AQA Law 02 underlying principles of criminal liability and non-fatal offences.

physical act of a crime, which must be voluntary (Hill V Baxter - hypothetical scenario of a driver being attacked by a bee vs a swarm of bees)

'result crime' is act = consequence. where Ds actions brought about the result. must be both factual and legal cause.

could be state of affairs, so AR is complete in circumstances not in actions e.g. posession of drugs. (Larsonneur - D illegally in UK) (Windzar - D drunk on highway)

a failure ot act. can't usually form AR, but are exceptions where there's a duty to act:

- contractual duty: pitwood - railway keeper forgot to shut gates, person killed.

- duty due to official position: dytham - police officer failed to act when someone was being attacked.

- duty due to statute: failure to wear a seatbelt.

- duty due to a relationship: Gibbins and Proctor - failed to feel child who died of starvation.

- duty taken  on voluntarily: Stone and Dobinson - failed to tke care of anorexic sister who died.

- duty to put right a dangerous situation: Miller - squatter set fire to bed and filed to put out.

causual link proven between D's actions and the consequence. 

Factual causation - cause so that 'but for' actions, consequence would not have happened. must be more than tiny. (white - poisoned mother, but she died before poison could take effect)

Legal causation -  cause is substancial ad opperating. (smith - V was stabbed and recieved bad treatment, stab was cause) (cheshire - V shot but died from breathing tube compllications) intervining acts only breakchain if unforseeable. (paggett - D opened fire and used pregnant girlfriend as shield, is forseeable police will shoot back) in medical cases, if irigional would still operating cause, any actions by doctirs (nomatter how negligent) will not break chain. but, if origional wound just the setting for another cause to opperate, will break chain. (jordan - D was recovering until given a drug was allergic too) in 'escape cases' chain not broken unless V's actions forseeable. (roberts - forseeable V will jump from car to escape sexual advances) (williams - unforseeable V will jump from car to escape driver stealing wallet) thin skull rule - take V as you find them, pre-existing medical conditions may make consequence worse for V but D liable for all. (Blaue- V refused blood transfusion due to religion) (smith v leechbrain - birn triggered pre-existing cancer)

mental element of a crime (guilty mind)

intent - acting deliberatley/making purpose. (mohan - "decision to bring about a consequence") oblique intent - D claims to have other purpose (hancock and shankland - claimed to try to stop miners getting to work by throwing stones, which hit car and killed people) Nedrick rule - if D lmew death/injury virtually certain as a result of actions but went ahead, jury can conclude result was intended. (woolin - D threw baby towards pram, giving it head injuries) (mathews and alleyne - D threw V into Thames knowing he cant swim)

reklessness - someone knows risk but continues act ( r v g and others)

transfered malice (intention) - persone injures someone other than intended V (latimer - man tried to hit other man with belt but hhit woman instead) for malice to transfer, has to be the same crime (pembilton - D threw stone at V but smashed window instead)

AR and MR usually have to be present at same time but where series of acts had MR present at some stage, applies to whole series. (thabo mali - D's thought killed V, so threw over cliff where he dies from exposure - mr present when attacked him, which applies to all acts) (fagan - D accidently put car on police officers foot, decided to keep it there - gained MR when refused to move car which applied to alll events)

require no MR, guilt determined on AR. most are statuatory (in Acts) and regulatory (designed ot protect public) most conern health and safety (callow v tillstone - butcher convicted of selling unfit meat dispite vets approval) (harrow lbc v shah - D sold lottery ticket to under 16, despite reasonable precautions to prevent)

is a presumption of MR if offence 'truly criminal' (sweet v parsely - D convicted for use of cannabis on property)

advantages - help protect society by promoting greater care over public safety matters, easier to enforce as no need to prove MR, save court time as more likely to plead guilty.

disadvantages - make people guilty who aren't blameworthy, even those who take reasonable precautions will be found guilty (shah)

assault and bettery (common assault) are common law offences, aren't defined in any act but Criminal Justice Act 1988 states maximum sentences for each and state's they're summary offences.

S.47 ABH, S.20 GBH, S.18 GBH are all defined in Offences against the persons act 1861.

AR - any act which makes V apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence (smith v working police - D looking at woman in nightclothes threw window) (logdon - man showed V fake gun in draw) words enough (ireland - silent phone calls) (constanza - letters sent by stalker) words can annul asssault (tuberville v savage - "if it were not this time i would seize you with my sword")

MR - intention to cause V to apprehend immediate, unlawful violence or be rekless too whether such apprehension is caused.

AR - application of unlawful force. no need to prove harm/pain as touching is enough (collins v willcock) touching has to be hostile (wilson v pringle - schoolboy siezed bag off shoulder) can be indirect (fagan - driving car onto foot) (thomas - touching someones clothes ) (dpp v k - acid in a hand drier) (haystead - man punched woman who dropped baby)

MR - intention or reklessness as to whether unlawful force will be applied (venna - 'd must intend/be rekless as to apply force)

any assault occasioning in ABH.

AR - assault/battery plus ABH (miller - 'any hurt/injury calculated to interfere with comfort') doesnt have to be to skin/flesh/bones (smith v dpp - cutting off ponytail) can be psychiatric (chan fook - psychiatric injury doesnt include mere emotions e.g. fear)

MR - only MR for assault/battery needed (roberts - touched clothes so she jumped from moving car as feared sexual advances) (savage - D threw beer into V's face (battery) glass broke causing cut to wrist (ABH) )

unlawfully and maliciously wounding and/or inflicting GBH upon any other person

AR - inflicting GBH or wounding (Saunders) includes broken limbs, sacarring, disability, substancial loss of blood. (bollom - sever bruisig to young child, held V's age relevant) can be psychiatric as long as 'serious' (ireland) (burstow) doesnt require direct contact (burstow) (mrtin - shouted 'fire' in crowded cinema and caused injury to people getting trampled on in a panic) wounding means breaking of skin, not internal bleeding (eisenhower) (dica - biological GBH as infected women with HIV)

MR - intention or reklessness as to whether some harm is caused (mowatt)

AR - AR - causing GBH or wounding (Saunders) includes broken limbs, sacarring, disability, substancial loss of blood. (bollom - sever bruisig to young child, held V's age relevant) can be psychiatric as long as 'serious' (ireland) (burstow) doesnt require direct contact (burstow) (mrtin - shouted 'fire' in crowded cinema and caused injury to people getting trampled on in a panic) wounding means breaking of skin, not internal bleeding (eisenhower) (dica - biological GBH as infected women with HIV)

MR - the intention to cause BH or to resist arrest. 

intention is to act deliberatley (mohan) can be direct or oblique (states had other aim) Nedrick test - jury can conclude intent if D knew risk virtually certain, and went ahead anyway.