AS Law

HideShow resource information
Actus Reus
Physical element of the offence
1 of 23
Gibbins and Proctor
under the duty to act if... if there is a special/family relationship between d and c, d is under a duty to act(feed his child) due to the family relationship he had with c
2 of 23
Miller
under the duty o act if... create a dangerous situation, d create a dangerous situation (starting a fire) and did not act so he was convicted of arson and he was under the duty to act because he caused the dangerous situation
3 of 23
Pittwood
under the duty to act if... a contract places you under this duty. e.g. it was d's job to lose the gate he failed in doing so which cause the train driver to die, convicted of manslaughter as his contract placed him under the duty to close the gate
4 of 23
Causation
shows that d cause the end result, to show this you have to prove that d is the factual and legal caution of the end result. if this is shown then a chain of causation is formed
5 of 23
factual causation
but for test, if answer is yes the d is not the factual cause, if the answer is no then d s the factual cause
6 of 23
factual cause example case
White- d put poison in his mama tea she died of a heart attack, BUT FOR d's actions she would of died any way so D was not the factual cause of the end result
7 of 23
Legal causation
is d responsible for the end result?
8 of 23
example case for legal causation
Chesire- did D make a 'significant contribution' to the end result?
9 of 23
Chain of causation (nous actus interveniens)
chain of causation can e broken by: v's own acts(roberts), actions of a 3rd party(pagett), bad medical treatment(smith,chesire,jordan), thin skull rule(Blaue)
10 of 23
Mens Rea
translates to 'guilty mind', the mental state of d when the actus reus is done, two elements of mens rea; intention and recklessness
11 of 23
intention (direct)
direct intent, where the end result was d's aim/purpose(Mohan) d drove his car in to a police ma to escape from him but it wasn't d's aim or purpose to injury v it was to escape
12 of 23
intention (indirect)
the end result wasn't d's aim/purpose but the end result was vertically certain.
13 of 23
indirect intent example case
woollin; d threw baby into pram, missed baby hit head of wall and died, this wasn't d's aim or purpose however the jury can find that he indirectly intended to do this if the end result was virtually certain and d new this
14 of 23
recklessness
if d foresees and unjustified risk of harm occurring but goes ahead and takes the risk e.g Cunningham rips gas meter off c is poisoned, d was reckless as he foreseen this could occur but still went ahead and done it
15 of 23
coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
D must do the actus reus and have the relevant mens rea, the have to coincide, meaning happen at the same time, two exceptions; ar is a continuing act the mens rea has to occur at some point,ar occurs series of linked acts mr only during 1 act
16 of 23
example case for continuing act(coincidence)
Fagan V MPC-d drove over v's foot (ar of battery starts) v told d to move d said no (d has mens rea for battery) his mens rea could be superimposed on the whole of the actus reus
17 of 23
example case for linked events(coincidence)
Thabo Meli- d planned to kill v by hitting him (mens rea for murder)then throwing him off a cliff, d hit v ten through him off a cliff but d only died after been thrown off the cliff
18 of 23
transferred malice
applied when d has the mens rea for an offence but does the actus reus in a different way, d's mens rea can't be transferred if the offences re not the same
19 of 23
Latimer (transferred malice)
d went to hit x missing and hitting v instead, the mens rea can be transferred as the actual and intended offence were of the same type
20 of 23
Pembilton
d threw stone at x missing and breaking v's wind, d had the mens rea of assault but d the actus reus of criminal damage therefore the MR can't be transferred
21 of 23
strict liability
these are offences that don't require any mens rea, tend to be statutory rather than common law; regulatory; not serious
22 of 23
reasons for Strict liability
protects the public (Medleys v Breed); saves time and money for the courts; offence aren't truly criminal (Harrow BC V Shah)
23 of 23

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

under the duty to act if... if there is a special/family relationship between d and c, d is under a duty to act(feed his child) due to the family relationship he had with c

Back

Gibbins and Proctor

Card 3

Front

under the duty o act if... create a dangerous situation, d create a dangerous situation (starting a fire) and did not act so he was convicted of arson and he was under the duty to act because he caused the dangerous situation

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

under the duty to act if... a contract places you under this duty. e.g. it was d's job to lose the gate he failed in doing so which cause the train driver to die, convicted of manslaughter as his contract placed him under the duty to close the gate

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

shows that d cause the end result, to show this you have to prove that d is the factual and legal caution of the end result. if this is shown then a chain of causation is formed

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »