Rules and Theory

• What is an actus reus?

  The physical element of a crime. Can be an omission
• What is an omission?

  A failure to act. There are situations where an omission can give to liability in criminal law. 
• What are the 2 types of omissions?

  Statutory Duty: An Act of Parliament creates an offence involving an omission. For example, S.6 of the Road Traffic Act which makes it an offence to fail to provide a breath sample

  Contractual duty: A duty can be imposed on the basis of someone’s employment. For example, in R v Pittwood, a railway crossing keeper omitted to shut the gate so a person was killed by a train. He was found guilty of manslaughter.
• What is a state of affair crime

  The actus reus consists of 'being' rather than 'doing' like being drunk yet in charge of a vehicle
• What is a case for a state of affair crime?

  R v Larsonneur: A French woman went to Ireland after being ordered to leave the UK. She was deported back to the Uk where she was arrested for being an illegal immigrant. This state of ‘being’ returned to the UK against her will.
• What is a conduct crime?

   the actus reus of these crimes is the prohibited conduct itself, no need to have evidence of harm. For example drunk driving, theft and rape.
• What is a consequence crime?

  The actus reus must result in a consequence as the act itself isn’t necessary illegal. For example murder, GBH and ABH.
• What is an example of a case where duty is imposed by a relation between the victim and the accused? (statutory duty)

  R v Gibbins and Proctor: the Childs father and mistress failed to feed him so he died of starvation. They had a duty of care to him as he was the parent.
• What is an example of a case where duty is undertaken voluntarily by the accused? (statutory duty)

  R v Evans: A 16-year-old heroin addict living with her mother and sister died of overdose after her sister bought her heroin. Neither tried to get her medical help. The sister created a life threatening situation
• What is an example of a case where duty through someone's official position leads to an omission? (statutory position)

  R v Dytham: a police officer witnessed a violent attack but didn’t intervene and he drove away. He was guilty of neglecting to perform duty
• What is an example of a case where duty arises because the defendant created a chain of events leads to an omission? (statutory position)

  R v Miller: a squatter caused a fire in an empty house with a cigarette. He didn’t try to put it out so he was found guilty of arson.
• How does the mens rea and the actus reus happen at different points in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner?

  Fagan drove onto a police officers foot by accident but when the policeman asked him to remove it, he refused and swore at him. The actus reus happened when he did it by accident but he had the mens rea when he refused to move it after.
• How does the mens rea and the actus reus happen at different points in R v Church?

  D knocked the V unconscious and thought she was dead so he threw her in the river. Medical evidence showed she died of drowning and was alive when she was thrown in. So he had the mens rea before he had the actus reus
• What is the mens rea?

  The Law assumes that a defendant is responsible for their actions and the consequences
• When can a defendant not be at fault for their actions?

  • Being exempt of liability (being under 10 or being ‘insane’)
  • If you have carried out the Act involuntarily (E.g. Hill v Baxter where a man drove a great distance only part-conscious before having an accident. He was charged with dangerous driving. But he couldn’t remember anything. He was not capable of forming any intention to his manner of driving)
  • A person is in control of the actions but doesn’t have the mens rea for the defence
  • If the defendant has a relevant defence for their actions
• What are the 3 types of mens rea?

  Intention

  Recklessness

  Negligence 
• What is transferred malice?

  Intending to commit a similar crime but against another victim. This means the offender cannot be charged with the new crime if its different. For example, in R v Mitchell, the defendant punched a PO who fell on a woman who later died of her injuries. He was found guilty of manslaughter.
• What is direct intention?

  When a criminal clearly intends the criminal act to occur on a specified victim. This was defined by R v Mohan
• What is indirect intention?

  doesn’t want to act to occur but it is a virtual certainty of his conduct is what is defined by R v Mohan. In R v Woollin, it was decided the defendant must also know this is the case. 
• What is negligence?

  Where a person fails to meet the standard of a reasonable man. What the defendant thought or intended is irrelevant. The only criminal offence where negligence is used for mens era is in gross negligence manslaughter.
• What is recklessness?

  The conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk. This is a subjective test and can be seen in the case of the mens rea. The prosecution only has to prove recklessness which is easier to prove than intention. It can be seen in Cunningham’s case.
• What must be proved (causation)?

  • The D’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence 
  • The D’s conduct was in law the cause of that consequence 
  • No intervening act which broke the chain of causation
• What are the factual causation?

  Can only be guilty if the consequence wouldn’t have happened ‘but for’ the D’s conduct
• What are the 2 cases for factual causation?

  R v Pagett: The D used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield as shot at policeman. The girlfriend was killed. He was convicted of her manslaughter. ‘But for’ him using her as a sheild she wouldn’t have died

  R v White: The D put cyanide in his mother’s drink but she died of a heart attack before drinking it. The D wasn’t the factual cause of her murder but. He was guilty of attempted murder
• What is legal causation?

  There must be more than a minimal link between the defendant and the crime
• What is the thin skull rule?

  The defendant must take the V as they finds them. If the V has something unusual about their state which makes a more serious injury, the D is liable for a more serious injury 
• What is an example of a case for the thin skull rule?

  R v Blaue: A woman was stabbed and she was told she needed a blood transfusion but she refused due to her religion forbidding blood transfusions. Despite her religious beliefs making it more fatal, the D was still guilty because he had to take his victim as he found her
• What is the chain of causation?

  The link between the act and the consequence is known as the chain of causation and it must remain unbroken if there is the be criminal liability
• How is R v Smith a case where a third party led to the breaking of the chain of causation?

   2 soldiers had a fight and one stabbed the other in the lung. The V was carried to the medical centre but was dropped on the way. At the medical centre, he was given artificial respiration, but it made the injury worse and he died. If given the right treatment, he would have had 75% survival chance. But the D was found guilty as the stabbing was the substantial cause of his death. More than a minimal contribution
• How is R v Chesire a case where a third party led to the breaking of the chain of causation?

  The V was injured and had problems breathing so given a tracheotomy but there was a complication the doctors didn’t spot. By the time he died, the original wounds were no longer life-threatening, so the D wasn’t liable for his death
• What are some cases where a victims own act leads to the breaking of the chain of causation?

  R v Roberts: A girl jumped from a car to avoid sexual advances and it was travelling between 20mph and 40mph. The girl was injured and the D was liable for her injuries

  R v Williams: A hitchhiker jumped from the D’s car and died from his injuries. The car was travelling at 30mph. The D tried to steal the V’s wallet and thats why he jumped. The court didn’t think the V’s actions were proportionate to the threat or foreseeable. Therefore, the injuries weren’t caused by the defendant.
• How can the victim's own act lead to the breaking of the chain of causation?

  If the defendants behaviour causes the V to act in a foreseeable way then any injury to the V has been done by the D unless the reaction is unreasonable and then there would be a break in the chain of causation
• How can a natural and unpredictable act lead to the breaking of the chain of causation?

  This would be where an injury was caused by something like an earthquake or flood