Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
**Actus Reas, Mens Rea: - Coggle Diagram
**Actus Reas
Actus Reas: Is a guilty act. (the physical element of a crime) The general rule to fulfil the actus reas is that the act or omission must be voluntary.
Omission: An omission is a failure to act. It cannot make a person guilty of an offence unless they have a duty to act.
Types of Actus Reas: Conduct Crimes- These types of crimes are where the actus reas is the prohibited conduct itself.
Road Traffic Act 1988- It is a criminal offence to drive whilst above the alcohol limit. s.170
Types of Actus Reas: Consequence Crimes- This is where the actus reas must result in a consequence before it can be considered a crime.
s.47 Offences Against the Persons Act- there must be application or threat of unlawful force which results in actual bodily harm an injury to the person.
Types of Actus Reas: Circumstance or 'State of Affairs' Crimes- These are where the actus reas exists in a 'state of affairs'-particular set of circumstances. State of 'being' something rather than 'doing' something
Winzer v Chief Constable of Kent
R v Larsonner
Hill v Baxter- case & legal principle If disease is not the cause, if temporary loss of consiousness arising accidentally then you can let the acquitted man go as it is reasonable to assume that it will not happen again however if disease is the cause then it will occur again.
Duty to Act-Voluntary assumption of duty: This usually includes taking care of someone.
R v Stone & Dobinson- Stone was partially blind and of low intelligence and his partner Dobinson were taking care of Stone's sister Fanny who had mental health problems and had an eating disorder. A few days later, she was found in appalling conditions and dead in her bed. They were held liable for her death as they had assumed responsibility over her.
Duty due to a special relationship: Includes parent/child relationships.
R v Gibbins & Proctor- Gibson and his partner Proctor failed to feed Gibbins child, Nelly. The woman was also held liable as even though Nelly was not her child she was living with them and was given money in order to feed Nelly.
Contractual duty to act: This is where there is a contractual obligation to act. This includes doctors, teachers.
Adomako- The appellant was performing surgery on a patient. During the operation, the oxygen tube had become disconnected and the appellant failed to notice. The appellant was then held liable & convicted of gross negligance manslaughter.
Statutory duty to act: This is where you have a duty to act by law.
Road Traffic Act 1988- Anyone who gets pulled over by the police must ,by law, supply a breath sample in order to check blood alcohol limit.
Failure to do so is a criminal offence
Duty due to an official position: R v Dytham- D was a police officer and he watched as a bouncer kicked a man to death. D was found guilty of misconduct in a public offence as it can be committed as an act or an omission.
Legal Principle- As a police officer, he has a duty of care to all members of society and he must not fail this via an act or an ommission.
-
Duty due to creation of dangerous situation: DPP v Santanna-Bermurdez- A female officer searched the D and asked him if there were any sharp objects in his pockets and he said no. However, when the officer checked one of his pockets, she pricked her finger with a needle and when she looked up the D was smirking.
The D was held liable and convicted of assault.
Mens Rea:
-
Types of Mens Rea: Intention, Recklessness, Negligance & knowledge.
Direct Intention: D wants that outcome and sets out to achieve it.
Oblique Intention: D does not desire a particular action but realised in acting it might occur. There can be oblique intent even if the D's main aim wasn't to commit the crime there should have had some foresight of the crime as the consequence.
R v Nedrick- letterbox, petrol
R v Woolin- baby, overwhelmed/fustrated
Oblique and Direct intent- Was D trying to achieve?
Was the result an inevitable response of achieving his main purpose?
Oblique Intention: Both cases confirmed that the test for the jury to establish oblique intention is:
**Was the outcome a virtually certain consequence of the D's actions?
Does the D appreciate/knew the outcome was virtually certain?
Recklessness: Subjective Recklessness Test- R v Cunningham
What the D personally believes/thinks there is risk of.
Objective Recklessness- What a reasonable member of society would think there is risk of.
Oblique Intent v Recklessness: OI- Still have intention to carry out some crime and by carrying out that crime it is virtually certain that the outcome will occur.
Recklessness- Being careless. You know by doing that something could go wrong but you still do it anyway.
Transferred Malice: When the mens rea of a crime intended at one person is transferred to an unintended victim.
R v Latimer
R v Pembliton- D threw a stone at a group of people however the stone missed the intended victim and broke a window, charged with damage to property.
Negligance: Is an objective test as a person becomes negligant when they fail to meet the standards of a reasonable ordinary man. What D intends or thinks is irrelevant.