Term 2 Week 1 What is Crime 2023 PDF

Summary

This presentation covers the foundational concepts of criminal law, including the definition of crime, and the three elements of a crime: mens rea, actus reus, and causation. It also discusses the concept of novus actus interveniens, illustrating the legal case of R v Blaue (1975).

Full Transcript

Term 2 Crime General introduction - What is crime? Background Crime has been with us since the beginning. The Criminal Law is the branch of law that deals with criminal behaviour. Brief context – why do we have crime? Humans have free will. People live in societies. The acti...

Term 2 Crime General introduction - What is crime? Background Crime has been with us since the beginning. The Criminal Law is the branch of law that deals with criminal behaviour. Brief context – why do we have crime? Humans have free will. People live in societies. The actions of an individual can effect the whole of society. Similarly, how society functions can effect an individual. What is crime? As such, a crime is an offence against the community. Which means it is an offence against our Head of State – Queen Elizabeth II – Hence Regina (or R) v The accused (who is the person alleged to have committed the offence) This is because the community is represented by the Head of State. Definition of a Crime A crime is an act or omission against the state, punishable by the state, in proceedings brought by the state Elements of a Crime There are three elements to a crime (as in any crime). They are: Mens rea Actus reas Causation These are explained on the next couple of slides  For someone to commit a crime, they must satisfy ALL three elements (with some exceptions). If an element is not satisfied, the accused may have a defence. Elements of a Crime ELEMENT 1 - ELEMENT 2 – ELEMENT 3 – MENS REA: THE ACTUS REUS: THE CAUSATION. THE MENTAL ELEMENT. CONDUCT LINK BETWEEN CAN BE ELEMENT, THE ACT (OR INTENTIONAL, INCLUDING OMISSION) AND NEGLIGENT OR VOLUNTARINESS. THE HARM RECKLESS. RESULTING. Some notes on the elements of an offence The mens rea usually goes to intention. If the accused person did not intend to do the act (the actus reus) or were made to do it, then they may have a partial or complete defence (such as duress). The actus reus usually comes down to a factual dispute, in terms of whether or not they actually did it or not, or whether or not the act was voluntary, which is usually decided by the jury. Causation brings together these two elements which is called the chain of causation (the connection between the intended act and the act itself). The test for causation is the ‘but for’ test – but for the actions of the accused, would the harm have been suffered. The but for test is used to connect the accused intention and action (cause) to their consequences (effect). Some notes on the elements of an offence There are limits to how much someone is and should be held accountable for their actions. The law does recognise when the chain of causation is broken by something occurring which breaks it. A novus actus interveniens is latin for a "new intervening act“. It is used by an accused to try and claim the chain of causation was broken due to something else occurring (which means they cannot be held responsible for the consequence). A note on Novus actus interveniens and the chain of causation Novus actus interveniens (NAI) A novus actus interveniens is latin for a "new intervening act“. It is used by an accused to try and claim the chain of causation was broken due to something else occurring (which means they cannot be held responsible for the consequence). The main case for NAI is the British case of Blaue. R v Blaue (1975) 61 Cr App R 271 The defendant (Blaue) entered the home of an 18-year-old woman and asked for sex. When she declined, he stabbed her four times penetrating her lung. This necessitated a blood transfusion and surgery to save her life. But the woman refused treatment because of her religious beliefs (as a Jehovah's Witness) and died. She would not have died if she had received the treatment. Blaue argued that the victim's R v Blaue established that even if a person refuses medical treatment (such as a blood transfusion) that R v Blaue does NOT constitute a (1975) 61 break in the chain of Cr App R causation as the resulting 271 death of the victim was CAUSED by the actions of the accused in stabbing the victim, not in the victim There endeth the lesson References Lippingwell et al Investigating Legal Studies For Queensland Second Edition, Cambridge, 2019 Dhall, M. Dot Point QCE Legal Studies Units 1 and 2, Science Press, 2020

Use Quizgecko on...
Browser
Browser