Paper 1 B Elements of a Crime Flashcards

1
Q

Actus Reus

A

Physical Element of a crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Type of act

A

normally a positive, voluntary act [Hill v Baxter]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Hill v Baxter Examples

A

struck by a stone
overcome by a sudden illness
attacked by a swarm of bee’s

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R V Mitchell

A

Must be a voluntary Act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

2 Types of Actus Reus

A

voluntary act, omission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Omission

A

Failure to act, when under a duty to act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

A statutory Duty

A

S.1 children and young persons act

offence for an adult in a position of responsibility to fail to support a child

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

A contractual duty

A

R v Pittwood

A duty through a contractual agreement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

A duty through an official position

A

R V Dytham

E.G. Police must act if they see a crime being committed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

A duty because of a dangerous situation/chain of events

A

R v Miller

Must take reasonable steps to prevent the dangerous situation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

A duty because of a special relationship

A

Gibbins and Proctor

E.G. Father and daughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

A duty because of the assumption of responsibility

A

Stone and Dobinson

E.G. taken an ill family member into the home

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Types of Causation

A

factual [white] and legal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

causation

A

there must be a causal connection between D’s conduct and the consequence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

the standard of proof

A

Beyond reasonable doubt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

factual causation

A

white - but for test

But for D’s actions, would the consequence have occurred

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Legal causation

A

De minimis Principle
Intervening Acts
Thin skull Rule

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

De minimis Principle

A

Paggett, Kimsey

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Pagget

A

D must make a more than minimal contribution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Kimsey

A

D must have a more than slight or trifling link between D’s actions and the consequence

21
Q

Intervening Acts [Novus Actus Interveniens]

A

Acts of a third party
acts of the victim
acts of god

22
Q

Acts of third party cases

A

Smith, chesire, jordan, malcherek

23
Q

Smith

A

medical treatment can be ‘thoroughly bad’ as long as the ‘original injury is still operating and substantial’

24
Q

Chesire

A

the act of a third party must render D’s ‘contribution insignificant’, if it is significantly connected to the original injury, it will not break causation

25
Jordan
palpably bad treatment breaks the causation
26
Malcherek
Turning off life support does not break causation, if the courts and doctors agree
27
Acts of the victim
Roberts, williams and davis
28
Roberts
V's action must be 'daft or unexpected' to break causation
29
williams and davis
V's action must 'daft or unexpected' to break causation
30
Acts of God
It is a natural but unpredictable event, there are no cases for this - it has never happened
31
Thin skull rule
Blaue D must take V as they find them, it concerns the whole man, physical mental and religious - including an inability to swim
32
Mens Rea
The mental element of a crime
33
MR is
intention - direct or oblique | Recklessness
34
Strict liability offences
Strict liability offences do not need MR
35
Basic intent crimes
Only direct intent or recklessness
36
Specific intent crimes
only direct and oblique intent
37
Direct intent
Mohan - intent is the D's aim or purpose
38
Oblique intent
evidence of intent | D intends one thing but the consequence is different
39
Nedrick, Woolllin
If D foresees the consequence as a virtual certainty, jury can find oblique intent
40
matthews and alleyene
foresight of consequences is not intention, it is strong evidence of intention
41
Recklessness
cunningham | D knows there is a risk of the consequence but takes the risk anyway
42
Cunningham
D must realise the risk of harm and assume it to have the MR satisfied
43
Transferred Malice
latimer pembliton | D can be guilty if they intend to commit a similar crime to a different victim
44
Latimer
MR for the intended V can be transferred to the actual V
45
Pembliton
MR cannot be transferred between separate that are not similar offences E.G. MR for GBH can be transferred to murder MR for ABH cannot be transferred to Criminal Damage
46
Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens rea
they generally occur at the same time, D intends to hit V [MR]. D hits V [AR] Flexible approach is taken via sequence of events and continuing acts, to ensure a fair trial
47
can MR and AR be separate
MR and AR must 'coincide at one point'
48
Sequence of Events
Thago Meli V was still alive when D's abandoned the body thinking he was dead. Ruled as a sequence of events leading death
49
Continuing Act
Fagan v MPC D drove on policeman's foot, did not know, then refused to get off Counted as occurring at the same time as a continuing act.