1) General Elements of Criminal Liability

• WHAT CAN AMOUNT TO THE ACTUS REUS OF A CRIME?

  • This is the physical element of a crime.
• WHAT IS THE MEANING OF CAUSATION?

  • D will be a factual cause of a consequence if it would not have happened but for D’s conduct: PAGETT
  • D will be a legal cause of a consequence if D’s conduct was more than a minimal cause of the consequence. Thus, others may contribute to the consequence: BENGE
• Intervening act


  An act that breaks the legal chain of causation
• D's conduct causes reasonably foreseeable action by a third party


  The chain of causation will remain unbroken
• PAGETT


  Case where D's conduct caused reasonably foreseeable action by a third party and the chain of causation remained unbroken
• Medical negligence


  Unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of D's act and in itself so potent in causing the full extent of the injury that D's acts are insignificant
• CHESHIRE


  Case where medical negligence was unlikely to break the chain of causation
• V does something in response to the actions of D and injures themselves


  V's own conduct is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so daft that a reasonable person would not have foreseen V reacting in that way
• ROBERTS


  Case where V's own conduct in response to D's actions was unlikely to break the chain of causation
• V has something about them which makes them more vulnerable


  The chain of causation will not be broken, D must take V as he finds him
• Thin skull rule


  The principle that the chain of causation will not be broken if V has something about them which makes them more vulnerable, and D must take V as he finds him
• HOW CAN AN OMISSION BE THE BASIS OF THE ACTUS REUS OF A CRIME?

  The normal rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. However, there are a number of exceptions to this rule:

  • D may be under a contractual duty to act: PITTWOOD
  • D may be under a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm resulting from a dangerous situation he has created: DPP v SANTANA BERMUDEZ
  • D may be under a family duty to act: GIBBINS AND PROCTOR
• WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE TERM ‘MENS REA’?

  • Mens rea is the mental element of an offence. It is the ‘guilty mind’.
  • Direct intent – D directly intends a result where it is his aim or purpose. D desires the result that occurs and sets out to achieve it: MOHAN
  • Indirect intent – a court may find that D indirectly intends a result where it is not desired but was virtually certain to occur and D knows this: WOOLLIN
  • Recklessness – D will have acted recklessly where he knows there was a risk of the result happening but takes that risk: CUNNINGHAM
• WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF TRANSFERRED MALICE?

  • Where D’s mens rea is directed at one person, but D harms someone else, he can still be guilty. In such cases D’s state of mind is transferred to the actual victim: LATIMER
  • However, the principle of transferred malice is not available to make D guilty where D’s mens rea is for a completely different type of offence: PEMBLITON.
  • E.g. person to person yes, person to property no, property to property yes
• Strict Liability in Criminal offences

  Strict liability offences require no proof of mens rea for some or all of the actus reus
• Determining if a crime is one of strict liability

  1. Statute may make it clear

  2. If uncertain, courts will start by presuming prosecution must prove mens rea

  3. Presumption will usually only be set aside and strict liability imposed where the statute involves an issue of social concern
• Greater the social danger

  More likely strict liability will be imposed, particularly if it would be effective in promoting higher standards of care
• GAMMON: 'Courts will start by presuming that the prosecution must prove mens rea'
• ALPHACELL LTD v WOODWARD: 'The greater the social danger the more likely strict liability will be imposed, particularly if it would be effective in promoting higher standards of care'
• Main reasons for having offences of strict liability:

  • Strict liability offences help protect society, e.g. protection from unfit food (as in CALLOW v TILLSTONE), protection against pollution (ALPHACELL LTD v WOODWARD) and protection from unsafe buildings (as in GAMMON). It makes sure that businesses are run properly.
• The main argument against strict liability is that it makes people who are not blameworthy guilty. Often those who have taken all possible care will still be found guilty and punished. This happened in the case of HARROW LBC v SHAH where the Ds were guilty even though they had done their best to prevent sales of lottery tickets to anyone under the age of 16.
• WHAT IS THE COINCIDENCE/CONTEMPORANEITY RULE?

  • Usually in order for an offence to take place, both the actus reus and mens rea must be present at the same time.
  • Where there is a continuing act for the actus reus and at some point, while that act is still going on D has the necessary mens rea, then the two do coincide and D will be guilty: FAGAN
• There are two main exceptions where D will still be guilty of an offence even though the actus reus and mens rea are not present at the same time:

  • Where the actus reus is part of some larger transaction, it will be sufficient that D forms mens rea at some point during that transaction: CHURCH
  • Where D has voluntarily been drinking and then goes on to commit a crime that can be committed recklessly, his intoxication is not a defence. D is seen as reckless in getting intoxicated in the first place so has the mens rea for the later offence: MAJEWSKI