Criminal Liability

= Guilty Act

1. State of Affairs Crimes

2. Action Crimes

3. Crimes of Omission

4. Result Crimes

1. Actus Reus is enough to be prosecuted

• Road Traffic offences
• Food Hygiene
• Trade Descriptions
• Health and Safety
• Selling alcohol to under 18’s
• Possession of drugs and offensive weapons
• Sweet v Parsley - Landlady
• Gammon v A-G for Hong Kong – collapsed building
• B v DPP - no mention of MR

Why do have Strict Liability?

Prevent excuses; Save time; Makes the public take more care; Deterrent; Low penalties

Absolute Liability NO DEFENSE R v Larsonneur – Alien

2. Only need the Actus Reus

E.G. Theft - Stealing a purse

Perjury - Lying under oath

* No Result needs to proven

3. Actus Reus ommmited through Omission

No General Duty - SIX Circumstances

1. Relationship between two people - R v Gibbons and Pocter - Starved a child

2. Contractual duty - R v Pittwood -gate

3. Caused a dangerous situation - R v Miller - fire

4. Misconduct in public office - R v Naughton - police officer

5. Statute says liability is owed - Road Traffic Act 1988

6. volentarily accepted responsiblity for others - R v Stone and Dobinson - sister

4. End Result must be established - R v White - the end result was not acheived

E.G. Assault; Battery; Section.47; Section.20; Section.18

MUST HAVE CAUSATION!

Factual (BOTH)

• 'But For Test' - R v White cyanide
• 'De Minimus test' - pin *****

Legal (ANY)

• Operating and substantial cause -R v Smith - stabbed, dropped x2, no aid
• Interviening Act Novus actus interveniens R v Corbett - gutter
• The Thin Skull Rule - R v Blaue - Jehovah's witness

Def. must have both AR and MR, and they must be at the same time.

R v Taaffe - money/drugs

• Continuing Act Theory - Fagan v MPC - Foot

If the AR is continuing, then the MR can be formed after

• Transaction Theory - R v Le Brun - row, dragged, banged

when the def. believed one action killed, when it was another

= Guilty mind

1. Intention

2. Cunningham Recklessness

3. Negligence

DIRECT

• Intented outcome - Rv v White

OBLIQUE

• Not desired but inevitable

--- Virtual Certainty Test

Are you virtualy certain that as a result of the def action, death or serious action would occur?

R v Woollin - threw child, didn't realise

R v Cunningham - Broke Gas Metre

Maliciously=Recklessness=Cunningham Recklessness= foresaw the consequences, but went ahead anyway

Assault - Recklessly put someone in fear of imeadiate force

Battery - Reckless about applying force

Section. 47 - Mens rea for Assault or Battery

Section.20 - Reckless about causing harm

Def means to slap X, but X ducks and D slaps Y instead.

R v Mitchell - post office, manslaughter

Attorney General's Reference - pregnant girlfriend, death of premature baby, in exisistance

R v Pembleton - window