Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Actus Reus and Mens Rea - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Physical element of the crime
      - What the defendant has done or not done
    - - Distinguishes between an accident and a criminal offence
      - Mental element of the crime
- - - - Their conduct was in law the cause of the consequence
      - There was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation
      - The defendant's conduct was the factual cause of the consequence
    - - A defendant must take their victim as they find them
      - If the victim has something unusual about them that makes an injury more serious, the defendant is liable for the more serious injury.
    - - The prosecution must prove that there is legal causation in order to prevent convicting an innocent person
      - The link between the act and the consequence must remain unbroken for there to be criminal liability
      - Break in the chain of causation
        
        An act of a third pary
        
        Medical treatment
        
        Unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is significantly independent of the defendant's acts and is in itself so potent in causing death that the defendant's acts are insignificant
        
        Switching of life-support when a patient is braindead doesn't break the chain of causation
        
        R v Jordan - A doctor ordered a large dose of an antibiotic that had had its use for the patient who was stabbed in the stomach, and had an allergic reaction to the drug stopped. This was held to break the chain of causation so the defendant wasn't guilty of murder.
        
        R v Smith - Medical staff gave artificial respiration to a soldier who has been stabbed in the lung - The original attacker was guilty of murder despite his original recovery chance being 75%.
        
        The victim's own act
        
        If the defendant causes the victim to react in a foreseeable way, any injury to the victim will have been caused by the defendant.
        
        R v Roberts - A girl jumped from a car in order to escape advances. The car was travelling around 30 mph and the girl was injured. The defendant was held liable for her injuries.
        
        If the victim reacts in an unforeseeable way, the chain of causation may be broken.
        
        R v Williams - Jumped from a car travelling at around 30mph and died from head injuries caused when he hit the road - the defendant was not liable as the defendant had only made an attempt to steal the victim's wallet.
        
        A natural but unpredictable event
        
        Where the injury or loss was caused by an earthquake or a flood
- - - - A decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power [the prohibited consequence], no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not.
    - - Also known as oblique intent, where a defendant's main aim wasn't the prohibited consequence but the defendant foresaw that they would also cause those consequences