Actus Reus and Mens Rea in Law
45 Questions
6 Views

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to Lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What does 'actus reus' refer to in criminal law?

  • Guilty mind
  • Result of a crime
  • Guilty act (correct)
  • Absence of defense

Mens rea is the physical element of a crime.

False (B)

List one condition that must be met to establish a result in a crime.

Chain of causation in fact

Actus reus is composed of conduct, result, state of affairs, and __________.

<p>omission</p> Signup and view all the answers

Match the following offenses with their descriptions:

<p>Blackmail = Threatening someone to gain something Rape = Unlawful sexual intercourse Theft = Taking someone's property with intent to permanently deprive Manslaughter = Unintentional killing of another person</p> Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following is NOT a component of establishing a crime?

<p>Witness testimony (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

The accused's action must be the sole cause of the result for liability to arise.

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What is the principle established in R v White regarding the causation of death?

<p>The cause of death was not poisoning, hence not guilty of murder.</p> Signup and view all the answers

To prove a result in a crime, there must be no __________ in the chain of causation.

<p>break</p> Signup and view all the answers

What does 'Mens Rea' refer to?

<p>Guilty mind (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Direct intention and indirect intention are essentially the same in legal terms.

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What are the two main types of intention as defined in criminal law?

<p>Direct intention and indirect intention.</p> Signup and view all the answers

The Penal Code of the Bahamas states that intention can be direct or _____ .

<p>indirect</p> Signup and view all the answers

Match the cases to their relevance in Mens Rea:

<p>R v Byrne (1960) = Direct intention Wootton (1998) = Indirect intention</p> Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following terms is NOT commonly associated with Mens Rea?

<p>Alibi (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What must be established for the accused to be liable for the result of their actions?

<p>There must be no break in the chain of causation (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Natural events can be classified as novus actus interveniens.

<p>True (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What must juries be sure of regarding the defendant's driving in a causation case?

<p>That it was the principal or substantial cause of death.</p> Signup and view all the answers

An event that breaks the chain of causation is known as a __________.

<p>novus actus interveniens</p> Signup and view all the answers

Match the following cases with their implications regarding causation:

<p>R v Williams &amp; Davis = Victim's reaction directly influenced the outcome Actions of the victim = May lead to foreseeability of the accused's liability Actions of a third party = Can break the chain of causation Natural events = Considered a possible intervening act</p> Signup and view all the answers

Which scenario may lead to the accused being found legally responsible?

<p>The victim acting in fear due to the accused's actions (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

The actions of a third party never influence legal causation.

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In a causation case, what must the jury determine about the defendant's connection to the result?

<p>There must be a sufficient link showing that the defendant's actions caused the result.</p> Signup and view all the answers

The judge's directions to the jury must ensure they understand the concept of __________.

<p>causation</p> Signup and view all the answers

What is one factor that could establish the accused's liability in a legal case?

<p>The defendant's actions occurred without any intervening event (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In the case of R v Roberts, what was the main argument of the accused?

<p>The woman's action was a novus actus interveniens. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In R v Blaue, the court ruled that the cause of death was the refusal of a blood transfusion.

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What principle was discussed in R v Blaue regarding the victim's pre-existing conditions?

<p>The 'thin skull' or 'egg shell' principle.</p> Signup and view all the answers

In R v Kennedy, the accused supplied _____ to the victim, who then self-administered it.

<p>heroin</p> Signup and view all the answers

Match the following cases with their key outcomes:

<p>R v Roberts = Victim's act was a natural result of defendant's actions R v Blaue = Cause of death was the stab wound R v Kennedy = Supply is not the same as administer R v Jordan = Palpable medical treatment led to death</p> Signup and view all the answers

What legal principle was established in R v Malcherek and Steel regarding life support?

<p>Doctors may turn off life support if the patient is brain dead. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In R v Paggert, the boyfriend was charged with the death of the pregnant girl due to police actions.

<p>True (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What did the court emphasize in R v Roberts in terms of victim's actions?

<p>That the victim's actions must be a natural result of the defendant's actions.</p> Signup and view all the answers

In the case where a pregnant girl was killed, the involvement of _____ led to the boyfriend's charge.

<p>police</p> Signup and view all the answers

Match the type of legislation or legal principle with its description:

<p>Novus actus interveniens = A new act that breaks the chain of causation Thin skull rule = Defendant liable for full extent of harm caused Palpable medical treatment = Unforeseen medical response that contributes to death Egg shell principle = Victim's vulnerability factor in causation</p> Signup and view all the answers

Under what circumstance can an omission be deemed criminal?

<p>When it creates a dangerous situation (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

John can successfully argue novus actus interveniens if the victim dies from rising tide.

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What is the common law stance on omissions in criminal law?

<p>Omissions can be criminal when specific duties are imposed by statute, contract, or relationships.</p> Signup and view all the answers

An example of a case where a person was convicted due to omission is ___ v. ___ (1918).

<p>Gibbins and Proctor</p> Signup and view all the answers

Match the following cases with their relevance to omission:

<p>Gibbins and Proctor = Conviction for failing to provide food to a child Pittwood = Liability for failing to close a railway gate Miller = Liability for causing a fire by negligence Stone v Dobinson = Conviction for failing to care for an elderly relative</p> Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following is NOT a recognized circumstance for liability regarding omissions?

<p>Professional Malpractice (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

The Road Traffic Act imposes a statutory duty to act.

<p>True (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What does the term 'novus actus interveniens' refer to?

<p>A new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation.</p> Signup and view all the answers

Failures in a public office can lead to criminal liability if they result in ___ to a person.

<p>harm</p> Signup and view all the answers

Which case involved a person being hit by a train due to a gate not being closed?

<p>Pittwood (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Flashcards

Actus Reus

The physical element of a crime; the guilty act.

Mens Rea

The mental element of a crime; the guilty mind.

Causation

The link between an action and its result. It's a critical component to prove in certain crimes.

Chain of Causation (Fact)

A factual link between the act and result.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Chain of Causation (Law)

A legally significant connection between the act and result.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Substantial Cause

The accused's action must be a main cause, not just a minor or insignificant contribution.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Conduct Crimes

Crimes that are criminal just by the act itself (regardless if result follows).

Signup and view all the flashcards

Result Crimes

Crimes where a specific outcome must occur for the crime to be committed.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Omission

A failure to act when a legal duty exists can be a crime

Signup and view all the flashcards

Causation in Criminal Law

The link between an accused's actions and the resulting harm.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Dangerous Driving

Driving in a manner posing a significant risk to others.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Novus Actus Interveniens

An intervening act that breaks the chain of causation.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Victim's Actions

Actions of the victim that might break the chain of causation.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Third-Party Actions

Actions of a third party that might break the chain of causation.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Natural Events

Natural events (like storms) that may break the chain of causation.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Reasonable Response

A response of a victim that is justified given the threat.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Foreseeable Actions

Actions that are predictable consequences of the original act.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Criminal Liability

Legal responsibility for a criminal act or omission.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Breaking the Chain of Causation

An intervening act that removes the original act as the primary cause of the harm.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Omission Crime

A crime committed by failing to act when there is a legal duty to do so. This duty can arise from statute, contract, assumption of responsibility, relationship, or misconduct.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Statutory Duty

A legal obligation to act, defined by an act of Parliament. This can create a criminal liability for failure to act.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Contractual Duty

A legal obligation to act, arising from a binding agreement. This can lead to criminal liability if you fail to act as agreed.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Duty by Law (Dangerous Situation)

A legal obligation to act when you have created a potentially dangerous situation. This can lead to criminal liability if you fail to take reasonable steps to prevent harm.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Assumption of Responsibility

A legal obligation to act, voluntarily taken on, that creates a duty to care for another person's well-being.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Familial Relationship

A legal obligation to act, arising from a close personal relationship, like parent-child or spouse-spouse. This can lead to criminal liability for neglecting their welfare.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Misconduct in Public Office

A legal obligation to act, arising from a public office. This can lead to criminal liability for failing to perform duties or abusing power.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Direct Intent

The defendant directly aims to bring about the consequences of their actions.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Indirect Intent

The defendant does not directly desire the outcome, but they realize it is a virtually certain consequence of their actions.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Oblique Foresight

The defendant foresees a consequence is virtually certain but doesn't desire it, but still proceeds with the act.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Recklessness

The defendant knows the risk of a particular outcome and takes it anyway.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Negligence

The defendant fails to exercise reasonable care and caution, resulting in a harmful consequence.

Signup and view all the flashcards

What is the test for a 'novus actus interveniens'?

A 'novus actus interveniens' breaks the chain of causation. The victim's action must be 'so daft or unexpected that no reasonable man could have expected it.'

Signup and view all the flashcards

What is the 'thin skull' rule?

The defendant is responsible for the victim's injuries even if those injuries are exacerbated by the victim's pre-existing vulnerability.

Signup and view all the flashcards

What is the difference between supplying drugs and injecting drugs?

Supplying drugs is not the same as injecting drugs. The act of injecting is an independent act that breaks the chain of causation. This is why a person who supplies drugs is not always guilty of manslaughter if the victim dies from an overdose.

Signup and view all the flashcards

What is the 'palpable medical treatment' exception?

If medical treatment is clearly palpably wrong, it can break the chain of causation. The treatment must be significantly negligent to be considered 'palpable'.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Can a third party's actions break the chain of causation?

Yes, if the actions of a third party are independent and unforeseeable, they can break the chain of causation. However, this is not always the case, as seen in the 'Paggert' case.

Signup and view all the flashcards

What is the legal principle in the 'R v Roberts' case?

The victim's actions in response to a threat are not a 'novus actus interveniens' if they are a natural result of the defendant's actions. The defendant must reasonably foresee the victim's actions.

Signup and view all the flashcards

What is the principle in the 'R v Blaue' case?

The defendant takes their victim as they find them. This means the defendant is responsible for the victim's injuries even if those injuries are exacerbated by the victim's religious beliefs or other personal characteristics. The victim's refusal of medical treatment doesn't necessarily break the causal chain.

Signup and view all the flashcards

What is the 'natural consequences' test?

The defendant's actions are considered a cause of death even if the victim's actions contributed to the death, as long as the victim's actions were a 'natural consequence' of the defendant's actions.

Signup and view all the flashcards

What is the 'reasonable man' test?

This test is used to determine whether a person's actions were 'daft' or unexpected. A 'reasonable man' would not have acted in the same way, so the victim's actions might break the chain of causation.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Can doctors' actions ever break the chain of causation?

Yes, if the doctor's actions are 'palpably wrong', they can break the chain of causation. However, the doctor's actions must be significantly negligent for this to be the case.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Study Notes

Actus Reus and Mens Rea

  • Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea: An act does not make a man guilty unless his mind is also guilty.
  • Actus reus + mens rea + absence of a defence = crime/offence
  • Actus reus: Guilty Act – the physical element of the crime.
  • Mens rea: Guilty Mind – the mental element of the crime.
  • Actus reus components:
    • Conduct/act
    • Result
    • State of affairs
    • Omission

Conduct

  • Focuses on the act or omission, not the result. Examples include:
    • Perjury
    • Blackmail
    • Rape
    • Theft
    • Possession of firearms/prohibited drugs

Result

  • The conduct itself might not be criminal, but the result is.
  • The prosecution must prove the accused's action caused the result.
  • Examples include:
    • Murder
    • Manslaughter
    • Assault
    • Battery
  • A result crime requires three factors: a chain of causation in fact, a chain of causation in law, and no break in the chain of causation.

Chain of Causation

  • Needs a chain of causation in fact and law between the act and result.
  • The actions must be a cause, not the sole, or only cause, but more than negligible or trifling.
  • Potential breaks in the chain:
    • Actions of the victim
    • Actions of a third party
    • Natural events

Case Examples (Actus Reus and Mens Rea)

  • R v White [1910]: Poisoning attempt; death from another cause. Not guilty of murder, but attempted murder.
  • R v Kimsey [1996]: Car crash; cause of death is critical.
  • R v Williams & Davis [1992]: Victim jumping from a vehicle; need for evidence of threat.
  • R v Roberts [1971]: Sexual assault; victim's response must be reasonable/foreseeable.
  • R v Blaue [1975]: Refusal of medical treatment; wound is the operating cause.
  • R v Kennedy [2002]: Heroin supply; not the same as injection.
  • R v Malcherek and Steel [1981]: Patients already brain dead; doctors disconnecting life support not a break in causation.
  • R v Thabo Meli [1954]: Attack and disposal of victim; consistent actions form continuous act.
  • R v Cunningham [1957]: Gas meter break; recklessness.
  • R v Brady [2006]: Drunk man falling from balcony; foreseeability of risk.
  • R v Caldwell [1982]: Setting fire; objective recklessness.
  • Adomako [1995]: Doctor's negligence; high degree of lack of care.

Omission

  • Generally, omissions are not crimes, but exceptions exist:
    • Statutory duties
    • Contractual duties
    • Duties imposed by law (dangerous situations, assuming responsibility, or familial/relationship)
    • Misconduct of a public officer

Mens Rea (further details)

  • Intention: Direct (desired consequence) or indirect (oblique foresight- consequence virtually certain)
  • Recklessness: Taking an unjustifiable risk.
  • Negligence: Extremely high degree of lack of care.
  • Key Cases for Mens Rea: Rv Byrne [1960]; Woollin [1998]. Matthews and Alleyne [2003]; Hancock and Shankland [1986]; Nedrick [1986].

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Quiz Team

Related Documents

Mens Rea & Actus Rea Worksheet 2 PDF

Description

Explore the fundamental concepts of Actus Reus and Mens Rea, essential elements in determining criminal liability. This quiz delves into the definitions, components, and examples of both the guilty act and guilty mind necessary for a crime. Understand how these principles operate within the framework of legal offences.

More Like This

Use Quizgecko on...
Browser
Open
Browser
Browser