Summary
Summary CRIMINAL LAW Notes
CRIMINAL LAW comprehensive notes for the SQE 1 FLK 2 exams
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
CRIMINAL LAW- Legal burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove all the elements of the
offence including disproving the defence
- Evidential burden is on the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence
- Standard of Proof – beyond reasonable doubt on Prosecution to prove
Actus Reus
- Guilty Conduct by the Defendant
- Actus Reus may consist of:
o An act by the defendant (may include an omission to act)
o Certain consequences flowing from the defendant’s conduct and
o The existence of certain circumstances at the time of the defendant’s
conduct
- Conduct crimes require the defendant to do some type of conduct for the
actus reus
o For instance Perjury which is a pure conduct crime because the
defendant’s conduct rather than the result itself that is criminalised
- Result crimes require certain consequences to follow from the defendants
actions if the actus reus is to be satisfied.
- State of Affairs crimes do not require any conduct at all so the actus resus is
simply the existence of a state of affairs – the defendant may be liable even
though they had no control over the situation
OMISSIONS
- May be possible to be criminally liable for a failure or omission to act. The
reason the defendant is guilty is because they have produced a result
- General rule
o There is no liability for omissions
o Exceptions to this rule:
Statutory Offences
Common Law Offences
General rule is that a defendant will only be criminally
liable for an omission if the law recognises that they were
under a duty to act and they failed to do so.
Duty arising out of contract?
, o If a person is under contract that specifies certain
obligations to act, a failure to comply with these
can lead to criminal liability
o R v Pittwood- Defendant was contractually obliged
to act to protect members of the public and was
therefore liable under criminal law for his failure to
act.
o Likely for- doctors, nurses, members of emergency
services and lifeguards.
Special Relationship
o R v Gibbins and Proctor-
father under a duty of care for daughter
fathers partner had a duty of care through
her special relationship with the child – she
had assumed duty towards the child by
living with the father and accepting
housekeeping money from him
o R v Stone and Dobinson-
Defendants had physical and mental
difficulties but their act of taking the sister in
and making occasional attempts to help her,
they were under a duty to act
Creation of a Dangerous Situation
o If defendant does something that endangers the
victim and they are aware of it, they are under a
duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm
from occurring
o R v Miller-
Defendant guilty as he failed to take any
steps to put the fire out when he realised
what had happened.
CAUSATION
- Defendants act or omission must actually cause the prohibited consequence –
proving causation.
- Factual and Legal Causation
Factual Causation
- Defendant cannot be considered to be the cause of the event if the event
would have occurred in the same way without the defendant’s act or omission
- ‘But For’ the defendants conduct would the consequence have occurred? If
the answer is yes, then the defendant is not liable.
, - R v White-
o As the mother would have died even if her son had not put poison in
her drink, the defendant was not guilty of murder but only attempt.
Legal Causation
- Must also establish that the accused was the legal cause of the result.
- The defendants conduct must be a substantial and operating cause of the
consequence
- R v Dalloway- defendant acquitted as even though there was a culpable act
(not holding the reins), it did not cause the child’s death which could not have
been avoided.
- The culpable act must be a more than minimal cause of the consequence
o More than trivial or minimal
- R v Pagett- defendants actions contributed significantly to girlfriends death. As
the police officer who was firing at the defendant was not acting free,
deliverately or informed as he was acting instinctively in self-defence to the
defendant shooting and the police officers actions was reasonably
foreseeable in the circumstances as the defendant was shooting at him.
Therefore the police mans acts did not break the chain of causation.
- The culpably act need not be the sole cause
o R v Benge – defendant, signalman and train driver were at fault but this
does not mean the defendant could avoid liability.
- Must take the defendant as you find them - Eggshell Skull Rule
o R v Blaue –
Lawton LJ said ‘those who use violence on other people must
take their victims as they find them. this means the whole man,
not just the physical man’
The chain of causation must not be broken
o Novus actus interveniens – new and intervening act
o if there is an intervening act then this breaks the chain of causation and
the defendant is not the cause of the result
o 3 ways this can happen:
Where the victim acts in a particular way
Where an act by some other person intervenes between the
defendant’s conduct and the result or
Where some event occurs between the defendants conduct and
the end result
- Victim’s Act
, o General rule is that if the victim does something after the initial act or
omission of the defendant before the consequence occurs and that
intervention is free deliberate and informed, then legal causation will
not be established
o Exception where it is an escape case
Court will consider how foreseeable the victims response was
R v Roberts
o Defendant liable for an assault occasioning actual
bodily harm despite the injuries having been
caused in part by the victims own conduct
But the victims act should not be so daft as to make it the
victims own voluntary act – chain is broke
- Suicide
o R v Wallace
COA held that voluntary euthanasia (suicide) does not
necessarily breach the chain of causation
- Third party Intervention
o A defendant will not be liable if a third party’s intervening act is either
free, deliberate and informed or is not reasonably foreseeable
- Medical Negligence
o R v Jordan – victims injuries were mainly healed when he died as a
result of medical treatment that was grossly negligent. The criminal
liability therefore passed from the original defendant to the medical
professional.
o R v Smith- the chain of causation was not broken by the bad medical
treatment as the original injury was still an operating and substantial
cause of death
Lord Parker CJ – only if the second cause is so overwhelming
as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it
be said that the death does not flow from the wound
o R v Cheshire
Victim given tracheotomy as a result of gunshot wound. He then
died to scar tissue at the tracheotomy site but the original
attacker was convicted of murder.
Court held that even if negligent medical treatment is the
immediate cause of the victim’s death, it should not break the
chain of causation unless it is so independent of the defendant’s
actions and so potent in causing death that it makes the
contribution made by the accused’s acts insignificant
- Intervening Events –
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 demidarbey1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £10.66. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
77973 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