Underlying principles of Criminal Liability

Transcription

1 Actus Reus 2 of 9 THE GUILTY ACT! Involuntary Acts - does not form actus reus - Hill v Baxter (1958); swarm of bees Omissions - a failure to act is not an act. Where a person's contract requires him to act - Pittwood (1902); gatekeeper on railway crossing Where a person's public position requires him to act - Dytham (1979); policeman failed to act Where an Act of Parliament requires a person to act - Children and Young Persons Act 1933 Where a person fails to minimise the harmful consequences of his act - Miller (1983); fire Where a person voluntarily takes on a duty - Stone and Dobinson (1977); anorexic sister Underlying principles of Criminal Liability 1 of 9 Actus Reus of the crime + Mens Rea of the crime = Defendant Liability

2 Mens Rea 4 of 9 THE GUILTY MIND OF THE DEFENDANT! Intention Direct - Mohan (1976) - direct intention in defendant's power Indirect (obllique) - Woollin (1998) - D fed 3-month old son who choked, so D threw baby to wall, who later died Matthews and Alleyne (2003) - D's threw V over bridge, who drowned and died Recklessness - defendant knows there is a risk but goes ahead and takes it anyway Cunningham (1957) - broken pre-pay gas meter, gas exploded and V became ill Causation 3 of 9 The link between the defendant's act and the criminal consequence. Factual causation - this is the 'but for' test: but for the defendant's act would not have occurred? White (1910) - poison cyanide, heart attack and Pagett (1983) - girlfriend human shield Legal causation - this is the 'operating and substantial cause' test to find the link between the defendant's act and the criminal consequence. Jordan (1956) - medical treatment 'palpably wrong' Smith (1959) - 2 soldiers, v stabbed taken to hospital, dropped twice, d found guilty of murder Cheshire (1991) - complications from tracheotomy Intervening acts or events - Novus Actus Interveniens - Malcherek (1981); life support machine Take your victim as you find him - Blaue (1975); Jehovah's Witness, refused blood transfusion The victim's own act - Roberts (1971); girl jumped out of moving car

3 Strict Liability 6 of 9 These are crimes defined as requiring an actus reus only; mens rea has no relevance Sweet v Parsley (1970) - teacher let out cottage to students who took drug Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd. v Attorney-General for Hong Kong (1985) - criteria's laid; presumption of mens rea, truly criminal, statute must clearly exclude mens rea, only for public safety or social concern and encouraging greater vigilance Alphacell v Woodward (1972) - D's allowed polluted water to be discharged into river Smedleys v Breed (1974) - caterpillar in tin of peas London Borough of Harrow v Shah (2000) - national lottery ticket sold to under 16 Blake (1997) - unlicensed radio station broadcast 5 of 9 Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea and transfe Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea The actus reus and mens rea of a crime must occur at the same time - contemporaneity rule. The idea is that a person cannot be guilty of a crime if he performs an act that causes a previously desired result. Fagan v Metropolitan Polica Commissioner (MPC) (1969) - D stopped car on policeman and refused to move - no mens rea at first in this case, but it was later formed as D refused to move Thabo Meli (1954) - D hit V on head, intending to kill - then threw V over cliff Church (1966) - D threw unconscious V into river thinking V was dead Tranferred Malice - mens rea of the crime directed at one person is transferred to the unintended victim of the crime Mitchell (1983) - D pushed elderly man, who fell on elderly woman, who died in hospital - the court said there was no direct contact between D and V but V was direct result of D's action

4 8 of 9 Three offences under the Offences Against the Pers Hierarchy of harm Assault and battery > Section > Section > Section 18 Section 47 of the OAPA assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), triable eitherway.chan-fook (1994) - bodily harm includes organs, nervous system and brain. Smith (2006) - includes person's hair. Section 20 of the OAPA malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH), triable either-way. Must have no consent, wounding requires break of skin, ordinary and natural meaning. JCC v Eisenhower (1984) - hit by airgun pellt, internal bleeding so no wounding. Brown and Stratton (1998) - V was transsexual, attacked and left with broken nose. Section 18 of the OAPA wounding or GBH, triable either-way. Belfon (1976) - D slashe V with a razor. The offences of assault and battery 7 of 9 Assault and battery are two different offences that together are called common assault. Assault - intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to fear immediate, unlawul harm. Savage (1991) - mens rea is an intentionto cause victim to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence or recklessness. Actus reus has these elements; causing the victim to apprehend violence, immediate and unlawful violence. Logdon (1976) - D pointed gun at V who got scared. Smith v Chief superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) - no words, just action. Battery - the unlawful application of force to another. Thomas (1985) - school caretaker touched girls skirt. Consent can make the touching lawful. Haystead (2000) - punched girlfriend who dropped baby.

5 Summary of offences 9 of 9 Section 47 Actus reus - assault occasioning actual bodily harm Mens rea - intention or recklessness as to either putting the victim in fear of unlawful force or applying unlawful force Section 20 Actus reus - wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm Mena rea - intention or recklessness as to some harm Section 18 Actus reus - wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm Mens rea - specific intent to wound or cause grievous bodily harm or resist arrest