Crime Defined

• A crime is an offence resulting in criminal prosecution, involving a defendant and the prosecution, represented by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Elements of a Crime

• Proving most crimes requires demonstrating two elements: actus reus, or the guilty act, and mens rea, or the guilty mind.

Criminal Liability Basics

• The prosecution bears the burden of proof and must prove both elements of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof.

Actus Reus Explained

• Actus reus means "the guilty act" and is the physical element of a crime, which can be established through a positive act, failure to act (omission), or a state of affairs (being in the wrong place at the wrong time).

Voluntary Actus Reus

• The actus reus has to be voluntary; there`s no liability if a defendant's actions are beyond their control, as seen in Hill v Baxter, or result from physical force.

State of Affairs Offences

• State of affairs offences, also known as absolute liability, occur when someone’s in the wrong place at the wrong time, such as in the case of R v Winzar. Voluntariness or mens rea do not need to be proved.

Omissions

• An omission is a failure to act, which typically does not result in liability except for six scenarios in UK law:
• Duty from an Act of Parliament
• Contractual duty
• Voluntary assumption of responsibility
• Public duty
• Duty through relationship
• Creating a dangerous situation

Duty Arising through Statute

• Individuals face liability if they fail to act when required by an Act of Parliament, such as the Road Traffic Act 1988 in the case of failing to provide a breath sample.

Contractual Duty

• A contractual duty compels action due to a job or other contract, as highlighted in R v Pittwood.

Voluntary Assumption of Responsibility

• Voluntarily assuming responsibility carries certain limitations, often requiring combination with other duties like relationship or creating a dangerous situation, exemplified by R v Stone and Dobinson.

Public Duty

• Having an official role demanding action, like a police officer as in R v Dytham, constitutes public duty.

Duty Through Relationship

• Duty through relationship usually involves parents and children but can extend to other familial relationships, with step-parents and guardians treated like biological or adopted parents, as per R v Gibbins and Proctor.

Creating a Dangerous Situation

• Setting off a chain of events can lead to liability for the outcome, according to R v Miller.

Causation Principles

• Establishing causation requires the prosecution to prove D's conduct directly caused the consequence when an offence's actus reus requires a specific outcome.

Showing Causation

• For prosecution, you must demonstrate the conduct was the factual and legal cause of the consequence.

Factual Causation Explained

• Factual causation uses the ‘but for’ test, asking if the consequence would have occurred regardless of the defendant's actions, referencing cases like R v Pagett and R v White.

Significance of Legal Causation

• Legal causation necessitates that the defendant's contribution be more than minimal; it needs to extend beyond a 'slight and trifling link' as shown in R v Kimsey.

Third Party Negligence

• It's not a defense to claim others should have acted differently if the defendant's actions significantly contributed.

Breaking the Chain of Causation

• The chain of causation requires a direct link between the defendant's act and the prohibited outcome, with no Novus Actus Interveniens (new intervening acts) that break this chain.

Intervening Acts

• An intervening act needs to be independent of the defendant's actions and serious enough to excuse the defendant from liability.

Breaking Causation Chain

• An unforeseen natural event or third party intervention are capable of breaking the chain of causation, if they meet specific criteria. Victim acts generally do not break the causation chain.

Acts of the Victim

• Omission will never break the chain of causation.
• For actions of third parties to break the chain, the actions must be independent and sufficiently potent that the defendant's acts are insignificant.
• Switching off a life support machine doesn't break the chain if medical death has already happened, according to R v Malcherek.

Victim Own Act

• A victim's act breaks the chain only if it's an unforeseeable reaction/consequence to defendant's act/omission.

Thin Skull Rule Defined

• The "thin skull rule," illustrated in R v Blaue, dictates that the victim is taken as they are, meaning liability isn't lessened even if pre-existing vulnerabilities worsen harm.

Mens Rea Described

• Mens Rea refers to the mental element of a crime
• There are 3 ways to prove mens rea: Direct intention, Oblique intention and Recklessness.

Understanding Direct Intention

• Direct intention involves a clear decision to bring about the commission of an offence within the defendant's power, as defined in R v Mohan.

What is Moloney Principle?

• From R v Moloney:- intention is the purpose of the act or what D wants to happen, characterized as ‘a true desire to bring about the consequences.'

Intention vs Motive

• Intention is not the same as motive; as seen in Chandler v DPP, proving one doesn’t prove the other.

Oblique Intention Explained

• Oblique intention occurs when a defendant accepts the crime as an inevitable side effect of their direct intention, even if it wasn’t their primary aim.

Basic Intent Crimes

NO oblique intention for basic intent crimes.

Oblique Intention Test

• The test from R v Woollin is used to prove oblique intent, stating a jury must be sure that death/serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty and that the defendant knew this.

Foreseeing Consequences

• While foresight doesn't prove intent, it serves as evidence, strengthened by the likelihood of the outcome, according to R v Hancock and Shankland.

Establishing Recklessness

• It is proven by the test from R v Cunningham: the defendant foresaw harm and still took the risk.

Subjective Test

• This is a subjective interpretation that the defendant must foresee the risk that a reasonable human being would have.

Transferred Malice

• The defendant is liable if they have the necessary mens rea and commit the actus reus, even if the victim is unintended, but the transferred mens rea must align with the new offence (R v Latimer).

Transferred Malice Limits

• Courts can't transfer malice if the intended and committed offences are different types, as per R v Pembliton.

Strict Liability Explained

• A defendant's guilt is determined by the actus reus alone and no mens rea needs to be proven. This often applies to regulatory offences related to public protection and social concern.

Presumption of Mens Rea

• According to Sweet v Parsley, MR is the starting point. Exceptionally high if 'truly criminal' B v DPP.

Factors Courts Consider in the Absence of Strict liability

• The presumption of mens rea can only be displaced if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the words of the statute;
• The presumption if particularly strong where the offence is truly criminal in character
• The presumption can only be displaced if the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern such as public safety
• Strict liability should only apply if it will help enforce the law by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act

General Purposes of Strict Liability

• Food Safety: higher standards in Food safety (Smedleys v Breed)
• Pollution: promote regulation of waste disposal in business
• Health and safety: to enure employers and occupiers take all precautions (Atkinson v McAlpine)

Contemporaneity Rule

• In order to prosecute, it must be demonstrated that the person has the requisite MR at the time the AR was committed.
• The events must take place over a period of time
• There is a chain of events

Period of Time

• The actus reus happens first and offense is complete when mens rea is formed, Fagan v MPC.

Chain of Events

• Mens rea takes place firsts, the actus refs follows; treated as continuing, R v Church.

What is Murder?

• Murder is committed when a person unlawfully kills a human being under the King's peace.
• The 'year and a day' legal concept was abolished by the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996.

Reasonable Person in Being

• For one to be considered the killer, AG's Reference (No 3 of 1994); victim must be a human who is born and not dead, and not medically deceased, Malchereck.

Unlawful Killing Explained

• Unlawful killing can occur through omission in situations of voluntary assumption (Stone and Dobinson) or family relationship (Gibbins and Proctor). Causation rules apply.

Murder Prosecution

• If death occurs more than 3 years after injury, Attorney-General's permission is needed.

Key phrasing of Legal Wording behind Mens Rea

• Expressed or implied malice aforethought Lord Coke. Meaning intention to kill , or cause grievous bodily harm.
• Aforethought does not require pre-planning.

Stages to establishing MR for Murder:

• Defendant intends to cause V"s death
• Defendant intends to seriously harm V
• Death or V's serious harm is almost certain as a result of D's actions

Direct Intention to Kill

• The defendant must truly set out to cause a death as said in Moloney.

Direct Intention to Cause GBH

• Vickers* set the intention to cause GBH.

Oblique Intention Test

• Death or serious injury a "virtual certainty”? (Objective) Was the defendant aware of this? (Subjective)- The Woollin test. Death being the natural consequence.

Voluntary Manslaughter Definition

• A person loses self-control but is not the result of planning Ss54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Voluntary Manslaughter Requirements

• Three elements must be proven:
  • the killing resulted from D's loss of self-control
  • the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger
  • D's sex, age, self-restraint and circumstances, might have reacted similarly

Key phrasing regarding loss of control

• Its irrelvant whether or not the loss of control was sudden; allow "cumulative provocation" defence to be used.

The requirements for planned event:

• it must not be related to a considered desire for revenge.
• The D might be able to prove that they remained out of control even if there is a delay. R v Jewell. The defendant must've snapped "really lost it"

Qualifying Triggers

• 2 triggers :
  • The loss of control was attributable to:
  • D's fear of serious violence or
  • by the things that caused D to be seriously wronged.

s55(3)

• D's fear of serious violence from the victim.
  • D's fear of violence needs to be genuine
  • The violence feared must be serious
  • Evidence of the victim's character is relevant.

s55(4)- The Anger Trigger

The loss of control must be attributable to a thing or things done or said both of the which: - constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character. R v Hatter. - Caused D to have justifiable sence of being seriously wronged R v Bowyer. “Circumstances of an extremely grave character” and “justifiable sense of being seriously wronged” are decided based on what a reasonable person would think.

s55(6)(a): Limitations on the Qualifying Triggers

• • D's fear cannot be related to something that D incited providing an excuse for violence.
• • a sense of being seriously wronged cannot be justified if D incited providing a valid excuse for violence.
• • The thing cannot be said sexual infidelity, R v Clinton only trigger

Does Ss55(6)(a)-(c) Disallow certain actions as apart of the defence:

• it may be possible to rely on loss of control if another trigger is made out

Element 3: Standard of self- control

• A person of D's sex and age, self-restraint and circumstances, might have reacted like D: Only subjective of D's age and sex
• • "Ordinary powers of control" average levels of tolerance
• -"The circumstances of the defendant"

Does standard self-control matter? is does it relate?

• it doesn't change but situation does.
• • normal person won't lose control being joked; only if person is related

Diminished Responsibility

Originally set out in s2 Homicide Act 1957. The defence of DR is set out in s2 Homicide Act as amended by s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Requirement for Diminshed Responsibility

• Abnormality of mental functioning
• • Caused by a recognized medical condition - Causes a substantial impairment to defendants abilities: - Defendants ability to understand conduct's nature - ability to form rational judgement - ability to exercise self control - explanation of connection to killing.

Element 1: Abnormality of Mental Fuctioning

Test is would a reasonable man regard the mental functioning as abnormal?

• Byrne.*
• Byrne*- state so different that a human regard it as abnormal to control physical acts

Element 2: Recognized Medical Code

• Physical/ Psychiatric must accept.

what is included in mental functions

Diseases such as alcoholism or drug addiction will be included (Wood).

• R v Dowds*.

What is included in the test

• psychotic dissorders (* Byrne*).
• -Chronic depressions
• -Natal depressions (* Reynolds*)
  • Spouse syndrome (* Aluwalia*)

Element 3: Substantially Impaired defendant's mental responsibility

• Substantial means that D can:
• can understand their nature of conduct
• form rational judgement -exercise self-control

Element 4: Provides an explanation for the action

• medical reasons to carrying out the act that made it a contributing factor.
• Medical condition with intoxiations, defense ma be evailable (* Dietschmann*)

Constructive/ Unlawful Act Manslaughter

• The defendant committed an unlawful, dangerous act which causes death that has MR for the unlawful act.

key phrasing to prosecute constructive and unlawful act manslaughter

• act must've been unlawful (criminal offence).
  • Unlawful act to be condiered dangerous - must create a dangerous act
    • The act must cause the death
• MR for the unlawful act - is there a Mens Rea?

Can Omissions apply for these cases?

• must able to a prove is the comminal offence

What is the standard to judge a dangerous act?:

(* R v JF*).

Risk of Foreseen Harm

• Some Harm Davis LJ Church.

Battery or Serious physical crime

• difficult in assaults; in Dawson-if its obvious that its frail/ vulnerable this will manslaughter

What can you use to prove that it is serious harm (Goodfellow)

• causation - kennedy- no liabilty if V self incject an injection from D.

What can you show to prove MR?

(* Jones*-injury have to obvious to an adult)

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

• When a person dies as a direct consequence of negligence by another making criminally liable for the death.

What does acteu reus of Gross Neglishence entail

(* Adomako*)

• Duty of care
• breach of duty
• risks of deat
• gross neglishnce

What entails the duty of care? (* donoghue v Stevenson*)

-closely and directly.

Civil cases vs crimnal cases

(R v Wacker) * Caparo v Dickman*

Whys this test further than the divil standard? (Adomako)

• Jury considered to see defendant has done right to care.

Example of coupled accident: Edwards

Serious injury or even series injury

(* r v singh*)

Confirms it must risk of death (v Misra, Srivasta)

Explain the meaning of Gross Negligence (* Batemen*)

Non Fatal offences

-assult ( *Ireland *) causes victim to prehend violence

Act can be defined as :

1)- can be act/wards 2)- show slicense as andd an

Why " words can indicate" ? -

Tuberille V safage

Whats needs to be Anticipated? (* Lamb*).

• can anticipate
• doesnt have to for fear of violent act

Explain more(* smith v chief*)

Intent/reclessness ( -Battery act defined under "39 of criminal justice"

What is the reus? what isnt allowed?

• unlawful on one another"

Lord Goff collison, What are the terms?

-unadioable touching and coillison

Mens Rea terms for all

• intetion and subjective reckelsses

S54 ( what means for this part? )

Whosoever should have the liable int

Offences agains 186's person set; what are reus?

assault commotion

What can eiter have an assult and or batter -

same case law is applied

What does caustations mean?

Why is harm cause? physical? psycholgical?

(* chan fook*)

(smitch)

"What amount will suffice"? psychatric form)

" what reus? / can'ts there or something"

( sauvge/p)

What does section s20 offnecs for this person act? (*JCC V)

• the law must the in a cutionity

• "skin should be burn or not" what should occur

• serious

• what happens? burstaw what can injured ?

• Dica

removes

( dical) sexual to prevent

• Whats must be done to prove this

  • maliciousily (cunning ham) Mowalt what harm lord diplock

Shere

• whsoever should be the intent

actue rec? - same as what?

What makes the difference?

• the intent and that its serious harm
• evaluate whats not

- Law commession - has to be good

What needs to happen? how sshould it be made

- badily draft

• what causes
  • ( burstaw) is
  • what the cuses mean -what causes more of mean( lord stey)

• what is ment

What can 1 set the ?

• the theff 6
  • a reason

definition

 s .1

what the def?

what sections

what are te a ctue real

what are section

how do we approach definition section

• and owner def ( sections )thefts

the defin

• what is of section? ( whats the definition? )

can be done more by whats

####### - and so

• not always the theifs?

• cases for it:

property can property? and what in it? s.4

cases

- wat amout to

• and for to. others? -mens.

Explore the definition of crime, emphasizing actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind). Understand criminal liability basics, including the prosecution's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Learn about voluntary actions and state of affairs offences.