Criminal Law - Paper 1 (General Elements of Criminal Liability)
5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
- Created by: chloefyf3
- Created on: 30-06-22 13:33
What are the two elements of a crime that must be present to establish the defendant's liability?
actus reus
+
mens rea
+
mens rea
1 of 75
What is the actus reus?
'the guilty act'
- the physical element or conduct required for a crime
- the physical element or conduct required for a crime
2 of 75
What is the mens rea?
'the guilty mind'
- the mental element of the crime
(what the defendant is intending or thinking / failing to think about at the time)
- the mental element of the crime
(what the defendant is intending or thinking / failing to think about at the time)
3 of 75
What does the two elements coinciding mean?
they must both be present at the same time
4 of 75
What must the actus reus be and what does this mean?
voluntary
if the defendant has no control over their actions, then they are not considered to have committed the actus reus
if the defendant has no control over their actions, then they are not considered to have committed the actus reus
5 of 75
What is a case example for the need
for actus reus to be voluntary and what was held in this case?
for actus reus to be voluntary and what was held in this case?
Hill v Baxter
a driver losing control of his vehicle because he was stung by a swarm of bees, had a heart attack or was struck on the head by a stone could not be said to be committing the offence of dangerous driving as they would not be acting voluntar
a driver losing control of his vehicle because he was stung by a swarm of bees, had a heart attack or was struck on the head by a stone could not be said to be committing the offence of dangerous driving as they would not be acting voluntar
6 of 75
What are the three different types of actus reus?
- consequence or result crimes
- conduct crimes
- state of affairs crimes
- conduct crimes
- state of affairs crimes
7 of 75
What is a consequence or result crime, with an example?
require a certain outcome
e.g death for murder
e.g death for murder
8 of 75
What is a conduct crime, with an example?
only certain behaviour or conduct is required ; the outcome is irrelevant
e.g perjury (lying under oath, regardless of the outcome of the trial)
e.g perjury (lying under oath, regardless of the outcome of the trial)
9 of 75
What is a state of affairs crime, with an example?
consist of circumstances 'being' rather than 'doing'
e.g Larsonneur (illegally being in the UK)
e.g Larsonneur (illegally being in the UK)
10 of 75
What is an omission and what is the general rule for omissions in England and Wales?
a failure to act
an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence
an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence
11 of 75
In contrast, what law does France have
and what does this mean for omissions?
and what does this mean for omissions?
'good samaritan' law
places citizens under a duty to act in certain circumstances, and failure to do so can result in prosecutions
places citizens under a duty to act in certain circumstances, and failure to do so can result in prosecutions
12 of 75
What are six duty to acts imposed by
law that could make someone liable for failing to act?
law that could make someone liable for failing to act?
- duty to act as parents
- assumed a duty to act
- contractual duty to act
- public duty to act
- duty to act as defendant set in motion a chain of events
- statutory duty to act
- assumed a duty to act
- contractual duty to act
- public duty to act
- duty to act as defendant set in motion a chain of events
- statutory duty to act
13 of 75
What is the case that shows a duty to act as parents, what happened and what was held in this case?
Gibbins & Proctor
14 of 75
What happened and what was held in Gibbins & Proctor?
- defendants (husband + wife) who lived together with mans children
- wife hated youngest child + persuaded husband to stop feeding it
- child starved to death
- defendants guilty of murder
- omission to feed child = actus reus of murder as they owed duty
- wife hated youngest child + persuaded husband to stop feeding it
- child starved to death
- defendants guilty of murder
- omission to feed child = actus reus of murder as they owed duty
15 of 75
What is the case that shows an assumed duty to act, what happened and what was held in this case?
Stone & Dobinson
16 of 75
What happened and what was held in Stone & Dobinson?
- stone's elderly sister came to live with defendants
- she became ill and unable to care for herself
- the defendants did not try to look after her / get help ; she died
- omission to help = actus reus of manslaughter as they had voluntarily assumed a du
- she became ill and unable to care for herself
- the defendants did not try to look after her / get help ; she died
- omission to help = actus reus of manslaughter as they had voluntarily assumed a du
17 of 75
What is the case that shows a
contractual duty to act, what happened and what was held in this case?
contractual duty to act, what happened and what was held in this case?
Pittwood
- defendant's omission to shut the gate at level crossing = actus reus of manslaughter because he had a
contractual duty to act as part of his job
- defendant's omission to shut the gate at level crossing = actus reus of manslaughter because he had a
contractual duty to act as part of his job
18 of 75
What is the case that shows a public duty to act, what happened and what was held in this case?
Dytham
- a police officer's omission to intervene when he witnessed a violent attack on the victim = actus reus of
misconduct in a public office as he had a duty to the public to act
- a police officer's omission to intervene when he witnessed a violent attack on the victim = actus reus of
misconduct in a public office as he had a duty to the public to act
19 of 75
What is the case that shows a duty to act as the defendant set in motion a chain of events, what happened and what was held in this case?
Miller
- defendant's omission to put out a
fire he had started = actus reus of
arson as he had set in motion a chain of events so had a duty to act
- defendant's omission to put out a
fire he had started = actus reus of
arson as he had set in motion a chain of events so had a duty to act
20 of 75
What is the act that shows a statutory duty to act, and what is shown in this act?
s170 Road Traffic Act 1988
- failing to stop at the scene of a road accident is a criminal offence ; the omission to stop is part of the actus reus
- failing to stop at the scene of a road accident is a criminal offence ; the omission to stop is part of the actus reus
21 of 75
In which type of crime, must the
defendant's conduct cause the unlawful consequence?
defendant's conduct cause the unlawful consequence?
result crimes
22 of 75
What are the two things needed to prove causation?
1 - defendant's act / omission must be the factual cause of the result
AND
2 - defendant's act / omission must be the legal cause of the result
AND
2 - defendant's act / omission must be the legal cause of the result
23 of 75
How is factual causation applied?
the defendant will only be liable if the
consequence would not have happened 'but for' their unlawful act / omission
if the result would have happened
anyway, the defendant cannot be liable for the offence
consequence would not have happened 'but for' their unlawful act / omission
if the result would have happened
anyway, the defendant cannot be liable for the offence
24 of 75
What are two case examples for factual causation and what happened (and held) in each?
White
-D put cyanide in mums drink intending to kill her
-she died of a heart attack before she drank it so D not guilty of murder
Pagett
-D's pregnant girlfriend wouldn't have died but for D using her as shield in shoot out he started with police
-D put cyanide in mums drink intending to kill her
-she died of a heart attack before she drank it so D not guilty of murder
Pagett
-D's pregnant girlfriend wouldn't have died but for D using her as shield in shoot out he started with police
25 of 75
How is legal causation appplied?
defendant's conduct need not be the only / main cause of the outcome
defendant has caused the unlawful
outcome if his conduct contributes in a more than minimal way
defendant has caused the unlawful
outcome if his conduct contributes in a more than minimal way
26 of 75
What does novus actus interveniens mean and how does it relate to the chain of causation?
new intervening act
even where other events contribute to the result, the defendant can remain liable = chain of causation (direct link) hard to break
even where other events contribute to the result, the defendant can remain liable = chain of causation (direct link) hard to break
27 of 75
For the defendant to be guilty what must not be broken?
the chain of causation
28 of 75
What are the three ways the chain of causation may be broken?
1 - act of a third party
2 - medical negligence
3 - the victim's own actions
2 - medical negligence
3 - the victim's own actions
29 of 75
What is a case example for the act of a third party when breaking the chain of causation?
Smith
30 of 75
What happened in the case of Smith?
- D and V were soldiers
- D stabbed V in lung in a fight
- soldiers dropped V twice on way to med center
- V waited long time before being given artificial respiration worsening injury
- with proper treatment there was a 75% chance of recovery
- D stabbed V in lung in a fight
- soldiers dropped V twice on way to med center
- V waited long time before being given artificial respiration worsening injury
- with proper treatment there was a 75% chance of recovery
31 of 75
What was held in the case of Smith?
the defendant was found guilty of murder because the stab wound was the 'operating and substantial' cause of the death (more than minimal)
32 of 75
When will medical negligence break the chain of causation?
when it is extraordinary and unusual
33 of 75
What is a case example for medical negligence when breaking the chain of causation?
Cheshire
34 of 75
What happened in the case of Cheshire?
- defendant shot victim in thigh and stomach
- tube had to be inserted into victim's throat to help him breathe
- victim died from rare complication of medical procedure
- original wounds were no longer life threatening when he died
- tube had to be inserted into victim's throat to help him breathe
- victim died from rare complication of medical procedure
- original wounds were no longer life threatening when he died
35 of 75
What was held in the case of Cheshire?
the defendant was held to be liable for the victim's death even though the medical treatment was poor as it was rare and so there was a chance
judge said that poor medical treatment would only break the chain of causation in the most extraordinary and
judge said that poor medical treatment would only break the chain of causation in the most extraordinary and
36 of 75
When will the victim's own actions break the chain of causation?
if the victim contributes to the result or makes it worse by their actions, this only breaks the chain if those actions are very unusual, unexpected or unreasonable (if actions are reasonably forseeable they will not break chain)
37 of 75
What is a case example for the victim's
own actions when breaking the chain of causation?
own actions when breaking the chain of causation?
Roberts
38 of 75
What happened and what was held in the case of Roberts?
- defendant made sexual advances towards victim (a passenger in his car)
- to escape, the victim jumped from the car (travelling at 20mph) and sustained injuries
- reaction described as reasonably forseeable so not enough to break chain = defendant cause
- to escape, the victim jumped from the car (travelling at 20mph) and sustained injuries
- reaction described as reasonably forseeable so not enough to break chain = defendant cause
39 of 75
What does the 'thin skull' rule mean?
defendant must take their victims as they find them
if the victim suffers more than expected because they have e.g a medical condition, the defendant will
be held responsible for the full extent of the victim's injuries
if the victim suffers more than expected because they have e.g a medical condition, the defendant will
be held responsible for the full extent of the victim's injuries
40 of 75
What is a case example for the thin skull rule?
Blaue
41 of 75
What happened and what was held in the case of Blaue?
- the victim (young woman) was stabbed by defendant
- she was told she needed a blood transfusion to save her life but refused due to her religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness so she died
- defendant had to take victim as he found her so was guilty of
- she was told she needed a blood transfusion to save her life but refused due to her religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness so she died
- defendant had to take victim as he found her so was guilty of
42 of 75
What are the four types of mens rea?
direct intent
oblique intent / foresight of consequence
subjective recklessness
objective recklessness
oblique intent / foresight of consequence
subjective recklessness
objective recklessness
43 of 75
What is direct intent with a case?
when the defendant desires or aims to bring about the prohibited consequence
Mohan
Mohan
44 of 75
What is oblique intent with a case?
prohibited consequence must be a visual certainty and defendant must realize this is so
Woollin
Woollin
45 of 75
What is oblique intent also known as and which crime is it used for?
foresight of consequence
result crimes
result crimes
46 of 75
What is subjective recklessness with a case?
defendant must realize there is a risk of the prohibited consequence happening and decides to take that risk
Cunningham
Cunningham
47 of 75
Why was objective recklessness abolished and what is a case?
abolished for reasons of fairness
G & R
G & R
48 of 75
What happened and what was held in the case of Mohan for direct intent?
- defendant attempted to run over a police officer by speeding up, despite being signaled to stop
- he had direct intent as he wanted to hit the police officer with his car
(although he did not succeed, it WAS his aim or purpose)
- he had direct intent as he wanted to hit the police officer with his car
(although he did not succeed, it WAS his aim or purpose)
49 of 75
What is the two part test in Woollin for oblique intent that need to be satisfied for the jury to find that the defendant had intent?
1 - if the prohibited consequence is a visual certain outcome of the defendant's conduct
AND
2 - the defendant realized this was so
AND
2 - the defendant realized this was so
50 of 75
What happened and what was held in the case of Woollin for oblique intent?
- defendant threw victim (3 month old baby) towards pram which was against a wall three / four feet away
- victim hit the wall and suffered head injuries and died
- defendant found to have oblique intent and defendant was guilty of murder
- victim hit the wall and suffered head injuries and died
- defendant found to have oblique intent and defendant was guilty of murder
51 of 75
What does recklessness mean?
defendant consciously takes the risk of committing the offence
52 of 75
What happened and what was held in the case of Cunningham for subjective recklessness?
- defendant tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty house to steal the money inside it
- gas seeped into the house next door, where a woman was harmed by it
- defendant not guilty as he had not realized the risk so would be unfair to convict him
- gas seeped into the house next door, where a woman was harmed by it
- defendant not guilty as he had not realized the risk so would be unfair to convict him
53 of 75
What is transferred malice?
a defendant can be criminally liable if they have the necessary mens rea to commit the crime but against an unintended victim
defendant's mens rea will be
transferred from the intended victim to the actuak victim
defendant's mens rea will be
transferred from the intended victim to the actuak victim
54 of 75
When will transferred malice not apply?
if the defendant commits a different type of offence because the mens rea can only move between victims of the same type of crime
55 of 75
What happened and what was held in the case of Latimer?
- defendant aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub
- belt bounced off man and struck woman in face
- defendant guilty
- mens rea was transferred from intended victim (the man) to actual victim (the woman he hit)
- belt bounced off man and struck woman in face
- defendant guilty
- mens rea was transferred from intended victim (the man) to actual victim (the woman he hit)
56 of 75
What happened and what was held in the case of Mitchell?
- defendant and another man became involved in scuffle at post office
- defendant pushed man who fell onto elderly lade ; she died
- mens rea moved from intended victim (the man) to actual victim (old lady)
- defendant guilty of manslaughter
- defendant pushed man who fell onto elderly lade ; she died
- mens rea moved from intended victim (the man) to actual victim (old lady)
- defendant guilty of manslaughter
57 of 75
What happened and what was held in the case of Pembliton?
- defendant threw stone, intending it to hit people he was fighting with
- stone hit and broke window
- mens rea to hit people could not be transferred to offence of criminal damage with intent as they are different crimes
- stone hit and broke window
- mens rea to hit people could not be transferred to offence of criminal damage with intent as they are different crimes
58 of 75
What is the coincidence / contemporaneity rule?
both actus reus and mens rea being present at the same time
59 of 75
What does continuing actus reus mean for coincidence?
where the actus reus is committed and it is argued that the mens rea is not present, the court will hold that the actus reus continues until such time as the mens rea occurs, so the two coincide
60 of 75
What is a case for continuing actus reus?
Fagan v MPC
61 of 75
What happened and what was held in the case of Fagan v MPC?
- fagan drove on policeman's foot without realizing = battery actus reus
- policeman pointed it out + asked D to move car + D refused = battery mens rea
- once D knew car was on policeman's foot + refused to move, he formed the mens rea + as the actus re
- policeman pointed it out + asked D to move car + D refused = battery mens rea
- once D knew car was on policeman's foot + refused to move, he formed the mens rea + as the actus re
62 of 75
What does series of events mean for coincidence?
where the mens rea is present before the actus reus, the courts will find that there is coincidence if both are part of the same series of events
63 of 75
What is a case for series of events?
Thabo Meli
64 of 75
What happened in the case of Thabo Meli?
- 4 men plotted to kill victim + hit his head = murder mens rea
- V only knocked out so no actus reus
- they thought he was dead so rolled him over low cliff edge to dipose of V
- V died on ledge of injuries + exposure
- murder actus reus present but D's
- V only knocked out so no actus reus
- they thought he was dead so rolled him over low cliff edge to dipose of V
- V died on ledge of injuries + exposure
- murder actus reus present but D's
65 of 75
What was held in the case of Thabo Meli?
- defendant's conduct part of same series of events
- as long as actus reus and mens rea were present at same point during series of events, this counted as coincidence
- as long as actus reus and mens rea were present at same point during series of events, this counted as coincidence
66 of 75
What is a strict liability offence?
- where defendant is guilty by doing the actus reus alone
- no need to prove any mens rea in respect of some or all of the actus reus
- no need to prove any mens rea in respect of some or all of the actus reus
67 of 75
What is an act example of strict liability offences in statute law?
Health & Safety at Work Act 1974
68 of 75
What is an offence example of strict liability offences in common law with a case?
blasphemy
Lemon v Gay News
Lemon v Gay News
69 of 75
What happened and what was held in
the case of Harrow LBC v Shah, used for strict liability offences?
the case of Harrow LBC v Shah, used for strict liability offences?
- d's ran newsagent+sold lottery tickets
- trained staff not to sell them to anyone under 16 + put notices up
- staff were to ask for age proof + refer to D's if in doubt
- staff member sold ticket to 13 year old boy, didnt ask for age proof
- d's found
- trained staff not to sell them to anyone under 16 + put notices up
- staff were to ask for age proof + refer to D's if in doubt
- staff member sold ticket to 13 year old boy, didnt ask for age proof
- d's found
70 of 75
What happened and what was held in
the case of Alphacell Ltd v Woodward, used for strict liability offences?
the case of Alphacell Ltd v Woodward, used for strict liability offences?
- d's water recycling pump did not work correctly, causing water tank to overflow and discharge polluted water into a stream
- d charged under Rivers (prevention of pollution) act 1951
- defendant guilty of offence, despite not knowing about detective pu
- d charged under Rivers (prevention of pollution) act 1951
- defendant guilty of offence, despite not knowing about detective pu
71 of 75
What happened and what was held in
the case of Smedleys v Breed, used for strict liability offences?
the case of Smedleys v Breed, used for strict liability offences?
- D was a large scale food manufacturer
- produced millions of tins of peas
- convicted under Food and Drugs Act 1955 when one tin contained a small caterpillar
- strict liability offence so wasn't sufficient to show the company had taken reasonable care
- produced millions of tins of peas
- convicted under Food and Drugs Act 1955 when one tin contained a small caterpillar
- strict liability offence so wasn't sufficient to show the company had taken reasonable care
72 of 75
What happened and what was held in
the case of Sweet v Parsley, used for strict liability offences?
the case of Sweet v Parsley, used for strict liability offences?
- D rented farmhouse to students, who used property to grow cannabis, D was unaware of this
- D charged with 'being concerned in the management of premises used for the purposes of smoking cannabis resin'
- D appealed conviction as she had no knowledge +
- D charged with 'being concerned in the management of premises used for the purposes of smoking cannabis resin'
- D appealed conviction as she had no knowledge +
73 of 75
What presumption about strict liability offences was upheld in Gammon v Hong Kong?
courts presume that a criminal offence requires mens rea unless the statute
clearly states otherwise, especially if the offence is 'truly criminal' (serious)
clearly states otherwise, especially if the offence is 'truly criminal' (serious)
74 of 75
What are six reasons for strict liability offences?
- deal with matters of social concern
- regulatory in nature and dealt with by fines
- promote high degree of vigilance
- protect public from harm
- promote maintenance of high standards of care
- easier to convict as do not need to prove mens rea
- regulatory in nature and dealt with by fines
- promote high degree of vigilance
- protect public from harm
- promote maintenance of high standards of care
- easier to convict as do not need to prove mens rea
75 of 75
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
What is the actus reus?
Back
'the guilty act'
- the physical element or conduct required for a crime
- the physical element or conduct required for a crime
Card 3
Front
What is the mens rea?
Back
Card 4
Front
What does the two elements coinciding mean?
Back
Card 5
Front
What must the actus reus be and what does this mean?
Back
Related discussions on The Student Room
- AS Level Law paper 1 OCR »
- Regarding a level law »
- Theft Act 1968 - Criticisms? »
- OCR A-LEVEL LAW - which topics could come up as essay questions? »
- what is double liability ? »
- Choosing a University »
- AQA A Level Law Paper 3 (7162/3) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat] »
- Hi, would anyone please be able to give me feedback on my practice LNAT essay? »
- (AQA) A Level Law Notes + Study Group 📚💼 »
- Does anyone have Law a level essay writing techniques?? »
Similar Law resources:
5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
4.5 / 5 based on 3 ratings
0.0 / 5
5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
Teacher recommended
3.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
0.0 / 5
3.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
5.0 / 5 based on 2 ratings
0.0 / 5
Comments
No comments have yet been made