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

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

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

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

    Natural events can be classified as novus actus interveniens.

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

    The actions of a third party never influence legal causation.

    <p>False</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</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.</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</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.</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</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</p> Signup and view all the answers

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

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

    The Road Traffic Act imposes a statutory duty to act.

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

    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