Unit 1 - Actus Reus And Mens Rea

Question 1

What is the moralist approach?

Answer 1

Seeks to criminalise behaviour that is morally blameworthy but not necessarily harmful. It could be said it is not the function of the law to intervene in the private lives of citizens

Question 2

What are summary only offences?

Answer 2

LESS serious crimes and only tries in MAGISTRATES court. Motoring offences and criminal damage up to £5000.

Question 3

What are either way offences?

Answer 3

Tried in MAGISTRATES or CROWN courts. Magistrates can only give max sentence 6 months.

Question 4

What are indictable only offences?

Answer 4

MOST serious types of offences. Like murder, rape and robbery. Only tried in CROWN courts. Defence have to prove on the balance of probabilities and prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

Question 5

Appeals against criminal convictions examples:

Answer 5

ERROR OF LAW: If the CoA finds that the trial Judges directions to jury contained an error of law, the appeal may be allowed and conviction quashed. Or it can be allowed and the conviction is safe.
RETRIAL: the courts can offer a retrial following quash.
ATTORNEY GENERAL REFERENCE: the AG can refer a point of law to the Court of Appeal for clarification even if defendant has been acquitted.
MAGISTRATES APPEAL: Prosecution or defence can appeal to KBD. Must be on point of law.

Question 6

What is the Criminal Cases Review Comission?

Answer 6

Established by s11 of Crinunal Appeals Act 1995. Enquires into case and refers it to Appeal Courts.

Question 7

ACTUS REUS

Answer 7

Anything other than the state of mind required of the defendant. It is the act or omission that compromise the physical elements of a crime required by statute. Often involves positive action.

Question 8

Conduct, result and states of affair crimes:

Answer 8

Conduct - the defendant must ACT in a certain way.
Result - certain consequences must follow.
SOA - d must be liable even if they were not responsible. R v Larsonneur (public policy).

Question 9

OMISSION:

Answer 9

There is generally no liability for failing to act and no general obligation to intervene and help someone in trouble.

Question 10

What are the four main situations where a person can commit the actus reus of an offence by failing to act?

Answer 10

1. A special relationship - the defendant has assumed a duty towards victim. R v Stone and Dobinson - there was a interdependent relationship
2. Breach of contractual obligation - eg lifeguard.
3. Breach of statutory obligation to act. Legislation imposes a duty to act.
4. In a dangerous situation. R v Miller - it was established that when someone realises they have created a dangerous situation, the law imposes a duty on them to take reasonable steps to remove the danger.

Question 11

What case showed that withdrawing treatment was distinguished from a positive act?

Answer 11

Airedale National Health Service Trust v Bland

Question 12

Which case shows a duty of care in parent child relationships?

Answer 12

R v Smith

Question 13

Arguments for and against law imposing liability for omissions

Answer 13

An omission to act can provide an alternative option to prolonged treatment for someone terminally ill.
It is helpful in complicated situations like euthanasia where it can stop unnecessary suffering.
Society will benefit from a duty to rescue. Social cohesion and increased responsibility for others.
However it can be painful and undignified.
Stops doctors being liable.

Question 14

What is a controversial case for special relationships and why

Answer 14

Stone and dobinson - if they had refused to take Fanny into their home entirely, they would not be liable. She had declined food.

Question 15

Causation

Answer 15

It is an element of the actus reus.
Two tests:
FACTUAL: BUT for test
The defendant’s act must accelerate the death significantly (more than negligibly) (R v White [1910], R v Cheshire [1991]). This test can be very wide and is limited by legal causation.
LEGAL: The defendant’s conduct must be a substantial and operating cause of the consequence.

More Than Minimal Cause: The defendant’s contribution must be more than trivial or minimal (R v Smith [1959], R v Malcherek and Steel [1981]).
Not Necessarily the Sole Cause: There can be multiple causes; the defendant’s act need not be the sole or main cause, only that it contributed significantly (R v Benge (1865), R v Pagett (1983)).

Question 16

Case for the culpable act needs not to be the sole cause in causation:

Answer 16

R v Benge

Question 17

Authority for taking the victim as the defendant finds them:

Answer 17

R v Blaue

Question 18

Authority for daft escapes:

Answer 18

If the victim’s response to the defendant’s actions is reasonably foreseeable and proportionate to the threat, the chain of causation is not broken (R v Roberts (1971)). If the act is “so daft as to make it [the victim’s] own voluntary act,” it might break the chain. R v Roberts

Question 19

Men’s Rea:

Answer 19

Guilty mind - motive is irrelevant.

Question 20

Direct and indirect intent

Answer 20

Direct: This is when the consequence (e.g., death, damage) is the defendant’s aim, purpose, goal, or desire. It is the straightforward wanting to bring about a particular outcome. If a defendant shoots someone intending to kill them, even if they doubt their ability to succeed, they have direct intent. In such clear-cut cases, judges avoid elaborating on the meaning of “intent,” leaving it to the jury’s “good sense”
Indirect: the consequence must be virtually certain and the objective test may be satisfied.

Question 21

Indirect intent test: (cases)

Answer 21

R v Nedrick and approved and modified in R v Woollin:
1: whether death or serious harm was a virtually certain consequence of the defendants voluntary act
2: that the defendant foresaw this (subjective)

so the jury may find intention if they are satisfied that the consequence was “virtually certain” to occur and the defendant “appreciated that fact.”

Question 22

What does maliciously mean in law?

Answer 22

Intentionally or recklessly

Question 23

What is recklessness?

Answer 23

FORESEEING A RISK AND GOING ON WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION TO TAKE IT.
It is a less culpable form of men’s rea than intention as it involves foresight of possible or probable consequences instead of desire or foresight of virtually certain consequences.

Question 24

Is a recklessness test objective or subjective?

Answer 24

The test is now entirely subjective (Cunningham recklessness): did this defendant personally foresee an unjustified risk and go on to take it?

Question 25

Transferred malice:

Answer 25

Malice transfers to any unintended victim. Applies to other offences than murder against people too (R v Latimer). Pembliton - only works if the actus reus committed is of the same type originally had in mind.

Question 26

What makes a crime one of strict liability?

Answer 26

Having no men’s rea.

Question 27

Differences in Prosecution for Omissions:

Answer 27

Failing to comply with a statutory duty usually leads to prosecution for the omission itself (e.g., failing to stop at a red light), often with lighter penalties. Failing to act when there's a contractual or special relationship duty can result in prosecution for the consequences of the omission (e.g., murder or manslaughter), leading to severe penalties. This discrepancy is a point of criticism.

Question 28

Third Party Intervention:

Answer 28

An act by a third party may break the chain if it is "free, deliberate, and informed" or not reasonably foreseeable (Pagett, where the police officer's instinctive firing was not free/deliberate and was foreseeable).

Question 29

Medical Negligence:

Answer 29

Only if the medical treatment is "so independent of his acts, and in itself so potent in causing death, that they regard the contribution made by his acts as insignificant," will it break the chain (R v Smith [1959]

Question 30

For criminal liability, the actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time.

Answer 30

Continuing Act: Where the actus reus is a continuing act, it is sufficient for the defendant to form the mens rea at some point during the continuance of that act, even if they lacked it at the beginning (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969], where accidentally parking on an officer's foot became assault when the driver deliberately refused to move). Single Transaction: A series of consecutive events can be interpreted as a "single transaction," particularly if there's a preconceived plan. This allows courts to find coincidence even if the mens rea was present at an earlier stage of the overall plan but not at the exact moment of death

Question 31

Basic, Specific

Answer 31

Basic Intent Offences: Require a lesser form of mens rea than intention (e.g., recklessness is sufficient). Examples: criminal damage, most assaults. Specific Intent Offences: Require only intention. Examples: murder, s 18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, theft.