harm). D’s conviction for the s20 offence was squashed as he did not see any risk of some harm. He was substituted with s47.