...both murder and manslaughter charges will be considered. The AR for both of these offences is the same and can be defined as “The unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace.”[1] Assuming the victim was alive that this scenario was not during a war, it remains to establish that this was an unlawful killing. In the case of R v Freya we will focus on the AR of omission and determine whether the defendant Nurse Freya did the act or omitted to do a legally recognised duty which resulted in the death of Rachel. We will also decide whether the act was deliberate, unlawful, and a significant cause of death. In the case of R v Freya only a charge of manslaughter will be considered as Nurse Freya had neither the direct or oblique intent to be charged with murder. R v Tom In the case of R v Tom the defendant Tom (D) swung a metal poker into the head of his wife V (V). V was sent to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured skull but regained consciousness. Upon waking V found painkillers by her bed and took an overdose resulting in her death. There are several elements that constitute the AR of...
Words: 2454 - Pages: 10
...Revision Theories of Punishment and Criminalisation • These should be reviewed in order to help answer essay type questions. For example • “What point does causation play in criminal liability”? • Would require an explanation of why it is appropriate to punish someone for what they achieve (eg killing someone) rather than what they set out to achieve (eg beating someone up). The theory of retribution helps here – punishment according to one’s desert which must take into account not only the fact that one has acted wrongfully but also the consequences which ensue. Gerneral Principles of Criminal Liability Liability depends upon • Wrongdoing (actus reus) • Culpability (mens rea) • Absence of any defence General Principles (con) • Key Points • Actus Reus – usually liability requires proof of some act. You must identify that act. Without it there may be no liability however blameworthy the person is. General Principles (con) • Sometimes liability may be based upon an omission to act – 1. Statutory crimes of omission eg failing to wear a seat belt. – 2. Liability for result crimes (eg murder, manslaughter, s.18 OAPA) may be engaged for an omission but only if there is a duty to act. Omissions (con) • Essay Questions • Eg Should there be a general duty to act? 1. Requires statement of the general principle (act needed) 2. Requires discussion of reasons for and against eg promoting good community values, contra autonomy, certainty etc. YOU MUST READ YOUR...
Words: 1418 - Pages: 6
...‘Recklessly causing serious injury to another person’. S47 will be replaced by ‘Intentionally or recklessly causing injury to another person’, and assault/battery will be replaced by ‘Intentional serious harm’. This reform will mean that all the non-fatal offences are found in one place, making the law more concise and thereof easier for the jury to understand and apply. The second criticism of the law is that the language used in the non-fatals is antiquated and often misleading. An example of this is the use of the word “assault” in S47. This is misleading as battery can form the basis of section 47, not just assault. Another example is the use of “grievous” in S20 GBH. This is extremely dated, and it is likely that the jury would have to have this explained to them. The use of “malicious” in S18 wounding with intent has also come under...
Words: 1513 - Pages: 7
...Question 1- George Hewkin For Lucy, Jon would be liable for s.47. To find liability we must first establish the actus reus. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The assault refers to common assault so either assault or battery. In this case it’s an assault. Jon made Lucy fear immediate and unlawful (Lamb) violence. There is no need for any physical contact. The cases of Ireland and Burstow confirm that silence can amount to an assault. It’s also clear she feared unlawful violence (Logdon) as she ran off crying. The second part of the definition is occasioning, did Jon’s actions cause the harm. There are no intervening acts so its clear his actions where the operating and substantial cause. The final part of the actus reus Is the harm caused by Jon’s battery actual bodily harm. Miller defines ABH as ‘more than minimal harm’. Chan-fook established mental harm as a form of ABH. As she couldn’t go out for months after, I believe this is more than minimal harm. Actus reus established. Next the mens rea must be proven. Intention or recklessness as to causing the initial assault or battery. Savage confirms the mens rea for s.47. In this case I believe Jon had intention, it was a clear action that’s not a natural reflex or anything of that nature. It’s completely voluntary therefore it was his choice to carry it out. Liability can be established, Jon would be charged with s.47, which carries a sentence of up to 5 years imprisonment. For Malik, Jon would be liable for battery...
Words: 742 - Pages: 3
...Miss Hale’s ground floor flat in Southampton for an appointment to bathe her. Tiley was convicted at Winchester Crown Court in 1995 of two counts of rape, and a further serious sexual offence, against a woman and was jailed for six years Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person: * of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane); * unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing); * any reasonable creature (human being); * in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936; * under the Queen's Peace; * with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Mens rea for David- intention to kill. Actus rea stabbing, rape. Faced life after admitting to the murder of both girlfriend and carer. Law of Murder A murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. The judge passing sentence cannot pass a lesser sentence no matter how mitigating the circumstances might be. There exist three partial defences to murder which may...
Words: 512 - Pages: 3
...In order to evaluate what offences have been committed in the crimes in this scenario, the clear presence of actus reus and mens rea are vital. for the prosecution to prove the existence of both elements of an offence beyond any reasonable doubt. Actus reus being the guilty act, whereas mens rea is the guilty mind, both of which are required in order to find criminal liability. In order to answer this problem question it must first be considered whether Pablo (P) is liable for any non-fatal offences against the person (OAP). The various offences and their definitions are contained in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Pablo and Rose – Pulling hair. The first offence to consider in respect of P is common law battery under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Battery is a summary only offence and carries a maximum penalty of six months or a £5000 fine, or both. P’s motive of jealousy appears to be the significant factor motivating his actions however this is irrelevant to his actions in law. P intentionally: Venna imposed unlawful force: Collins v Wilcock on Rose (R) by pulling her hair. R did not give P permission to assault her, therefore the contact was both physical: Ireland and unlawful. Previous case law has clarified unlawful force to be even the slightest touch R v Brown . The mens rea for this offence is satisfied by either intention or subjective recklessness. With reference to the problem question, the actus reus was the direct physical contact...
Words: 1741 - Pages: 7
...Understanding the elements of a crime and the aims of sentencing Task 1:1: Actus reus In criminal law actus reus consists of all elements of crime aside from the defendants’ state of mind. Actus reus can consist of the following; Voluntary acts Because this is the physical action carried out by someone it is the most common type of actus reus e.g deliberately causing someone pain by hitting them. Because the criminal law is mainly affected with fault on the defendants part, it has to be an intentional (voluntary) act otherwise if the defendant has no control over his or her actions they have not correctly committed the actus reus. In Hill v Baxter [1958] the court gave examples of situations where a driver of a vehicle could not be said to be doing the act of driving voluntarily. These included a driver losing control of his vehicle by being stung by a swarm of bees, or of he was struck on the head by a stone or had a heart attack whilst driving. Involuntary Act Examples of involuntary acts include where the defendant hits another person because of a reflex action or a muscle spasm, another is where one person pushed a second person causing them to bump into a third person. In this situation the act of the second person who has been pushed is involuntary. Even though he has still hit the third person, he has not committed the Actus Reus for any assault offence. This applied in the case of Mitchell [1983] the defendant tried to push his way into a queue at the post office...
Words: 5108 - Pages: 21
...did have the required intent. As you can see if we apply this case and rule to the scenario then this shows us that there will be no direct intent to kill but Katie could have direct intent to cause GBH, this is because by Katie pushing Jasmine down the stairs she did not have intention to kill her but only did this because the defendant was angry. On the other hand indirect intention is when the defendant did not intend the result of his or her actions and indeed did not want it to occur. From the defendants act the end consequence is virtually certain to occur and this is shown in a case called R v Woolin. In this case the defendant lost his temper when his 3 month old son started chocking on his food. The defendant picked him up and shook him and then threw him across the room towards his pram. Unfortunately the baby hit the wall and died as a result of his injuries. The trial showed us that the defendant stated that he had no intention to kill his son. The judge told the jury that it could convict if it was satisfied that the defendant had seen `substantial risk` of serious injury. On appeal the House of Lords confirmed that the consequence must be virtually certain result of the defendants actions and that the defendant must appreciate this. Furthermore if we apply this rule and case to the scenario it shows us that did Katie know from pushing Jasmine down the injury was foreseeable. If yes it then has to be proved by the jury and that it can have GBH because of the serious...
Words: 1149 - Pages: 5
...Agency 13 Accessories Before the Fact & Principals of the Second Degree 14 Actus Reus 14 Mens Rea 16 Doctrine of Common Purpose 16 ATTEMPT 20 Mens Rea (Heavily dependent on MR). 21 Actus Reus 21 LARCENY 24 Actus Reus 24 a. Taking & Carrying Away 24 b. Property Capable of Being Stolen 24 c. Property in Someone Else’s Possession 25 Abandoned by owner 26 d. Without Consent of the Person in Possession 26 Mens Rea 28 1. Intent to Deprive Permanently 28 2. Without a Claim of Right Made in Good Faith (bona fide) 30 3. Fraudulently 31 Temporal Coincidence 33 Larceny by Finding 33 Larceny by Trick 34 Larceny as a Bailee 38 ASSAULT 41 Degree of Injury 41 Common Assault 42 a. Psychic Assault 42 b. Battery 44 Mens Rea 47 Intentional Assault 47 Reckless Assault 47 Negligence 48 Aggravated Assault 48 a. Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) (section 59) 49 b. Reckless GBH or Wounding (section 35) 50 c. Maliciously Wounding/GBH with Intention to Inflict GBH (section 33) 51 SEXUAL ASSAULT 54 Actus Reus 54 a. Sexual Intercourse 54 b. Absence of Consent 55 Common law Rules 57 o Doctrine of marital immunity abolished at common law (L 1991) and under statute (s61T(a) NSW) 57 Mens Rea 57 Intention 57 Mistaken Belief in Consent 57 Recklessness 58 DEFENCES 60 Insanity 60 Elements 60 Automatism 61 Sane and Insane Automatism 61 Intoxication 62 Burden of Proof 62 Self-induced v Involuntary...
Words: 31227 - Pages: 125
...case of White. She is also the legal cause because she was more than the minimal cause, as demonstrated in the case of Pagett. The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which includes express malice - the intention to kill, or implied malice - intention to cause serious GBH. Niccy had the mens rea for murder, because she intended to kill Owen; she claimed he “must be eliminated”. She also had clear actus reus as she was the sole cause of his death. Therefore she could be liable for Owen's murder. Paul could also be liable for the murder of Steve, as he had the clear actus reus to cause serious harm to Steve. The jury would have to decide whether Paul had the intention for murder, as it is a specific intent crime and the scenario states that Paul only intended to break Steve’s arm. The jury would be able to find the necessary intention if the consequences of Paul’s actions were virtually certain and that Paul knew this, as seen in Nedrick and Woolin. It is foreseeable that if you attack someone with a hammer there could be fatal results, and Paul would have known this, so it is likely that the jury would find the necessary intention. Therefore Paul has implied malice because he intended to cause GBH by wanting to break Steve’s arm. Therefore, Paul could be...
Words: 336 - Pages: 2
...Actus Reus The equation for Actus Reus is, Actus Reus, which is a guilty act and must be voluntary. Actus Reus is actually doing the acting, for example stabbing someone. The next part of the equation is plus Mens Rea, this means guilty mind, which means they had to of wanted to stab someone either by Intention, recklessness or malice aforethought. Strict liability can be here instead, this is where committing the offense alone is enough for you to be guilty, for example speeding, it doesn’t matter if you intended to you did it and that’s enough for you to be charged. Absence of defence is next and finally this all equals crime. Actus Reus + Mens Rea or Strict Liability + Absence of a defence = Crime There are four ways in which Actus Reus can be committed. The first is “Results crimes are those in which the actus Reus is defined in terms of prohibited consequences irrespective of how these are brought about.” This is where causation takes place and it is the actual consequences that are important where physical act links with consequences and results. The next for cases are example of causation. T R v Smith 1959, a fight broke out in a military barracks and a soldier was stabbed, on the way to the hospital he was dropped twice and the treatment at the hospital was inadequate, he later died, did he die because of the wound or the care he received. The stabbing was seen as the reason he died. R v Malcherek, a Defendant’s actions put him in the hospital and on life support...
Words: 1392 - Pages: 6
...-Homicide patterns reflect cultural norms. * -homicide is spontaneous rather than premeditated crime. * -Homicide offenders exhibit a wide range of moral culpability. 5.3 Murder S18 Crimes Act (1900) NSW S 18. (1) (a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him, of a crime punishable by penal servitude for life or for 25 years. (b) Every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter. S 18 (2)(a) No act or omission which was not malicious, or for which the accused had lawful cause or excuse, shall be within this section. (b) No punishment or forfeiture shall be incurred by any person who kills another by misfortune only. MR Intention to kill and intention to inflict GBH * Conscious purpose and decision; not desire. Put another way, one intends to do something if one foresees the certainty of the result occurring. * Subjective test * Where there is an intention to...
Words: 27347 - Pages: 110
...touching involved only the fear of immediate unlawful force. In the case of Constanza the Court of Appeal held that letters could be an assault. For battery, there must be actual force. It is defined as infliction of unlawful personal harm accompanied by intention or subjective recklessness. There are often situations which both occur. The actus reus for a section 20 offence is to cause GBH ‘serious’ or wound. In the case of Ahmed “deliberately” swinging his stick to hit Bob in the face, cutting his lip could mean Ahmed satisfies section 20 as the cut in Bobs lip is a break in the skin. The mens rea of a section 20 offence is to intend or recklessness as to some harm. As the act was deliberate, it could be argued that Ahmed intended to cause harm which possibly could change his offence to a section 18. Section 18 this is considered a much more serious offence than Section 20, as can be seen from the differences in the maximum punishments. Section 20 has a maximum of 5 years imprisonment whereas the maximum for a section 18 is life imprisonment. The mens rea for this offence is the specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm or to resist arrest. However, this would be left up to the jury to decide. Ahmed could not use defence of consent as such conduct is outside the rules of the game. The Court of Appeal said in Barnes that where an injury is caused during a...
Words: 527 - Pages: 3
...Explain the meaning of the term ‘causation’ Causation is an element of criminal liability. Causation is divided into factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation is the starting point and consists of applying the 'but for' test. In most instances, where there exist no complicating factors, factual causation on its own will establish causation. However, in some cases it will also be necessary to consider legal causation. The chain of causation can be broken if the defendant will not be the legal cause if he can show that the victim caused the end result himself. However, this will only succeed if the victim’s reaction was unreasonable. Also the chain of causation can be broken by bad medical treatment. Factual causation is established by applying the 'but for' test. This asks, 'but for the actions of the defendant, would the result have occurred?' If yes, the result would have occurred in any event, the D is not liable. If the answer is no, the D is liable as it can be said that their action was a factual cause of the result. For example in the case R V White the D tried to poison his mum, but she died of a heart attack before the poison had any effect so his actions did not pass the but for test. Once it has been established that the accused is the factual cause of the harm suffered by the V, it then has to be shown that he is also the legal cause. This makes sure that people are not found guilty when they are not to blame for the end result. The court asks...
Words: 750 - Pages: 3
...AS LAW MODEL ANSWERS Define the actus reus of a crime (7 mins) The actus reus is the physical and external part of a crime. It means the guilty act. The actus reus must be a positive and voluntary act as illustrated in the case of Hill vs Baxter. In this case the judge said that driving whilst fighting off a swarm of bees would prevent the act from being voluntary, therefore preventing the actus reus from being satisfied. If the actus reus of a crime is not satisfied the defendant can never be found guilty. However there are six situations where a failure to act (omission) will satisfy the actus reus of a crime. These are exceptions to the rule in Hill v Baxter that the act committed must be positive. A person will have a duty to act if they assume the duty voluntarily, as illustrated in Stone v Dobinson, where the defendants failed to provide adequate care for their aunt when they said they would look after her. Pittwood illustrates that a contract can require a person to act, in this case the defendant failed to shut a gate, causing death, which he was required to under contract. In Miller the defendant created a dangerous situation and satisfied the actus reus of a crime as he did not take any steps to extinguish a fire which he created. In Dytham the policeman held an official position, which required him to act, therefore he was guilty of misconduct when he failed to act while someone got kicked to death. Gibbins v Proctor illustrates that parents have a duty...
Words: 1220 - Pages: 5
