Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
CORE PRINCIPLES, PARTIES TO A CRIME - Coggle Diagram
CORE PRINCIPLES
-
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLES
Coincidence of actus reus and mens reaDefendant must have the relevant mens rea for the offence at the precise momentwhen D commits the actus reusThe courts have developed some flexible interpretations to get round the requirement for coincidence of actus reus and mens rea:
- The continuing act theory = defendant can be guilty of an offence if they form the mens rea for the offence at some point during the actus reus continuing
- The one transaction principle = court will categorise the actions of the accused as a series of facts, making up one transaction > certain circumstances it is enough for the defendant to have the mens rea at some time during that transaction
- This principle has been extended to cases where there was no prior planning
Causation = sometimes the problem of coincidence of actus reus and mens rea may be avoided by viewing the act done with the mens rea (the first act) as causing subsequent actsWhere it isn’t clear which of D’s acts was the actus reus = defendant must have the mens rea for the relevant crime when D does each of the acts which could constitute the actus reus
Transferred malice
D’s mens rea is transferred from the intended harm to the actual harm = D's intended harm against X can be transferred to the unintended victim, Y, and D will still be guilty of the crime of murder
MistakeWhere the defendant makes a mistake, the effect this will have on criminal liability depends upon the type of mistakeIgnorance of the law = If the defendant does not know they are breaking the law, this mistake will not help avoid liability even if the defendant’s ignorance is quite reasonable, and even if it were impossible for D to know of the prohibition in question.Mistakes that negate the mens rea = defendant might make a mistake as to some element of the actus reus, which will prevent D from having the mens rea
- If the mens rea required for the relevant element of the actus reus is intention or recklessness, there is no need for the mistake to be reasonable.
- If the mens rea requirement is negligence, then the mistake must be reasonable
CAUSATION
Result crimes require that defendant’s conduct cause a particular result > include murder, manslaughter, criminal damage, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
- Causation is part of the actus reus of these types of offences.
Result crimes = Factual causation + legal causation
- Factual causation- jury must be satisfied that the acts or omissions of the accused were in fact the cause of the relevant consequence > proved that 'but for' the acts or omissions of the accused, the relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did
- Legal causation- it must be established that the acts or omissions of the accused were a legal cause of that consequence > defendant must be the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the prohibited consequence / consequence must be caused by the defendant's culpable act / defendant's act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence
Legal causation: intervening actsA novus actus interveniens is a subsequent event or act of either the victim or a third party > breaking chain of causation and meaning that the defendant is not criminally liable
- Medical Negligence = not a sufficient cause to sever the chain of causation
- Acts of third parties = may only be a break in the chain of causation if the actions of the third party were 'free, deliberate and informed
- Acts of the victim
- 'Fright and flight' = if victim escape was NOT foreseeable by the reasonable person > defendant is entitled to an acquittal + no longer deemed to be the legal cause of the prohibited result
- Refusing medical treatment = not matter if wound was instantly mortal or whether it became cause of death because the deceased refused the recommended treatment > not defence
- Suicide = not break the chain of causation if: V nonetheless dies from the original wound / act was reasonably foreseeable / D’s unlawful act was a significant and operating cause of death + reasonably foreseeable that the victim would die by suicide as a result of V’s injuries BUT may break the chain of causation if: injuries inflicted by the defendant have healed, but the victim goes on to die by suicide / voluntary and informed decision of the victim to act
- The 'thin skull' rule = defendant must take the victim as they find them
- Natural Events = only break the chain of causation if they are 'extraordinary' and not reasonably foreseeable
ACTUS REUS
Criminal liability = actus reus and mens rea and absence of a valid defenceActus reus usually refers to the actions of the defendant that are prohibited by law4 types
- Actus reus: conduct offences
- In some cases, offences will only require certain acts to have been committed by the defendant to satisfy the actus reus > conduct required for blackmail in s21 Theft Act 1968 is that the defendant makes a demand with menaces
- Actus reus: result offences
- The actus reus of result crimes requires more than just defendant's action > action must lead to a specified consequence
- Actus reus- circumstances
- The actus reus can include need for some particular surrounding circumstance
- Actus reus- omissions
- Defendant can be held to have committed the actus reus of an offence despite taking no action at all > general rule there is no liability for failure to act, criminal law will, in certain circumstances, impose a legal obligation to act which if breached could result in criminal liability.
OMISSIONS
The general rule > defendant cannot be criminally liable for a failure to act, as there is no general duty to act to prevent harmIn order to secure a conviction based upon a failure to act, the prosecution must prove that:
- crime is one which is capable of being committed by an omission. Some offences can only be committed by an act, e.g. unlawful act manslaughter
- accused was under a legal duty to act = innumerable offences can be committed by an omission
- special relationship: doctors and patients / parents and their children = neglect / spouses = failed to summon medical assistance to help
- Voluntary assumption of a duty of care > person not generally under a duty to care for another in distress BUT if voluntarily assumes a duty towards another, the law will hold that person liable if they fail to carry out that duty.
- accused breached that duty = duty can be owed by the defendant either to the party with whom the defendant is contracted or to a third party
- breach caused the actus reus of the offence to occur = someone inadvertently sets in motion a chain of events that causes the risk of damage + becomes aware + can prevent further damage, inaction or omission is actus reus of criminal damage
- should the offence so require, that the accused had the required mens rea
The relationship between omissions and causation in this context means that if defendant had acted, D could have made a causal difference.
- defendant cannot cause by omission
- defendant can fail to uncause when D has a duty to uncause, but this is different to causing
PARTIES TO A CRIME
Principal offenders = person who, with appropriate mens rea, commits the actus reus of the offence > possible to have more than one principal
Innocent agents = person guilty of an offence as a principal, even if another person actually performs the actus reus > where the person carrying out the actus reus is under the age of criminal liability or is deceived as to what they are doing
WithdrawalSecondary party may change their mind and want to withdraw their help or encouragement > not enough to just have a change of mind - withdrawal must be communicated to the principal or a law enforcement agency
- For assistance, the relevant time for the mens rea is at the time of the act of assistance, not at the time when the principal commits the crime > withdrawal must take place, before the act of assistance
Withdrawal from spontaneous violence = communication was not necessary
Conviction of secondary party and acquittal of principal
Could occur when principal has been acquitted due to insufficient evidence / principal could not be found / principal has done the actus reus with the mens rea, but has a defence
IF cannot be proved which of two people committed the crime = both must be acquitted
IF can be proved that the one who did not commit crime as ] principal was a secondary party to the crime = both can be convicted
Interaction with attempt = not an offence to attempt to aid, abet, counsel or procure an offence BUT IT IS offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure an attempt to commit an offence
Secondary parties - Actus reusThere are 5 ways in which someone can be liable as an accessory:
- Procuring = To procure means to produce by endeavour > causal link between D’s act and the commission of the offence
- There need be no consensus
- Aiding = requires the accessory to give help, support or assistance to the principal offender in carrying out the principal offence
- There need be no causation in the sense that but for the assistance the crime would not have happened
- There need be no consensus
- Counselling = giving advice or encouragement before the commission of the offence
- must be contact between the parties and a connection between the counselling and the offence > act done must be within the scope of the advice and the principal offender must know of the counselling
- Abetting = incite, instigate or encourage + there need be no causal link and there must be communication > principal must know they are being abetted
- mere presence at the scene of the crime is not necessarily enough to count as abetting
- Where D has right or duty to control the actions of another + deliberately refrains from exercising it, D’s inactivity may be a positive encouragement to other to perform an illegal act and would be abetting
- Joint enterprise = 2 or more people are committing a crime together > at the time of the accessorial offence, the accomplice was committing another offence with the principal
- In a simple case of aiding, abetting etc, the accomplice is not committing an offence as a principal.
- no need to show that D2 aided or encouraged the offence > enough that D2 was a party to the joint enterprise and had the relevant mens rea for an accessory
- crime B must be committed in the course of or be incidental to crime A > party cannot be liable for any offences committed before they join the enterprise
Secondary parties - Mens rea (3 parts)
- An intention to assist or encourage the principal’s conduct
- D must intend: to do the act which aids or encourages; and it to aid or encourage the commission of the crime
- If the crime requires a mens rea, an intention that the principal will do the actus reus with that mens rea
- Conditional intention is enough = enough that D has a conditional intent that P will commit a crime with the necessary mens rea > conditional intent could be inferred from foresight, but need not be
- Crimes where the mens rea does not correspond to the actus reus = D can be liable for greater harm than intended for crimes where the MR does not correspond with the AR = D1 intends D2 to do serious harm to the victim, D1 will be liable for murder when D2 injures the victim with intent to do serious harm and the victim dies as a result > despite the fact that D1 could not be said to have intended murder to be committed
- Knowledge of existing facts or circumstances necessary for the offence to be criminal
- If the offence requires goods to be stolen, D needs to know that they are stolen.
- If the offence requires lack of consent, D must know that the victim does not consent.
- includes wilful blindness; a defendant who deliberately shuts their eyes to the obvious will be deemed to have knowledge
- D need not know the exact details of the crime / the identity of the victim or the day on which the crime will be committed.
IF a person is party to a violent attack on another, without an intent to assist in the causing of death or really serious harm, but the violence escalates and results in death, that person will be not guilty as an accessory to murder but can be guilty as a principal for the crime of manslaughter.