Exam (elaborations)
Criminal Law Revision Notes - Distinction
- Module
- Criminal law
- Institution
- Queen Mary, University Of London (QMUL)
I achieved a distinction with these revision notes for Criminal Law at a Russell Group University.
[Show more]
3 reviews
By: daleacademy • 3 year ago
By: m4hyne • 3 year ago
By: ahmad1998qayyum • 5 year ago
Content preview
ACTUS REUS *Identify crime, actus reus + mens rea, causation, any defences?Cheshire Special relationships: Parent-child, husband-wife, doctor-patient
• If actus reus (guilty act) + mens rea (guilty mind) established = guilty - Shot, required a tracheotomy. But poor medical care caused death. Gibbons and Proctor à Imposes liability in private matters too
• Burden of proof on prosecution to establish elements of offence is beyond reasonable doubt - D = legal cause, only in hospital b/c D’s actions = still substantial + operative cause of death - D failed to provide food to child, died of starvation
*Do not write “D must prove _”, explain what the prosecution must prove to convict - Court: accidents ≠ inevitable - Liable as father-child relationship
• Law Commission: Proposed replacing actus reus w/ ‘external elements’ + mens rea ‘fault Jordan • Not guilty if death was imminent:
elements’ to reflect true meanings - Stabbed. Wound healed, but died from allergic reaction to drugs. Morby
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea - both must coincide - Treatment: ‘palpably wrong’ = broke chain of causation + removed D’s liability - Didn’t call for medical help, believed in power of prayer
Actus reus occurring before mens rea - NOT guilty, medical evidence: still would have died ∴ breach didn’t cause death
Smith
• Actus reus = continuing act - Parker LJ: negligence ‘so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the Voluntary assumption of care
Fagan history’ • People who start providing help then stop = likely to be voluntary assumption of care
- D stopped car on policeman’s foot. Refused to move when he realised. Instan
- Actus reus of assault continued for the whole time the car remained on his foot. à Glanville: legal causation = ‘moral reaction’ to see if result is imputable to D. Most culpable act.
- D took charge of caring for elderly relative, left to starve. Charged w/ manslaughter.
- D then became aware + refused to move ∴ mens rea + actus reus coincided = liable Intervening acts
• Occurs after D’s act + breaks chain of causation. Dangerous situations
• Liable for failure to act after creating a dangerous situation Miller
Miller • Relieves D from liability, if:
- Lord Diplock - ‘within one’s power to counteract a danger that one has created’
- D fell asleep whilst smoking a cigarette. o Overwhelming cause of death AND
- Awoke to a smouldering mattress, but moved to diff room. Fire spread. o Unforeseeable occurrence Evans à Applied Miller principle
- Court: D created dangerous situation that gave rise to a duty to act 1) Victim’s actions - Supplied stepsister with heroin. Victim injected + overdosed, but didn’t call for ambulance.
∴ Actus reus (D’s failure to deal w/ fire) coincided with mens rea (reckless as to • Victim may break chain if reaction to D’s initial act is extreme and unforeseeable - Created dangerous situation by supplying heroin + failed to fix it
damage or destruction of property) Roberts
- D harassed victim + she jumped out of moving car
Supposed corpse cases
Mens rea occurring before actus reus - Court: foreseeable victim would attempt to escape + be injured MENS REA
- Chain of causation only broken if victim’s actions were ‘so daft’ = unforeseeable
• D cannot have intention to kill, if believes they’re already dead
Thabo Meli Kennedy Intention:
- Medical evidence: died from being thrown off a cliff. Upheld conviction. - K gave heroin, victim died. * 1) What was D trying to achieve?
- Court: voluntary decision to inject drugs o Try direct intention to kill, then direct intention to cause GBH?
Church à Series of acts
o If not, try oblique intention + Woollin test, e.g. intended to frighten, but killed
- D attacked woman unconscious, intended to cause GBH (mens rea) • Thin skull rule: D liable for full extent of victim’s injuries even if victim suffers greater harm than
2) Was death an inevitable consequence of achieving his primary purpose? If yes, oblique
- D believed she was dead, pushed body into river where she drowned (actus reus). ‘ordinary’ victim would suffer
intention
- Court: Entire incident on the whole viewed as a ‘series of events’ designed to cause death o ‘Must take victim as you find her’
or GBH à Offence satisfied if AR + MR coincided somewhere during the single transaction Blaue à If D caused death, but not direct/oblique intention = involuntary manslaughter
Le Brun à CAUSATION - Stabbed. Due to religion, refused blood transfusion. Victim would survive if didn’t refuse. Direct intention
- Hit woman, fell unconscious. Dragged inside to avoid detection but hit her head = died - D convicted of manslaughter Mohan: D acts deliberately, wanting the outcome
- Question of CAUSATION, not a series of acts - Thin-skull rule applies to physical + mental characteristics of victim
Oblique intention
- Original act = legal cause • D foresees the result, but wasn’t desired intention
2) Third parties
Causation 1. How significant was their contribution to the death? - E.g. D wants to destroy plane package to get insurance = liable for murder b/c oblique intent
• Chain of causation: link between D’s initial act to the prohibited consequence that occurred - E.g. D had minor burns, but ambulance drove into river + died. D’s initial injury = Hyam
Factual causation insignificant + unforeseeable. - Put petrol bomb through letterbox of lover’s wife. Intention: scare wife, not kill
• Consequence would not have occurred w/o D’s actions 2. Were the actions foreseeable? - Convicted b/c foresaw her death as highly probable (not certain)
• ‘But for’ test: Whether victim would die ‘but for’ D’s conduct? If yes = D didn’t cause death. à Highly probable prohibited outcome would result from D achieving his primary purpose
Empress Cars
Benge - 3rd party opened an unlocked diesel tap ∴ caused pollution Hancock and Shankland
- But for his failure to check the timetable, someone died on the track. - Court: DIDN’T break chain b/c foreseeable - During miner’s strike, dropped concrete on road to stop miners going to work, but died.
• Lord Bingham: not blameworthy ‘if one genuinely does not perceive the risk’ à Policy factors: Engaged in a potentially polluting activity ∴ should take all steps to prevent it à ↑ Probability of consequence, more likely consequence was foreseen
• D’s wrongful act did not cause the consequence: 3) Naturally occurring events Woollin
White - E.g. D punches X unconscious, wave kills X = unforeseeable - CoA: ‘substantial risk’ test (overlapped w/ recklessness)
- D wanted to kill mother, poisoned her drink. But died of natural causes. - Unconscious X left below tide line + drowns when tide comes in = foreseeable ≠ break chain - HoL: Appropriate test for oblique intention created in Nedrick: Jury may find D intended
- D’s mother would have died anyway = NOT factual cause an outcome if it was virtually certain consequence of his actions + he realised that
Exceptions to Act requirement
Dalloway Situational liability: In a prohibited situation Medical
- Child ran in front of cart before driver could stop Larsonneur Adams
- Court: not responsible, child still would die if he had held the reigns - Immigration order to leave UK, set sail for Ireland but deported back to England involuntarily - Doctor gave large dose of painkillers to patient. Intention: relieve pain, not kill. NOT GUILTY.
- Convicted b/c ‘illegal alien’ VS.
• D doesn’t need to initiate process, but accelerates it:
à Crime w/o actus reus, but ‘circumstances’ count as actus reus Cox
Dyson
- Gave drugs at her request to put her out of misery
- Child suffered from meningitis, father beat him up. Possessional offences - GUILTY: intention to kill, motive ≠ relevant
- Convicted of manslaughter b/c accelerated death • Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: possess drugs = liable
Warner Airedale v Bland
• Doesn’t have to be a direct cause:
- Had 2 boxes, thought it was perfume. 1 had cannabis. - Vegetative state, survival relied on life support machine. Unhooking = same as not having it
Mitchell
- Pushed person in post office queue + fell over old lady - Liable, unless put in D’s possession w/o knowledge / significantly diff to what thought it was Case of double effect
Omission consistent w/ autonomy Conjoined Twins [2000]
Legal causation: Culpability, responsibility, foreseeability (blameworthy)
- No liability for omissions. Exceptions: duty to act à Ashworth: should extend to duty of easy rescue? - Doctors had to operate to save the stronger twin, but other would die
• May be legal, even if not immediate cause of death:
- Court: doctor had NO intention to kill
Pagett Statutory duty
- D used girlfriend as a shield + fired at police. Police shot back, missed + killed girlfriend - S170 Road Traffic Act 1988: duty upon driver involved in accident to report to police
- D = legal cause, as he set the chain of events in motion which led to death Contractual duty
∴ foreseeable police would return fire Pittwood à Imposes liability b/c public endangered
- Goff LJ: D’s act ≠ need to be main cause but ‘contributed significantly to the result’ - D failed to close gates at level crossing, victim died by train
• Cato: ‘more than a minimal cause of death’ - Liable for consequences of failing to perform contractual duties
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lawnotesxo2. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
60904 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now