Fault

• How is fault described as in the Oxford Dictionary? (1st paragraph)

  Responsibility for a mistake or misdeed... guilty or error, culpability... blame
• What is fault a simple way of describing? (1st paragraph)

  Legal blame and responsibility
• What is the basic principle of fault in the English Legal system? (1st paragraph)

  The D should only be liable for his actions where he or she can contemplate the harm that their actions cause
• Where can fault be seen in criminal law? (1st paragraph)

  Can be seen in the actus reus and mens rea of offences
• In criminal law, what are actus reus and mens rea split up into? (1st paragraph)

  Actus reus is split into voluntary acts and omissions

  Mens rea is split into intention and recklessness, where intention can be direct or indirect
• Where can fault be seen in civil law? (1st paragraph)

  Seen in a breach of duty of care, reasonableness and contributory negligence
• Which case first established the reasonable man which set the standard for fault in breach, and how would a person be at fault? (1st paragraph)

  Blyth v Birmingham Water Works, and a person would be at fault if they fellow below the reasonable man standard set for fault in breach
• What is it called when the defendant and claimant split the damages as they both share the fault? (1st paragraph)

  Contributory negligence
• What are the 5 main points in the 1st paragraph?

  Definition of fault

  Basic principle of fault

  How fault is seen in criminal law

  AR and MR being split up

  How fault is seen in civil law
• What must be present in order to be guilty of an offence under criminal law? (2nd paragraph)

  Actus reus
• In what case did the judge give 3 examples of involuntary acts? (2nd paragraph)

  Hill v Baxter

  Examples: swarm of bees, muscle spasm and a heart attack
• What were the 3 acts given in Hill v Baxter, and what did this mean about the D in their actions and their defence? (2nd paragraph)

  The acts were a swarm of bees, a muscle spasm and a heart attack.

  D's response was involuntary so an actus reus wasn't present. Could use automatism and duress as a defence to a situation like this
• What does the result of Hill v Baxter show regarding fault in English criminal law? (2nd paragraph)


  Fault is an essential requirement in order to fairly judge whether someone is liable in English criminal law
• Other than actus reus, what else is fault an essential requirement for? (2nd paragraph)

  Essential requirement for when it comes to causation as there are number things that can break the chain of causation
• Why is a break in the chain of causation important? (2nd paragraph)

  Important as it decides who is at fault
• A victim's own act can cause a break in the chain of causation, what 2 cases can show this and give brief facts? (2nd paragraph)

  Williams- V's act of jumping out of the car due to having their wallet stole was seen as a 'daft' act, so D wasn't at fault.

  Roberts- V's act of jumping out of car due to fear of sexual assault was seen as a foreseeable act, and D was liable for the ABH the V suffered due to the jump
• Other than a victim's own act, how can the chain of causation be broken? (2nd paragraph)

  Act of a third party
• What case should be talked about when describing the chain of causation being broken due to the act of a 3rd party? Give brief case facts (2nd paragraph)

  Jordan- V received palpably wrong medical treatment so chain was broken
• In what case did the courts say that the jury only has to be satisfied that the D's actions made a significant contribution to the V's death? (2nd paragraph)

  Cheshire
• What be you be in order to be legally responsible for a crime, and how is this worked out? (2nd paragraph)

  You must be the factual and legal cause of the crime. Worked out with the 'but for' rule and the de minimus principle
• What do the 2 causation tests work out? (2nd paragraph)

  Work out whether the D was actually at fault and is to blame for the crime, meaning that is it essential to preventing the wrong person being blame for the crime
• Where was the 'but for' test created? (2nd paragraph)

  In R v White. D attempted to poison his mother, but she had already died of an heart attack
• Where was the de minimus principle created? (2nd paragraph)

  In R v Pagett. D was more than minimal cause of his girlfriend's death
• What are the 5 main points in the 2nd paragraph?

  AR element of voluntary act

  Hill v Baxter

  Breaks chain of causation

  V's own act (cases- Williams and Roberts)

  Act of a third party (cases- Jordan and Cheshire)

  Causation test (but for and de minimus principle + relevant cases)
• What are omissions a key part of?

  Key part of the actus reus
• What is the general rule for an omission, so what can this therefore state?

  No liability in a failure to act. This therefore states that there is no Good Samaritan rule
• What are 5 cases in which a failure to act resulted in a liability, and why?

  Miller- D created a dangerous situation and didn't deal with it

  Pittwood- contractual relationship

  Dytham- official position

  Gibbons and Proctor- family relationship

  Stone v Dobinson- assumed care
• What do the 5 cases where a failure to act resulted in a liability show?

  Shows that in some circumstances, people can be at fault/criminally liable for doing nothing
• What are the 3 main points in the 3rd paragraph?

  Omissions being a key part of AR

  5 cases to show a failure to act

  People at fault for doing nothing
• What is the aspect of criminal law that most obviously illustrates the need for fault to be proved?

  Mens rea
• What is needed for most offences to prove the D is criminally liable?

  Mens rea
• What is mens rea split up into?

  Direct and indirect intention

  Recklessness
• What does direct intention mean, and where is it seen?

  Accused bought about the consequences on purpose. Seen in Mohan
• What does indirect intention mean, and where is it seen?

  D recognised the consequence as a virtual certainty. Seen in Woollin
• What does recklessness mean, and what kind of recklessness is sufficient?

  D knowingly takes a risk that is reasonably foreseeable to cause a crime. Subjective recklessness is only sufficient, objective recklessness (seen in R v G) was abolished
• Why is fault essential when it comes to mens rea?

  D must have the mental element of a crime to be criminally liable for the offence
• What does law recognise in relation to the mens rea for murder, and how is this reflected?

  Recognises that a person who intends this is more at fault than a person who was reckless in killing, and this is reflected in the mandatory life sentence
• What are the partial defences to murder, and what do they allow?

  Diminished responsibility and loss of control, and they allow the conviction of voluntary manslaughter
• What are the 7 main points in the 4th paragraph?

  MR being an aspect of criminal law

  MR needed to prove criminally liability

  MR split up

  Direct intention

  Indirect intention

  Recklessness

  MR for murder and partial defences
• What do general defences provide?

  Provide another way of showing the essential requirement of fault for criminal liability