Brief Notes Unit 2

Actus reus:

• Voluntary deliberate act
• Unlawful
• Has the consequence of causing an injury to the victim
• That the law classifies as a wound or grievous bodily harm
• Special cases: involuntary acts
• Involuntary Hill v Baxter 1958 stung by bees hit by a stone
• However, state of affairs Larsonneur committed actus reus in the first place
• Omissions: failure to act when there is a legal duty
• Contract = Pittwood 1902
• Public position = Dytham 1979
• Act of Parliament = Greener v DPP (1996)
• Family members = R v Gibbons and Proctor (1918)
• Voluntary care = Stone v Dobinson 1977
• Failure to minimize harm caused = Miller 1983

Causation

• To see whether the defendant’s act caused the consequence
• Factual causation
• “but for” test, established by Pagett 1983
• Also used in White 1910
• Legal causation
• So there is little chance of convicting an innocent person
• Original injury must be operating and substantial cause:
• Smith 1959 two soldier stabbed
• Policy issue: degree of sympathy for doctors unless palpably wrong Jordan 1956
• Chesire 1991 substantial contribution tracheotomy significant contribution
• Chain of causation = link between defendant’s act and consequence
• Broken Jordan 1956
• Unbroken Malcherek 1981 life support machine
• Novus actus interveniens
• Take your victim as you find him
• Blaue 1975
• Watson 1989
• Contrast to Dawson 1985 conditions were not obvious
• Victims own act
• Roberts 1971 foreseeable
• Williams 1992 daft/unforeseeable

Mens rea

• Guilty mind behind the actus reus
• Intention
• Direct
• Mohan 1976 : definition “direct intention is a decision to bring about, so far as it lies in the defendant’s powers, the criminal consequence, no matter whether the defendant desired that consequence or not”.
• Oblique
• The defendant intended the act but not the consequences
• Woollin 1998 two part test to find intention:
• Consequence is a virtual certainty
• The defendant knows that it is a virtual certainty
• Matthews and Alleyne: defendant’s appreciation of virtual certain consequence is not enough for intention for murder, but enough to infer intention.
• Recklessness
• Cunningham 1957: D knows the risk but is willing to take it deliberately
• Recklessness is neither limited to, nor does it indeed require, any ill will towards the person injured

Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea

• Require both at the same time
• Aka contemporaneity rule
• Person cannot be guilty of a crime if he performs an act that causes a previously desired result
• Series of linked acts or omissions  continuing act (Fagan v MPC 1969)
• Mens rea was formed when he refused to remove the car
• Seen as continuing act
• Le Brun (1991) manslaughter
• Thabo Meli (1954) series of linked actss
• Church (1966) mens rea continued despite the defendant’s belief of a change of circumstances

Transferred malice

• D’s mens rea is transferred from the intended victim to actual victim
• Mitchell 1983 queuing push elderly man  death of elderly woman  guilty for offence for both
• Latimer (1886) person to person
• Pembliton (1876) mens rea can be transferred from person to person or object to object but not from person to object or vice versa.

Strict liability

• Do not require proof of mens rea
• Primarily regulatory offences
• Most statutes are unclear as to whether they are of strict liability or not  judge to interpret
• Require mens rea: “intentionally or recklessly”

• Guidelines Gammon Ltd v Attorney General for Hong Kong (1985) – Lord Scarman
• There is always a presumption that mens rea is required.
• The crime is not ‘truly criminal’
• Statute must clearly exclude mens rea.
• Strict liability should be imposed for public benefit.
• Making the crime strict liability would further the purpose of the Act and increase vigilance to prevent committing the crime.
• Sweet v Parsley 1970 – court ruled that Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 required mens rea, D cannot be guilty because she was not aware of what was happening
• Alphacell v Woodward (1972) waste system failure, D guilty even though crime was unpredicted, to encourage greater vigilance in business
• Smedleys v Breed (1974) convicted even though taken all reasonable care (worm in tin of peas)
• London Borough of Harrow v Shah (2000), may not be truly criminal but of social concern, also not taken all reasonable care (lottery ticket under 16)
• Blake (1997) interfering with public services (unlicensed broadcast)

Assault

• Common law offence
• Recognized by the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (s39)
• Causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence
• Must be without consent Collins v Wilcox (1984)
• Causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force Logdon (1976), an assault can be act or words
• Fear can be imminent Smith (1983)
• But must cause fear Lamb (1967)
• Can be psychiatric harm Ireland or Burstow (1976)
• Mens rea
• Intention (direct or oblique) to cause the victim to apprehend immediate violence or the recklessness as to whether this will happened:
• Savage (1991) intention or Venna (1976)
• Cunningham recklessness

Battery

• Unlawful application of force to another
• Can be slight touching (Collins v Wilcock 1984)
• Touching of a skirt  (Thomas 1985)
• Must be hostile (Wilson v Pringle 1986)
• Without consent (Slingsby, Tabassum).
• It can be a continuing act (Fagan)
• Can be indirect act (Martin 1881 or DPP v K 1990 or Haystead 2000)
• Words can negate violence (Turberville)
• Mens rea
• Intention to apply unlawful physical force
• Recklessness to whether force was applied (Cunningham 1957)

S47

• Scratches, bruising, fractures, unconsciousness, psychological harm (injury may amount to s20 or s18 depending on severity)
• Jury to decide
• Actus reus
• Unlawful assault occasioning actual bodily harm
• Assault
• Assault or battery
• Occasioning
• Causation – whether assault caused injuries
• Injuries include bruising, grazes, scratches and fractures
• ABH
• Harm must be sufficient to interfere with “health and comfort” of V Miller (1983)
• Harm cannot be trivial (Chan-Fook)
• Harm can be physical (Martin)
• Psychological (Ireland)
• Cutting of hair (Smith 2006)
• Mens rea
• Intention or recklessness as to assault or battery
• No mens rea required for harm
• Roberts (1971)