Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Criminal Core Principles - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Some offences require certain acts to be committed e.g. S2 Fraud Act requires the defendant makes a false representation but the victim does not need to be deceived
    - - Actus reus of result crimes need more than just D’s action. Action must lead to a consequence. It must be proved the action caused the result. E.g. murder- the actions of D must cause the death
    - - The actus reus can also require particular surrounding circumstances. E.g. S1(1) Theft Act 1968 the appropriation of property ‘belonging to another’.
    - - D can commit an offence by taking no action at all. This is where there is a legal obligation to act which is breached. E.g. An on duty lifeguard would be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter if a swimmer drowned due to a failure to take any action
  - - - ‘but for’ the act/omission of the accused, the relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did (R v White)
      - R v Dyson- an action which accelerates a death is a cause. It did not matter that the child had meningitis and would have died anyway
    - - Ensures D is the operating and substantial cause of the prohibited consequence ( R v Pagett)
      - D’s act must be the substantial cause of the prohibited harm, more than minimal- R v Hughes. Where there are multiple causes, D’s involvement must be a significant cause
      - Consequence must be caused by D’s culpable act- R v Dalloway
      - D’s act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence- R v Benge
      - If D’s negligence mainly or substantially caused the incident, it does not matter that it may have been avoided if other persons had not been negligent
      - Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens)
        
        general: A subsequent event or act of either the victim or a third party which render’s the D’s part very small and therefore breaks the chain of causation and D is not liable
        
        medical negligence
        
        R v Smith- after a stab punctured his lung, a soldier carried him back but dropped him twice, he then received treatment which was incorrect and worsened his state, he died hours later. The original actions remained a substantial cause, the medical negligence was a cause but did not break the chain
        
        R v Cheshire- victim shot twice and after extensive surgery, developed breathing problems requiring tracheotomy into his windpipe, which then got infected and he died after doctors dismissed his lack of breathing as anxiety. The poor medical treatment did not break the chain of causation because the medical treatment was not so far removed from the acts of D that his acts were insignificant in the matter. Medical act must be so independent and so potent in causing serious harm
        
        Acts of third parties
        
        R v Pagett- (firing back at an attacker who used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield) act of third party must be free, deliberate and informed to break the chain of causation
        
        Acts of V
        
        Fright/flight
        
        R v Roberts- jumping out of a moving car due to unwanted sexual advances did not break the chain. V’s acts would have to be so daft that no reasonable person could have foreseen it
        
        R v Williams & Davis- jumping from a moving car when being robbed at knifepoint did not break the chain at the first court. There must be proportionality of the threat and the action taken by V from D’s perspective. On appeal it was quashed as V could have given property and the car was moving very fast
        
        refusing medical treatment
        
        R v Blaue: Blaue stabbed a woman several times and she was told she would die without a blood transfusion, which she refused. His argument that the transfusion refusal was a novus actus interveniens was rejected- D must take V as he finds him (in body, and in mind)
        
        R v Holland: V was attacked and had a severely cut finger. Doctors recommended he had it amputated to prevent infection but he did not do so. Weeks later he died from infection. They rejected the defence that the refusal was a novus actus interveniens as it does not matter whether the wound was instantly mortal or whether it became the cause of death because they refused treatment
        
        R v Dear: D cut V with a stanley knife due to hearing V sexually assaulted his daughter. V died after having received successful treatment as the wounds reopened. It was held it did not matter if the bleeding was deliberately caused by the deceased, the jury were entitled to find D’s conduct was operative and substantial- cause of death was bleeding from the artery D severed
        
        suicide
        
        Suicide is unlikely to break the chain if: - V nonetheless dies from the original wound (R v Dear) or the act was reasonably foreseeable (D caused a keen sportsman to be paralysed R v Williams)
        
        Suicide may break the chain if: - injuries inflicted by D have healed, but V dies by suicide later - It was not reasonably foreseeable V would die by suicide as a result of their injuries (R v Wallace) - It was a voluntary and informed decision of V to act (R v Kennedy- Kennedy injected heroin and passed syringe to V who also injected but died)
        
        thin skull rule
        
        R v Hayward- due to thyroid condition she was sensitive to fear and physical exertion- husband threatened his wife and chased her out the house, who collapsed and died. The husband was found to cause her death
        
        Natural events
        
        These only break the chain of causation if they are extraordinary and not reasonably foreseeable e.g. if D knocks V out on a beach and the tide comes in and drowns them, the tide coming in is reasonably foreseeable so it would not break the chain
      - novel situation
        
        If there is a new situation which hasn’t got guidance on it yet, the courts stated a common sense approach should be used to select which test applies as in R v Girdler
- - - - Statutory duty
        
        Less serious/summary only offences e.g. S6(4) Road Traffic Act 1988- it is an offence to fail to provide a specimen of breath
      - Special Relationship
        
        doctor/patient, parent/child (R v Gibbons and Proctor), spouses (R v Hood)
      - Voluntary Assumption of Care
        
        R v Nicholls- If a person chooses to undertake the care of a person who is helpless from infancy, mental illness or other, he is bound to execute that responsibility and if he by gross negligence allows him to die then he is guilty of manslaughter
        
        R v Gibbons and Proctor- the wife of Gibbons was also found guilty of manslaughter, even though the child was not hers, she assumed a parental role by living as his ‘wife’ and being the one to receive money for food (she starved the child)
        
        R v Instan- the niece lived with her aunt who was bedridden, aunt gave her money for food but she did not feed or get the aunt medical assistance and she died. Convicted for manslaughter under voluntary assumption of care
        
        R v Stone and Dobinson- a couple accepted one of their sisters into their home who was anorexic and old- they tried to make her eat but gave up, and she died. They were convicted of manslaughter under voluntary assumption of care
        
        R v Ruffell- someone doing drugs at the defendant’s house got passed out, D tried to revive him but could not, they called V’s mum and V’s mum said keep him warm and inside, D left them outside alone, which amounted to a voluntary assumption of care and convicted
      - Contractual Duty
        
        R v Pittwood- gatekeeper of the train did not close the gate when a train was coming and was convicted of manslaughter via an omission of his contractual duty
      - D creates a dangerous situation
        
        D is expected to take reasonable steps to help others when they have created a dangerous situation, but they are not expected to put their own life at risk
        
        R v Miller- convicted of arson when they fell asleep with a lighted cigarette in their hand, found bed smouldering and moved to another room- did not do anything to put it out
        
        R v Evans- sister supplied heroin to sister and mum. Sister showed obvious signs of overdose and instead of seeking medical attention they put her in bed and checked her overnight. Mum owed a duty by familial ties and sister owed a duty by creating the dangerous situation. Older half sister was not enough for familial tie duty of care
      - Public Office Holders
        
        R v Dytham- a police officer while on duty saw a man being kicked outside a club so badly he later died from injury. Police did not help and drove off after they stopped kicking him. Police neglected to perform his duty
- - - - Direct intention- aim or purpose of the D’s act- R v Moloney
        
        Subjective test: If the consequence is D’s purpose, D intends it even if D’s chances of success are slim
        
        R v Moloney- when directing a jury, should leave the word ‘intention’ up to the good sense of the people and not elaborate further unless absolutely required
      - Indirect/oblique intention- used in rare cases where D does something dangerous and someone dies or is seriously injured but that was not the primary aim of D
        
        Where the consequences is not D’s purpose but rather a side effect that D accepts as an inevitable or certain accompaniment to D’s direct intention
        
        R v Woollin- the consequence must be a virtual certainty as a result of D’s action and D appreciated such was the case
        
        R v Matthews and Alleyne- argued virtual certainty (oblique intention) was not a separate thing but evidence to be used towards direct intention- academics have criticised the view it is not a separate type of intention
        
        Woollin gives current view on it and can be used only in rare cases, if there is recklessness and oblique intent, go with recklessness
    - - Where someone takes an unjustifiable risk, aware of the danger that may occur upon taking that risk. If there is social utility or value to the activity this can be weighed against the likelihood and amount of harm
      - R v G defines: when he is aware of a risk that exists or will exist, and it is in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk
      - Jury should not take into account circumstances not known to the accused at the time they committed the offence
  - - - Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner- if actus reus occurs before the mens rea, the actus reus can be stretched as a continuing act until the mens rea occurs if there is some sort of overlap due to continuing actus reus
    - - Thabo Meli- where multiple actions can be categorised into a one transaction of events, it is enough for D to have mens rea at some point in the series of events
      - extension: An issue in coincidence can be avoided where it is viewed that the first act (act done with mens rea) caused subsequent acts: R v Le Brun: D hit his wife in the jaw and knocked her out, he then tried to drag her home and accidentally dropped her to the ground, fracturing her skull and killing her. D was convicted of manslaughter even without pre-planning to do kill. The unlawful act and the act of killing her were all part of the same transaction. Transaction continued as long as he was trying to cover up the crime he believed he had committed
    - - When D’s mens rea is transferred from the intended harm to the actual harm. Can transfer malice from intended V to actual V
      - R v Pembliton- could not transfer a mens rea to injure a person to a criminal damage mens rea to property. The actus reus and mens area have to be for the same offence to be transferred
  - - - R v Bailey- D convicted of an offence while he was on high seas and introduced while he was on high seas so possibly could not know of the statute but 'ignorance is no excuse'
    - - D makes a mistake of the actus reus which prevents them from having the mens rea. E.g. taking someone elses umbrella by accident prevents them from having the mens rea for theft as they did not act dishonestly
      - If mens rea is intention or recklessness, the mistake does not need to be reasonable. If the mens rea is negligence, the mistake must be reasonable