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
Q

Jordan

A

palpably bad treatment breaks the causation

26
Q

Malcherek

A

Turning off life support does not break causation, if the courts and doctors agree

27
Q

Acts of the victim

A

Roberts, williams and davis

28
Q

Roberts

A

V’s action must be ‘daft or unexpected’ to break causation

29
Q

williams and davis

A

V’s action must ‘daft or unexpected’ to break causation

30
Q

Acts of God

A

It is a natural but unpredictable event, there are no cases for this - it has never happened

31
Q

Thin skull rule

A

Blaue
D must take V as they find them, it concerns the whole man, physical mental and religious - including an inability to swim

32
Q

Mens Rea

A

The mental element of a crime

33
Q

MR is

A

intention - direct or oblique

Recklessness

34
Q

Strict liability offences

A

Strict liability offences do not need MR

35
Q

Basic intent crimes

A

Only direct intent or recklessness

36
Q

Specific intent crimes

A

only direct and oblique intent

37
Q

Direct intent

A

Mohan - intent is the D’s aim or purpose

38
Q

Oblique intent

A

evidence of intent

D intends one thing but the consequence is different

39
Q

Nedrick, Woolllin

A

If D foresees the consequence as a virtual certainty, jury can find oblique intent

40
Q

matthews and alleyene

A

foresight of consequences is not intention, it is strong evidence of intention

41
Q

Recklessness

A

cunningham

D knows there is a risk of the consequence but takes the risk anyway

42
Q

Cunningham

A

D must realise the risk of harm and assume it to have the MR satisfied

43
Q

Transferred Malice

A

latimer pembliton

D can be guilty if they intend to commit a similar crime to a different victim

44
Q

Latimer

A

MR for the intended V can be transferred to the actual V

45
Q

Pembliton

A

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
Q

Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens rea

A

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
Q

can MR and AR be separate

A

MR and AR must ‘coincide at one point’

48
Q

Sequence of Events

A

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
Q

Continuing Act

A

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.