Underlying principle of Criminal liability, 5 offences

Crimes of strict liability require the actus reus but no mens rea and are typically statutory offences. A crime will be of strict liability if it fits the criteria laid down in Hong Kong V Hong Kong attorney general. It was agreed that a crime should always be assumed to require mens rea unless its explicitly stated, if not then it depends on the seriousness of the crime. In Blake, the defendant was charged with running a pirate radio, although he was only recording demo tapes. The prosecution argued that the broadcasts interfere with public service transmissions and may cause a risk to public safety. Strict liability crimes were designed to make it easier to prove guilt (takes less time), they encourage compliance with the law and are there for public safety/social concern. They are regulations rather than actual laws, e.g. Food saftey act. This act alone encourages businesses to follow safety procedures as its harder to argue a defence.

Mens Rea is the guilty mind of the act. Two types of mens rea are intention and subjective recklessness. Intention can be either direct or indirect (oblique). Direct intent is defined in Mohan as a decision to bring about, so far as it lies in the defendants powers, the criminal consequence, no matter whether they desired the outcome of their act (the result is their aim/purpose). When the defendants aim is different to the consequence it is indirect intent, as the defendant intended the act but not the consequence. A two part test to decide if there is indirect intent was created in Woolin. In this case the defendant threw his baby against the wall out of anger. The test asks, is the consequence of the act virtually certain and did the defendant know it was a certainty? Its clear that by throwing a baby at a wall they will have very serious injuries and most likely death. Another type of Mens rea is subjective recklessness, this means the defendant knew there was a risk of the consequence but went ahead anyway. This was defined in Cunningham, in this case the defendant broke a pre-pay gas meter to steal the money, as a result gas leaked into a neighbouring house causing the occupier to become extremely ill. His subjective recklessness was that he knew there was a risk of the criminal consequence and completed the act regardless.

Causation is the link between the defendants act and the criminal consequence. There are two types of causation which must be proven. These are factual and legal. Factual causation is tested first using the 'but for' test ( R v White ) which asks 'but for the defendants actions, would the result of occured?'. In R V white the defendant unsuccessfully poisoned his mother, she later died of an unrelated heart attack. Since she would of died regardless of the sons actions there was no factual causation. Legal causation is tested by finding the operating and substantial cause for the consequence. In Jordan,…