The Rules and Principles of Criminal Law

Question 1

What is the definition of a crime?

Answer 1

‘an act that is forbidden by the state for which there is punishment’

Question 2

Why is it that what considered criminal can change over time?

Answer 2

changing views in society and technology may lead to new offences e.g. sexual offences act 1967

Question 3

what happens if you fail to observe the law?

Answer 3

can lead to state sanctions being imposed e.g. imprisonment or fine

Question 4

why can some conduct be criminalised by judges in common law?

Answer 4

judges create new offences that have never been passed by parliament e.g. marital rape now a crime

Question 5

what are the 2 elements that must be proved by prosecution

Answer 5

actus reus (physical element) - commit guilty act
mens rea (mental element) - with guilty mind

Question 6

what is the level to which the case has to be proved by the prosecution against the defendant?

Answer 6

beyond all reasonable doubt - defendant at risk of losing liberty if found guilty

Question 7

who is the burden of proof on?

Answer 7

prosecution to prove case against defendant :

proves D has actus reus + mens rea.

Question 8

what is the actus reuus?

Answer 8

physical element, or prohibited conduct of a crime i.e. guilty act

Question 9

what does the actus reus of a crime depend on

Answer 9

whether offence is a conduct crime or a consequence crime

Question 10

what are conduct crimes?

Answer 10

only require defendant to have done something, do not require any particular consequence e.g. perjury

Question 11

what are consequence crimes?

Answer 11

require defendants prohibited conduct to have resulted in particular outcome and is concerned with the causation

Question 12

why does the court require actus reus of a crime to be committed voluntarily?

Answer 12

defendant has no control over actions then he has not committed actus reus. absence of fault D usually not guilty e.g. Hill v Baxter (lost control of cars due to bees)

Question 13

when can an actus reus be formed?

Answer 13

committing crime voluntarily and by a state of affairs for which defendant is responsible and omissions.

Question 14

give an example of when an actus reus has been formed by a state of affairs for which defendant is responsible

Answer 14

being in possession of an offensive weapon in public place - D doesn’t need to have done anything but he has possession - sufficient for actus reus for be formed.

Question 15

when can a state of affairs crime occur

Answer 15

defendant been convicted despite not having acted voluntarily e.g
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)

defendant taken to hospital by friend whilst intoxicated.
Doctor realised nothing wrong, asked him to leave.
Later, found in hospital corridor.
Police removed him and put him in street.
Was then charged for being ‘found drunk on highway’
conviction upheld despite being taken to street by police

Question 16

what is an omission?

Answer 16

failure to act.

Question 17

Guilt for failure to act can arise due to which 2 separate areas of law?

Answer 17

statute law

common law

Question 18

what is statutory duty?

Answer 18

some acts of parliament create liability for an omission e.g. failure to wear seatbelt

Question 19

What is common law duty

Answer 19

Judges identify 5 situations where someone is under common law duty to act, failure to do so sufficient for actus reus

Question 20

What is contractual duty and give a case example

Answer 20

Failure to carry out duty (persons contract requires them to act)

R v Pitwood
Pitwood employed as gatekeeper at railway crossing
Went for lunch leaving gate open, meaning road traffic could cross railway line
Cart crossing line hit by train - one man on cart killed
Pitwood convicted of man slaughter based on failure (omission) to carry out duty to close gate when train approaches

Question 21

What is a duty because of a relationship and give a case example

Answer 21

R v Gibbins and Proctor

Gibbins father of 7, including welly
His wife left him a he was living with a lover, Proctor
They kept welly separate from other children and deliberately starved her to death
Both convicted of murder
Gibbins owed nelly a duty as her father and Proctor had undertaken a duty

Question 22

What is a duty undertaken voluntarily and give a case example

Answer 22

Where a person voluntarily takes on duty

R v Stone and Dobinson

Defendants lived together, but were of low intelligence and had many personal difficulties
Despite this stones sister came to live with them
Sister was anorexic and although I’ll didnt leave her room to seek medical attention
Stone and dobbinsom made some effort to take care for sick women but didnt call medical services. She eventually died
Stone and dobbinson convicted of manslaughter as they had taken duty to care

Question 23

What is a duty through ones official position and give a case example

Answer 23

Where a persons public position requires them to act

R v Dytham

Uniformed police officer saw a man who ended up being kicked to death
Took no steps to stop attack and drove away when it was over
Convicted of misconduct as he had neglected to act to protect victim

Question 24

What is a duty which arises from the creation of a dangerous situation and give a case example

Answer 24

Where a person fails to minimise the harmful consequences of his act

R v Miller

Miller had been squatting in a house and fell asleep on a mattress whilst smoking a cigarette
He was awoken by flames but instead of putting fire out he went into another room where he found another mattress and went back to sleep, house got damaged
Convicted of criminal damage as once he had woken up he had duty to minimise the harmful effects of the fire

Question 25

what is a consequence crime?

Answer 25

when offence requires defendant to have caused a consequence

Question 26

what is the chain of causation?

Answer 26

must be a direct link between defendants act or omission and the consequence to the victim.

Question 27

what 2 elements must be proved by the prosecution in causation

Answer 27

1. defendants conduct was the factual cause of that consequence 2. defendants consequence was the legal cause of that consequence

Question 28

what test is used for factual causation

Answer 28

'but for' test. : 'but for the defendants conduct, would the consequence have occurred?' (R v Pagett)

Question 29

What is the legal causation test in R v Smith?

Answer 29

the defendants act must be the operating and substantial cause of the consequence

Question 30

what is the legal causation test in R v Pagett

Answer 30

the defendants act need not to be sole cause, or even main cause, it is enough that act made a significant contribution to result

Question 31

what is legal causation test for R v Kimsey

Answer 31

defendants act need not be only cause, but be cause which is more than de minimis

Question 32

what can break the chain of causation?

Answer 32

intervening acts - something else may happen after defendants initial act or omission. If this sufficiently separate from defendants conduct, it breaks chain of conduct so D no longer liable for consequence

Question 33

what are the intervening acts that break the chain of caustion

Answer 33

medical treatment victims own actions other intervening acts e.g. act of third parties

Question 34

R v Jordan (medical treatment)

Answer 34

victim had almost recovered in hospital from stab wounds to stomach caused by D. Hospital administered antibiotics, knowing victim was allergic and he died.

Question 35

when would medical treatment break chain of causation

Answer 35

if it is ' so independent of D's act and in itself so potent in causing death'

Question 36

R v Smith

Answer 36

2 soldiers fighting. The victim stabbed by smith in lung and carried to nearby hospital by other soldiers. en route to hospital, he was dropped several times. At hospital, he was given incorrect treatment for pierced lung and died.

Question 37

What is the general rule for victims own actions (intervening act)

Answer 37

if D causes victim to react in a reasonably forseeable way, then any injury to victim will be considered to have been caused by defendant R v Williams - own action - D not guilty

Question 38

what is the thin skull rule

Answer 38

the defendant must take victim as he finds him. D still liable. (R v Blaue)

Question 39

act of third party

Answer 39

- if act was reasonably forseeable, it will not break chain of causation - r v pagett - if original injury still operating and substantial cause of consequence, act will not break chain of causation

Question 40

what is mens rea

Answer 40

mental element of an offence i.e guilty mind. | concerned with D state of mind at the time

Question 41

what are the 3 levels of mens rea

Answer 41

1 direct intent 2 indirect intent 3 recklessness

Question 42

what is direct intent

Answer 42

consequence was defendants main aim or purpose (R v Mohan)

Question 43

what is indirect (oblique) intent

Answer 43

D main aim different to prohibited to consequence and he intended something else (r v woolin)

Question 44

when might defendant be guilty of indirect intent

Answer 44

if defendant could foresee such consequences could occur from his action (foresight of consequences)

Question 45

what is the test for indirect intent

Answer 45

1) the reasonable person would have known consequence was virtually certain to happen (objective test) 2) the defendant knew consequence was virtually to happen (subjective test)

Question 46

what is recklessness

Answer 46

defendant knew risk of consequence but continued to take the risk ( R v Cunningham)

Question 47

what is transferred malice

Answer 47

defendant can be guilty if he intended to commit similar crime against different victim. D mens rea transferred from intended victim to actual victim

Question 48

R v Latimer (transferred malice)

Answer 48

D got into fight at pub, took off belt and hit man with belt. Belt riocheted off and hit woman in face. D liable for injures of women. Mens rea transferred from man to woman.

Question 49

what is the exception to transferred malice

Answer 49

where mens rea is for completely different type of offence, D may not be guilty. (R v Pembliton)

Question 50

what is the continuing act theory

Answer 50

series of linked acts/omissions, this can be treated as a single continuing act providing at same point act still going on D has necessary mens rea (Fagan)

Question 51

what is the transaction theory

Answer 51

series of acts treated by courts as one transaction with mens rea continuing through out Thabo Meli v R D attacked man, believed they had killed him. They then pushed his body over a low cliff to make his death look like an accident. However, man had survived attacked but died from exposure when unconscious at foot of cliff. Defendants convicted of murder as required actus reus was combine in series of connected acts, throughout with mens rea continued.