Actus Reus means the unlawful act- the physical act
1 of 20
OMISSIONS?
Cannot usually form the basis of the Actus Reus however there are some exceptions where the law will impose a duty to act
2 of 20
EXAMPLES OF OMISSIONS?
A duty to act through a contract- R V Pitwood....A Duty taken on voluntarily- Stone and Dobinson...A Duty through a relationship... Gibbons and proctor...A duty through act through ones official position...Dytham
3 of 20
CAUSATION?
In 'Result Crimes' A casual link between the defendants actions and the consequence must be proved.
4 of 20
FACTUAL CAUSATION?
Uses the 'But For' test. In R v White, the D was not a factual cause, In R v Pagget the D was a factual cause
5 of 20
LEGAL CAUSATION?
Establishes what the substantial and operating/ significant cause of the consequence is
6 of 20
R V SMITH
The D received 'thoroughly bad treatment' but died as a result of blood loss from the original stab wound. Smith was operating and Substantial cause.
7 of 20
R V CHESHIRE
V died from rare complications of a tracheotomy but Cheshire was still a significant cause as the treatment was for injury caused by him
8 of 20
INTERVENING ACTS
Will only break the chain if they are unforeseeable. Can be the victims own act, a third party act, medical negligence
9 of 20
R V ROBERTS
A foreseeable act that is proportionate to the threat will not break the chain
10 of 20
R V WILLIAMS
An act that is daft and not in proportion with the threat will break the chain
11 of 20
R V JORDAN
Broke the chain of causation through medical negligence as the treatment was 'palpably wrong'
12 of 20
THIN SKULL RULE
Means you must take your victim as you find them and be liable for all the consequences. This will cover the victims mental/physical conditions and even beliefs as in R v Blaue
13 of 20
MENS REA?
The mental element of the crime- the state of mind- there are a number of states of mind that can amount to mens rea
14 of 20
INTENT
Intention is where you act deliberately or make something your aim objective and purpose- R v Mohan
15 of 20
OBLIQUE INTENT
Is where the consequence of actions is a virtual certainty yet the defendant goes ahead with their actions. R v Nedrick, confirmed in Woolin
16 of 20
RECKLESSNESS
Where the D knows the risk of their actions yet goes ahead with them anyway- R v Cunningham as backed up in R v G and Others
17 of 20
TRANSFERRED MALICE
When a person injures someone other than their intended victim this will apply
18 of 20
R V LATIMER
A man aimed to hit another man with a belt, he instead hit a woman. The malice was transferred from the intended victim to the woman
19 of 20
R V PEMBILTON
The malice cannot be transferred between two separate crimes, in this case the D threw a stone aiming at their victim but hit and smashed a window
20 of 20
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
OMISSIONS?
Back
Cannot usually form the basis of the Actus Reus however there are some exceptions where the law will impose a duty to act
Comments
No comments have yet been made