Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

FLK 2: Criminal Liability > Topic 1 - Core principles > Flashcards

Topic 1 - Core principles Flashcards

(85 cards)

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

What is actus reus?

A

The guilty action or omission that constitutes an essential ingredient of any crime.

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

What are the key elements of criminal liability?

A

Criminal liability = actus reus and mens rea and absence of a valid defence.

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

List the four types of actus reus.

A
  • conduct
  • result
  • circumstances
  • omissions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is a conduct offence?

A

An offence that requires certain acts to have been committed by the defendant to satisfy actus reus.

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

What is a result offence?

A

An offence where the defendant’s action must lead to a specified consequence.

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

What is an example of a result offence?

A

Murder, where the actions of the defendant must cause the death of the victim.

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

What does actus reus of theft include?

A

Appropriation of property ‘belonging to another’.

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

What is the definition of causation in relation to result crimes?

A

Causation = Factual causation + Legal causation.

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

What is the ‘but for’ test?

A

‘But for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, the relevant consequence would not have occurred.

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

What is factual causation?

A

The jury must be satisfied that the acts or omissions of the accused were in fact the cause of the relevant consequence.

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

What is legal causation?

A

It must be established that the acts or omissions of the accused were a legal cause of that consequence.

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

What is the actus reus of murder?

A

The unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace.

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

What does the case R v White illustrate about factual causation?

A

There was no causal link between the consequence and the defendant’s act.

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

What is a novus actus interveniens?

A

A subsequent event or act that breaks the chain of causation.

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

What principle did R v Hughes establish regarding legal causation?

A

The defendant’s act must be the ‘substantial’ cause of the prohibited harm.

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

True or False: A defendant can be held liable for actions that merely accelerate death.

A

True.

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

Fill in the blank: Result crimes require that the defendant’s conduct cause a particular _______.

A

[result].

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

What must the prosecution prove to establish legal causation?

A

The defendant must be the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the prohibited consequence.

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

In R v Pagett, what was the key issue regarding causation?

A

Whether the defendant’s actions caused the police to fire back, resulting in the girl’s death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What does the thin skull rule imply in legal causation?

A

A defendant is liable for the full extent of harm caused, even if the victim had a pre-existing condition.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is the legal stance on medical malpractice breaking the chain of causation?

A

Courts are reluctant to allow medical malpractice to break the chain of causation.

This reflects the principle that the original wrongdoer’s actions remain the primary cause of the outcome.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

In R v Pagett, what was the outcome regarding the chain of causation?

A

The Court of Appeal held that the chain of causation is only broken if the actions of the third party were ‘free, deliberate and informed’.

In this case, the police’s actions were deemed reasonable and not free or deliberate.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What are the three types of acts of the victim that can affect causation?

A
  • ‘fright and flight’ cases
  • refusing medical treatment
  • suicide.

These categories help determine if the victim’s actions break the causal link.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
What must the jury consider in 'fright and flight' cases?
Whether the escape was foreseeable by the reasonable person. ## Footnote If not foreseeable, the defendant may be entitled to an acquittal.
26
What was the ruling in R v Roberts regarding the victim's reaction?
The victim's reaction would only break causation if the act was 'so daft' that no reasonable person could have foreseen it. ## Footnote This establishes a standard for assessing the reasonableness of the victim's actions.
27
In R v Williams and Davis, what factors did the jury need to consider?
* Proportionality between the threat and the victim's action * Foreseeability of harm from the threat. ## Footnote This case emphasizes the need for context in assessing the victim's response.
28
What does the case R v Blaue illustrate about refusing medical treatment?
Defendants must take their victims as they find them, including their beliefs. ## Footnote Blaue's refusal of a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs did not break causation.
29
What did R v Holland establish about a victim's refusal of treatment?
The court held that the refusal of recommended treatment does not break the causation link. ## Footnote The injury caused by the defendant remains the significant factor.
30
What was the conclusion of R v Dear regarding causation and suicide?
The jury could find that the defendant's injuries were an operative and significant cause of death, even if the victim died by suicide. ## Footnote The case highlights the connection between the defendant's actions and the victim's subsequent behavior.
31
What are the conditions under which a victim's suicide does not break the chain of causation?
* Victim dies from the original wound * Act was reasonably foreseeable * D's unlawful act was a significant cause of death. ## Footnote These criteria determine if causation remains intact despite the victim's actions.
32
What is the 'thin skull' rule?
A person who inflicts harm cannot escape liability if the victim suffers greater harm due to a pre-existing condition. ## Footnote The defendant must take the victim as they find them.
33
What does R v Hayward demonstrate about the 'thin skull' rule?
The defendant was held liable for the victim's death despite her pre-existing condition. ## Footnote This case illustrates the application of the rule in determining causation.
34
What type of natural events can break the chain of causation?
Only extraordinary natural events that are not reasonably foreseeable can break the chain. ## Footnote Regular occurrences, like tides, do not qualify as extraordinary.
35
What is the general rule regarding criminal liability for omissions?
A defendant cannot be criminally liable for a failure to act unless there is a legal duty to act. ## Footnote This principle is foundational in determining actus reus.
36
What are the five requirements for criminal liability based on omissions?
* The crime can be committed by omission * The accused was under a legal duty to act * The accused breached that duty * The breach caused the actus reus * The accused had the required mens rea. ## Footnote Each of these elements must be proven for a conviction based on omission.
37
What constitutes a legal duty to act?
* Statute * Special relationship * Voluntary assumption * Contract * Creating a dangerous situation * Public office. ## Footnote These categories define when a duty to act exists.
38
What was established in R v Hood regarding special relationships?
A spouse can be held liable for failing to act when their partner is in need of assistance. ## Footnote This case reinforces the duty to care in marital relationships.
39
What are examples of special relationships that impose a duty to act?
* Doctors and patients * Parents and children * Spouses. ## Footnote These relationships create legal obligations to act in the interest of the other party.
40
What legal duty did the parents have in Re A (Children (Conjoined Twins))?
A legal duty to the twin who could be saved.
41
What does voluntary assumption of a duty of care imply?
A person can be held liable if they voluntarily assume a duty towards another and fail to fulfill it.
42
In R v Miller (1983), what was Miller's failure that led to his conviction?
He failed to take steps to prevent a fire he had caused.
43
What duty was established in R v Evans (2009)?
Evans had a duty of care due to creating a dangerous situation.
44
What was the outcome of R v Dytham (1979)?
The police constable was guilty of wilfully neglecting to perform his duty.
45
True or False: A defendant can cause by omission.
False.
46
What is 'mens rea'?
Guilty mind.
47
What are the two types of intention in criminal law?
* Direct intention * Oblique intention
48
What does recklessness imply in criminal law?
Taking an unjustifiable risk while being aware of the danger.
49
What does knowledge and belief refer to under the Theft Act 1968?
Guilty of handling stolen goods if knowing or believing them to be stolen.
50
What is the significance of dishonesty in the Theft Act 1968?
The defendant must be found to have been dishonest when handling goods.
51
What is negligence in the context of criminal law?
Actions falling below the standard of a reasonable person.
52
What distinguishes gross negligence from civil negligence?
Gross negligence shows disregard for life and safety, amounting to a crime.
53
List the types of mens rea.
* Intention * Recklessness * Knowledge and belief * Dishonesty * Negligence
54
What is direct intent?
The aim or purpose of the defendant’s act.
55
What is oblique intent?
When the defendant does something dangerous and someone is harmed, though it wasn't their primary aim.
56
What is mens rea?
Intention ## Footnote Mens rea refers to the guilty mind element of an offence, focusing on the defendant’s intention.
57
What are the types of mens rea?
* Intention * Recklessness * Knowledge and belief * Dishonesty * Negligence
58
What are the two types of intention in criminal law?
* Direct intent * Oblique intent
59
Define direct intent.
Direct intent is when the consequence is what the defendant aims to happen, making it the purpose or objective of D’s act.
60
What does the general rule state about direct intent?
Direct intention is the most common type of intention, and a trial judge should direct the jury to convict if they are satisfied that it was D's aim to commit the actus reus.
61
What is oblique intention?
Oblique intent is when the consequence is not the defendant's purpose but a side effect that D accepts as inevitable.
62
What is the test for oblique intent according to R v Woollin?
The jury must be sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's action, and that the defendant appreciated this.
63
Is oblique intention considered a definition of intention?
There is debate; case law suggests it is evidence of intention, not a definition.
64
What is the significance of motive in relation to intention?
Motive should not be confused with intention; a motive does not automatically imply intention to commit the actus reus.
65
How can motive be used in a legal context?
Motive can be used as evidence of intention.
66
What is recklessness in terms of mens rea?
Recklessness is when a person sees a risk of harm but goes ahead with the act anyway.
67
What is the definition of recklessness according to R v G?
A person acts recklessly when they are aware of a risk and it is unreasonable to take that risk.
68
What does the requirement for coincidence of actus reus and mens rea mean?
The defendant must have the relevant mens rea at the precise moment of committing the actus reus.
69
What are the three additional principles of criminal liability?
* Coincidence of AR and MR * Transferred malice * Mistake
70
In what circumstances can oblique intent be used?
Oblique intent can be used when the facts require it and when intention is the only form of mens rea available.
71
True or False: Motive is the same as intention.
False
72
Fill in the blank: Direct intention is the most common type of _______.
intention
73
What is the requirement for coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?
The defendant must have the relevant mens rea for the offence at the precise moment they commit the actus reus.
74
What are the two flexible interpretations developed by the courts regarding the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?
* The continuing act theory * The one transaction principle
75
What is the continuing act theory?
A defendant can be guilty if they form the mens rea at some point during the continuing actus reus.
76
What does the one transaction principle entail?
The court categorizes the accused's actions as a series of acts that make up one transaction, allowing mens rea to exist at any point during that transaction.
77
What was the outcome of Thabo Meli regarding the one transaction principle?
The court held that the appellants' acts formed one transaction, and it was sufficient that the mens rea existed at some point during it.
78
How is causation relevant in the context of the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?
Causation can be viewed as the first act with mens rea causing subsequent acts.
79
What must a defendant have when there isn’t clarity on which act was the actus reus?
The defendant must have the mens rea for the relevant crime when committing each act that could constitute the actus reus.
80
What does transferred malice mean?
Transferred malice occurs when a defendant's mens rea is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim.
81
What was the significance of R v Pembliton regarding transferred malice?
The court quashed the conviction for criminal damage because the defendant’s mens rea did not match the actus reus.
82
What is the effect of ignorance of the law on criminal liability?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse and does not help avoid liability.
83
What was the outcome in R v Bailey regarding ignorance of the law?
The defendant was convicted of an offence despite not knowing of the statute, as ignorance of the law does not excuse liability.
84
What types of mistakes can negate the mens rea?
* Mistakes of fact * Civil law mistakes
85
What must be true for a mistake to negate mens rea if the requirement is negligence?
The mistake must be reasonable.

FLK 2: Criminal Liability (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions