CRIMINAL LAW (CHAPTER 3 to 6)

Criminal Liability = Actus Reus + Mens Rea – Defences

ACTUS REUS
Actus Reus (Prohibited Conduct with or without desirable outcome)
 2 requirements
 Bodily Movement (R v Hayward Accused threatened and chased the victim who died of
Heart Attack)
 Voluntarily (Bratty v AG for northern Island, bodily movement must be voluntarily,
Lord Denning “No Act is punishable if it is done involuntarily” anything which is not
controlled by mind
 3 Exceptions
 Situational liability No Proof of conduct but being in a prohibited situation is enough (R
v Elvin) out of control Pitbull defendant performed no act it was held reasonable steps
should have been taken so liability imposed under ‘dangerous dogs act’
 Possession The defendant is obliged to remedy the situation, and if he fails to do so, he
adopts it as his own (R v Porter defendant convicted of keeping obscene photos in his
recycle bin since he did not entirely remedy the situation)
 Omission Inability to act when there is a legal duty to act there are 3 requirements to
omission
1. Offence must be capable of commission by omission (Doing something by doing
nothing) DPP v Santana Bermudez When the constable checked the defendant's
pocket, she was harmed. The defendant created the danger by failing to tell the officer
about it
2. Legal Duty to prevent Harm (moral duty does not satisfy legal duty)
Special relationship (Husband/wife/parents)
R v Gibbons & Proctor parent can be guilty of murder for starving their child to death
R v Downes parent can be guilty of manslaughter for failing to provide medical
attention
R v Hood For failing to take the victim to the hospital, the defendant was found guilty
of manslaughter.
R v Bonnyman Husband failed to provide medical care to his drug addict wife, who
was completely reliant on him.
Contractual Relationship (Doctor/Patient)
R v Pittwood As a cart driver, a railway employee was found guilty of manslaughter
for failing to close a railway cross.
Informal Assumption of duty of care
R v Instan Instan cared by her aunt who fell ill and Instan took food from traders but
omitted to procure medical assistance to deceased so was convicted of manslaughter
but appealed that there was no legal duty under statute or common law the court held
that he owed a duty of care
 R v Stone and Dobinson Couple assumed a duty of care for their relative and that very
assumption of duty of care imposed legal duty of care, so they were liable
 Creating a dangerous situation
R v Miller Defendant, who had been out drinking for the evening, slept with a lit
cigarette in his hand, which caught fire, and when he saw this, he walked to another
room to sleep. He created a dangerous condition and failed to remedy it, resulting in a
duty of care, and he was liable.
R v Evans Defendant provided heroin to the victim, who died of a narcotics overdose
after defendant failed to seek medical help. The Court of Appeal concluded the
defendant had a duty of care to take reasonable precautions to avert death since he
created a state affair that he knew would become life threatening.
3. Failure to Act must be Voluntarily
Defendants’ failure to act must be voluntary

CAUSATION
Factual Cause (but for, anyways)
Legal cause (Operating & Substantial Cause)
Definition
The Prosecution must establish a link between wrongful act of accused and criminal
harm
1. Factual Cause
An Act is Factual Cause, if the consequence would not have occurred if not for that
act, and if the result would have occurred regardless of defendant's actions, then it may
not be the factual cause
R v white Defendant poisoned his mother, but she died of a heart attack, according to
medical reports. His murder conviction was overturned since the poison did not cause
death, but he was found guilty of an attempt
R v Morby There was no proof that the death was accelerated by the defendant's
failure to provide medical care because the child would have died anyway.
R v Dyson Kid beaten by father, admitted to hospital with an illness medical evidence
proved that the child would have died regardless, and it was not required to
demonstrate defendant as the only cause of death as long as his actions accelerated the
time of death.
R v Mitchell the defendant shoved a guy who fell on an 89-year-old lady who
fractured her leg and died. The defendant claimed that the act was not directed at her,
but the court disagreed, holding that the 'causal link' does not have to be direct.
2. Legal Cause
Requires Harm to result from a ‘culpable/wrong act’ a factual will become legal cause
when there is an intervening act which is substantial
 Medical Condition/Physical Condition Thin Skull Rule (Defendant must take his
victim as he finds him) so if a victim is more susceptible than others the defendant is
liable for consequences to them
 R v Murton the Court found that her mental illness did not affect the casual link
because defendant threw her out of the house, she went to the neighbors, and as a
result of depression, she died.
R v Blaue the defendant stabbed a woman who refused a blood transfusion because of
her religious beliefs. It was determined that religious belief is an intrinsic trait of the
victim, similar to a medical condition, and so the chain of causation was not broken.
 Escape Cases (Reasonable and foreseeable)
Escape must be ‘reasonable’ and ‘foreseeable’ and generally will not break the chain
of causation if victims’ response to defendants’ action is reasonable and foreseeable
R v Roberts Because the victim leaped out of a moving vehicle in fear of sexual
assault, the conduct did not break the chain of causation because the escape was
'foreseeable.'
R v Mackie the victim, a 3-year-old boy, fell down the stairs while attempting to flee
his father's beating. The chain of causation was not broken.
 Victim’s own contributory negligence
R v Dalloway Defendant was riding a horse and cart without holding the reins when a
kid rushed in front of the cart and was killed. His act was not significant and operating
cause of death; thus, he was not responsible because even if he had been holding the
reins, he would not have been able to stop the cart in time.
R v Wallace the defendant splashed acid on the victim while he was asleep, and the
victim afterwards took his own life. The courts determined that the chain of causation
had been broken, and Wallace was responsible for grievous bodily injury under section
29 of the OAPA.
R v Holland the defendant struck the victim with an iron rod, causing a severe wound
on the victim's finger, which gets infected. The victim was recommended to have his
arm amputated, but he refused and died the defendant was liable despite his own
contributory negligence and chain of causation was not broken
 Third party interventions
R v Smith Defendant, a soldier, stabbed the victim and claimed that if he had not been
dropped multiple times along the way, the victim would not have died. It was
determined that the original wound was the primary and substantial cause of death.
R v Pagett Defendant used a girl as a shield to resist arrest and shot at the police,
which backfired and killed the girl. The girl was murdered by the defendant, not the
police officer, since he used her as a shield.
R v Rafferty Defendant 1 and defendant 2 robbed the victim, with one defendant going
to the ATM and the other drowned the victim, killing him. Defendant 1 was acquitted
because D2's acts were independent.
R v Kennedy Because the victim self-administered the heroin syringe shot by the
defendant, the court determined that it was a voluntary act on his part, breaking the
chain of causation since the victim was a fully aware and reasonable man.
Medical Treatment
In accordance with acceptable medical treatment the chain of causation will not be
broken even if it accelerates the death
 R v Cheshire Victim shot in the abdomen by the defendant the negligence of the
doctor’s was not substantial cause for the death and for the intervening medical
treatment to break the chain of causation it should be so independent that it causes
death
 Supposed Corpse Rule (Continuing series of event)
Situation where defendant attacked victim and wrongly concluded that the victim is
dead and disposes of his body while disposal is the actual cause of death (chain of
causation will not break)
Meli v The Queen After summoning the victim to a deserted location, the defendant
planned to murder him. After believing the victim had died, the defendant rolled him
over the diff. The 'chain of causation' was not broken, according to the court, and AR
and MR did coincide.
R v Church Defendant panicked and struck the victim, believing she was dead, so
threw her in the river, where she drowned. The court ruled that it didn't matter whether
he thought the defendant was alive or dead when he threw her in the river, and that this
was considered a "series of acts" designed to cause death or GBH.
R v Le-Brun Defendant and his wife had a fight, defendant knocked her unconscious,
and when she fell, he pulled her inside, fractured her skull, and she died the court held
that the chain of causation was not broken
MENS REA
i) Intention
ii) Recklessness
iii) Negligence
Objective Test/Principle (Where a person fails to conform to an acceptable standard in the eyes
of ordinary people, Reasonable man test)
Subjective/Principle (It is the intention/knowledge/awareness on part of the wrong doer)
1. Intention
Basic element to all core crimes and is the highest degree of fault in all the Mens-rea
and has two types
 Direct Intention
It is when a result is intended by the persons intention to cause it
 Indirect Intention
Test for indirect intention is laid down in R v Woollin Both have to be fulfilled
a) If the result is ‘Virtually certain consequence’ of the act, and
b) Defendant knows that it is virtually certain consequence
2. Negligence
Where a person fails to exercise care and skills as a reasonable man in his position
would have done
R v Adomako, Prosecution must prove that
a) Defendant owed a duty of care
b) Defendant was in gross negligence of his duty
 c) Death was a result of Defendant’s breach of duty (causation)
3. Recklessness
Knowingly Taking a risk
R v Cunningham (subjective recklessness)
The defendant had removed a gas meter from an unoccupied property in order to steal
money from it, leaving an exposed pipe with gas escaping from it. The gas
subsequently seeped out and poisoned the victim. Cunningham was convicted in the
first instance, but his conviction was overturned on appeal because he was unaware
that there was a possibility of serious consequences. In this case, defendant is
subjectively reckless since he is aware of risk and acts recklessly. When evaluating
subjective, the issue to address is whether the defendant anticipated the risk of his acts.