Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Criminal Law - 3 - Elements of Liability - Coggle Diagram
Criminal Law - 3 - Elements of Liability
Strict liability offences
Normally, criminal acts require both the mens rea and actus rea
at the same time
(concurrence)
However, some acts, like drunk driving, are
strict liability
and
only require the actus reus
No Mens Rea needed
-> thus mens rea defences unavailable
Defences in the Criminal Equation
Criminal Equitation = Actus Reus + Mens Rea - Defence = Guilty
Some defences can be
complete
- resulting in
acquittal
Some defences can be
partial
- resulting in conviction of a
lesser offence
The 3 elements of Actus Reus
1. Conduct
Physical acts or omissions
Normally a positive act; BUT
Omissions can count where
duty to act exists
(duty of care) and has
been substantially breached
Duty to act can arise from:
Statute (eg to stop driving at scene of accident)
Special relationship creating duty (eg parent-child, doctor-patient)
CONTRACT - eg railroad guard
Voluntary assumption of duty of care (eg rescue)
Defendant created
dangerous situation
and is
AWARE
they've done so
Circumstances
Circumstances that must exist for defendant to be liable
Eg for criminal damage, it
must be someone else's property
- you can damage your own property as you see fit
Result
Result crimes require
causation
Eg Stabbing with knife on street = would only be murder if death is the result of the stabbing
Compare with mere possession of knife - no result necessary
Factual Causation
'But for' test
Acceleration of result is sufficient
If there is
more than 1 cause
; or
Even if the defendant's action
only slightly accelerates the result
These both
will still count as factual causation
Legal Causation
Substantial cause
; (more than trifling) AND
Operative Cause - no break in chain of causation
Take
eggshell skull principle into account - must take victim as you find them
4 ways to break chain:
By defendant's
new act
Eg A stabs B, then inadvertently infects them with a disease. The disease kills B. The chain of causation vis-a-vis the stabbing is broken.
By
natural event
, IF
If the natural event is
not reasonably foreseeable
(inc by the defendant)
Eg A knocks B unconscious with a punch, and leaves them in a field. A freak storm then comes and B is killed by hail. A is liable for battery but not the death.
By
victim's act
, IF
Victim's act was
so daft as to be unforeseeable
by defendant and other reasonable person
Eg A gives B a poisoned apple and tells B it's poisoned. B eats it anyway. Chain of causation is broken
But; remember egg shell skull and
religious factor
- if they die because they refuse a blood transfusion as a Jehovah's Witness, A is still liable.
By
third party IF
Their intervention is
free, deliberate, and informed
In this case, the police officer's response is neither independent nor unforeseeable. It is a
direct reaction to the dangerous situation created by A. A reasonable person could foresee that using someone as a human shield might lead to the person being harmed, especially if police intervene in a high-stakes situation like a robbery.
Therefore,
A’s act of placing B in harm’s way directly led to B being shot, making A legally responsible for the harm that B suffered. The police officer’s action does not break the chain of causation because it is seen as a **consequence of A's actions.
"A commits a robbery. Police officers arrive at the scene. A holds up B as a human shield, and B is shot by a police officer. The police officer’s act does not break the chain of causation."
Free means it is NOT A RESPONSE TO SOMETHING ALREADY HAPPENING
Medical treatment will not break chain of causation unless it is
so independent and potent as to make the original wound merely the background
Religious choices
- eg not taking blood to survive as a JW -
do not break causation
Must have been
reasonably foreseeable
Mens Rea - Specific and Basic Intent
)
Intention
: Direct and Oblique
Direct Intention
The act, circumstance, or outcome in the offence is:
The defendant's
AIM OR PURPOSE
Eg A is charged with Battery for hitting V. The mens rea of battery is intentionally or recklessly applying force to another -> defendant satisfies mens rea if it was A's aim to purpose to hit V -> Direct Intention
Indirect (Oblique) Intention
2 conditions
Outcome is a
virtual certainty
of the Act; AND
Defendant
realised the outcome was a virtual certainty
Applies
ONLY TO
SPECIFIC INTENT
OFFENCES!!
Ie Where
recklessness is NOT AVAILABLE
as an alternative form of mens rea
If a defendant is charged with a
BASIC INTENT OFFENCE
, they cannot rely on indirect intention, but will be able to use recklesness
Can apply to
murder
Specific Intent
Offences
Those that
specify intention as the ONLY form of mens rea
Eg Murder or causing grievous bodily harm - this must be the
specific intent
Here, oblique intention can be used
Attempt to commit a crime
Contrast with
Basic Intent Offences
Eg Battery
These can be committed with
intent
; OR
OR RECKLESSNESS
Here, oblique intention
cannot be used
List: - you must intend these things
Attempt (to commit crime)
Encouragement or assistance
Murder
Wounding or causing GBH with intent
Theft
Robbery (but force is basic intention)
Burglary
Fraud by false misrepresentation
Transferred Malice
If defendant has
intent
to commit crime against A, but inadvertently commits the offence against B, the
intent is transferred IF IT IS THE SAME CRIME
Eg A laces B's tea with Poison with the intent to kill them/cause GBH. C drinks it instead. A is liable for
murder
of C due to transferred malice (and for attempted murder of B - recall, attempt is a specific intent crime)
Only applies to the
SAME CRIME
Does not apply if
crime is different from intended one
Eg A throws rock at B, intending to cause assault. It misses and breaks a window. This would be criminal damage. It is
not possible to transfer malice here
Recklessness -
BASIC INTENT OFFENCES
Recall, recklessness is available as an alternative to Direct Intention in
basic intent
offences
2 conditions:
Defendant
foresees the risk
; and
A
It is, in the circumstances, an unreasonable risk to take
Contrast with Oblique Intention - 1. Outcome is a
virtual certainty
of the Act; AND 2. Defendant
realised the outcome was a virtual certainty
Offences include:
Assault
Battery
Wounding or causing GBH
Criminal Damage
Negligence
Even lower standard than recklesness
Merely - is there a duty of care owed, and was the standard of care expected breached?
Corporate Offences
Corporation can be held liable for criminal acts IF
Mens rea exists among
controlling mind of company
; OR
Statutory Offences of corporations do not require mens rea
Including
failure to prevent
Deferred Prosecutions available, unlike with people
CPS or Serious Fraud Office (SFO) can
defer prosecution, allowing them to 'fix' problems
- such as health and safety breaches