OMISSIONS CRIMINAL LAW: CAUSATION
Omissions The chain of causation must not be broken otherw
The general rule for omissions is that you are not liable for a failure to act. This is due GENERAL LIABILITY defendant cannot be held criminally liable. The ch
to the UK not having any Good Samaritan Law meaning that you do not need to act to up into three parts:
help those around you. 1. Factual causation
However, through common law and parliamentary law exceptions to this has been • Referred to as the ‘but for’ test, it sta
made, the exceptions are as follows: suffered any hurt or injury but for th
• Parliamentary duty to act Did suffer: Paggett
• Contractual duty to act: Pitwood Didn’t suffer: White
• Duty because of a relationship: Gibbins and Proctor 2. Legal causation
• A duty taken on: Stone and Dobinson • If the defendant was a more than mi
• Duty through an official position: Dytham you have proved legal causation
• Set in motion a dangerous chain of events: Miller 1983 GENERAL RULES More than minimal: Kimsey
• Negligence: 3. Intervening acts
• has the defendant fallen below the standard of care expected from a • Intervening acts can either be broken
reasonable person? How did they breach this?
MENS REA • It does not matter if they are a learner Nettleship v Weston
a. Victims own actions
b. Act of a 3rd party
Mens Rea • Transferred malice No break: Jordon
The mens rea is referring to the type of intention which someone has towards a • The mens rea of the crime can transfer from person to person Break: Smith
certain offence. Certain offences will require a certain level of mens rea to be met to Latimer/Mitchell It must also be independent and potent
be charged with it. If the mens rea was not present (and wasn’t a strict liability • Contemporaneity rule Potential Issues
offence) it means that it won’t be a complete offence and no charges can be bought • AR can be stretched to meet the MR: Fagan v MPC • Think skull rule: if a V has a disease which they
around. • MR can be stretched to meet the AR: Thabo Meli religious reasons, it will not be an issue and the
The types of mens rea are: • Strict liability liability Blaue
• Simply by committing the actus reus is enough to find someone liable
• Intent for the offence. There is no need for an intention to have to be proved
•Direct intent: you can clearly see a sense of premeditation or intent to Harrow LBC v Shah LEGAL TERMINOL
bring across the consequences of the offence • Subjective: it is based on a reasonable person
• Indirect intent: set out using the Woolin test where you cannot prove • Objective: they consider the characteristics of
that it was intentional but more of that the act done was a virtual
certainty. To prove this you will use the Woolin test and you will ask: ACTUS REUS •
person basis)
Reverse Onus: the burden is shifted to the defe
Death or injury a virtual certainty? The actus reus refers to the physical act of the offence rather than the state of mind (a defence is raised it will be on the defence to
Was the D aware of this virtual certainty? (objective) of the defendant. The actus reus can be split up into: • Recklessness: the act done was ill-thought and
• Oblique intent • Conduct crimes planning of what could happen
• This is used where you are unable to find a specific intent. It will allow • The conduct of the crime itself could be criminal. There does not have • Intention: the defendant wanted to bring acro
for basic intent/recklessness. This is set out in Cunningham and it states to be no particular outcome. For example, perjury • Indirect intent: set out in Woollin, it showed th
that you need to prove ‘yes’ to both: • Result crimes the act was a virtual certainty and the defenda
• Was the Defendant aware of the risk? (objective) • The result of the act is what makes it criminal. • Self-induced: the D bought about the consequ
• Did the D still take this risk? Its not illegal to throw a stone, but if it hits someone then it could • Voluntary: the D did the act on their free will
be illegal. • Involuntary: the D was forced, or had an unexc
• State of affairs
SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE • It means the ‘being’ of the defendant rather than ‘doing’ of them. For
•
•
Actus reus: the physical act of the offence com
Mens rea: the mental state of the defendant fo
Objective: this is taking a view of what a reasonable person would do, you do not example, being drunk while driving is a state of mind which is also an • Reasonable: often used in tests, would a reaso
think about what the D would do, you would think would the reasonable person do offence it at an objective view not subjective
this? • Omissions • Causation: the chain of causation must not be
A subjective test has been used in Woollin • GR: Failure to act don’t make you criminally liable. But if you fall under the person cannot be held criminally liable
the exceptions you then could be held liable. • Duty of Care: when there is a legal responsibly
Subjective: this will take the view of what the defendant actually believed or thought, offer reasonable protection to someone you ar
what was the D’s viewpoint?
Omissions The chain of causation must not be broken otherw
The general rule for omissions is that you are not liable for a failure to act. This is due GENERAL LIABILITY defendant cannot be held criminally liable. The ch
to the UK not having any Good Samaritan Law meaning that you do not need to act to up into three parts:
help those around you. 1. Factual causation
However, through common law and parliamentary law exceptions to this has been • Referred to as the ‘but for’ test, it sta
made, the exceptions are as follows: suffered any hurt or injury but for th
• Parliamentary duty to act Did suffer: Paggett
• Contractual duty to act: Pitwood Didn’t suffer: White
• Duty because of a relationship: Gibbins and Proctor 2. Legal causation
• A duty taken on: Stone and Dobinson • If the defendant was a more than mi
• Duty through an official position: Dytham you have proved legal causation
• Set in motion a dangerous chain of events: Miller 1983 GENERAL RULES More than minimal: Kimsey
• Negligence: 3. Intervening acts
• has the defendant fallen below the standard of care expected from a • Intervening acts can either be broken
reasonable person? How did they breach this?
MENS REA • It does not matter if they are a learner Nettleship v Weston
a. Victims own actions
b. Act of a 3rd party
Mens Rea • Transferred malice No break: Jordon
The mens rea is referring to the type of intention which someone has towards a • The mens rea of the crime can transfer from person to person Break: Smith
certain offence. Certain offences will require a certain level of mens rea to be met to Latimer/Mitchell It must also be independent and potent
be charged with it. If the mens rea was not present (and wasn’t a strict liability • Contemporaneity rule Potential Issues
offence) it means that it won’t be a complete offence and no charges can be bought • AR can be stretched to meet the MR: Fagan v MPC • Think skull rule: if a V has a disease which they
around. • MR can be stretched to meet the AR: Thabo Meli religious reasons, it will not be an issue and the
The types of mens rea are: • Strict liability liability Blaue
• Simply by committing the actus reus is enough to find someone liable
• Intent for the offence. There is no need for an intention to have to be proved
•Direct intent: you can clearly see a sense of premeditation or intent to Harrow LBC v Shah LEGAL TERMINOL
bring across the consequences of the offence • Subjective: it is based on a reasonable person
• Indirect intent: set out using the Woolin test where you cannot prove • Objective: they consider the characteristics of
that it was intentional but more of that the act done was a virtual
certainty. To prove this you will use the Woolin test and you will ask: ACTUS REUS •
person basis)
Reverse Onus: the burden is shifted to the defe
Death or injury a virtual certainty? The actus reus refers to the physical act of the offence rather than the state of mind (a defence is raised it will be on the defence to
Was the D aware of this virtual certainty? (objective) of the defendant. The actus reus can be split up into: • Recklessness: the act done was ill-thought and
• Oblique intent • Conduct crimes planning of what could happen
• This is used where you are unable to find a specific intent. It will allow • The conduct of the crime itself could be criminal. There does not have • Intention: the defendant wanted to bring acro
for basic intent/recklessness. This is set out in Cunningham and it states to be no particular outcome. For example, perjury • Indirect intent: set out in Woollin, it showed th
that you need to prove ‘yes’ to both: • Result crimes the act was a virtual certainty and the defenda
• Was the Defendant aware of the risk? (objective) • The result of the act is what makes it criminal. • Self-induced: the D bought about the consequ
• Did the D still take this risk? Its not illegal to throw a stone, but if it hits someone then it could • Voluntary: the D did the act on their free will
be illegal. • Involuntary: the D was forced, or had an unexc
• State of affairs
SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE • It means the ‘being’ of the defendant rather than ‘doing’ of them. For
•
•
Actus reus: the physical act of the offence com
Mens rea: the mental state of the defendant fo
Objective: this is taking a view of what a reasonable person would do, you do not example, being drunk while driving is a state of mind which is also an • Reasonable: often used in tests, would a reaso
think about what the D would do, you would think would the reasonable person do offence it at an objective view not subjective
this? • Omissions • Causation: the chain of causation must not be
A subjective test has been used in Woollin • GR: Failure to act don’t make you criminally liable. But if you fall under the person cannot be held criminally liable
the exceptions you then could be held liable. • Duty of Care: when there is a legal responsibly
Subjective: this will take the view of what the defendant actually believed or thought, offer reasonable protection to someone you ar
what was the D’s viewpoint?
