BPP GDL – Criminal Law Exam Notes
Actus Reus and Causation
Factual Causation
- The ‘but for’ test. R v White.
- Factually, it must be proved that ‘but for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, the relevant
consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did.
Legal Causation
- Operating and substantial cause of the prohibited consequence – R v Pagett.
• R v Hughes: Substantial means more than de minimis.
- The defendant’s act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence – R v Benge.
Intervening Acts/Events may Break the Chain of Causation
Medical Negligence
- Courts are reluctant to allow medical negligence to break the chain of causation, unless
overwhelming and independent – R v Cheshire.
Intervention of Third Parties
- R v Pagett. Do not break chain if act reasonably, e.g. in self-defence. May only be a break in
the chain of causation if the actions of the third party were ‘free, deliberate and informed’.
Thin skull rule
- A person who inflicts harm on another cannot escape liability if the victim, owing to some pre-
existing infirmity or peculiarity, suffers greater harm than would have been expected.
- The defendant must take his victim as he finds him – R v Hayward.
Acts of the Victim – Fright and Flight Cases
- R v Roberts – jumps from car. Did not break chain. Victim’s reaction would only break the
chain of causation if ‘so daft’ that no reasonable person could foresee it.
Acts of the Victim – Refusal of Medical Treatment
- Courts unlikely to hold that breaks the chain – R v Holland; R v Blaue.
Natural Events
- Natural events only break chain of causation if ‘extraordinary’ and not reasonably
foreseeable.
Which Test Should You Use?
- For new situations arising, use the reasonable foreseeability test from R v Girdler.
Criminal Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 1 of 20
, Mens Rea
Intention
- R v Moloney. Word should be given its ordinary meaning.
- Defendant’s aim or purpose to commit the actus reus. Wholly subjective test.
Recklessness
- The current definition of recklessness comes from the case of R v G.
- A person acts recklessly with respect to a result when (a) he is aware of a risk that it will occur
and (b) it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.
- Subjective test – if the risk has not entered D’s mind then not reckless.
- In respect of the second part of the test, the risk must have been objectively unreasonable.
- If there is no social utility, then probably unreasonable to take even a tiny risk.
Transferred Malice
- The doctrine of transferred malice operates to allow the mens rea against X to be transferred
and joined with the actus reus that causes the prohibited harm to Y. The mens rea is
transferred from the intended harm to the actual harm.
- R v Latimer.
- However, the defendant must have the mens rea for the crime charged. It is not possible to
mix and match the mens rea of different crimes – R v Pembliton.
Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
- As a general rule the defendant must have the relevant mens rea for the offence at the precise
moment when he commits the actus reus.
Continuing Act Theory
- Fagan v MPC. Held actus reus to be a continuing act, and it was enough that Fagan had the
mens rea at some point during its continuance.
One Transaction Principle
- Sometimes the courts will categorise the actions of the accused as a series of acts, making up
one transaction. In certain circumstances, it is enough for the defendant to have the mens rea
at some time during that transaction.
- R v Le Brun – Unlawful act and act causing death were all part of the same transaction. Did
not matter that there was no preconceived plan and that D knew his wife was still alive.
Transaction continued as long as D was trying to cover up crime he believed he committed.
Criminal Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 2 of 20
, Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person
Assault
à An assault is committed when the accused ‘intentionally or recklessly causes another person to
apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’ – Fagan v MPC.
Actus Reus
There must be an apprehension of personal violence:
- Must cause victim to believe he can and will carry out threat – R v Lamb. Need not fear.
- Irrelevant that D does not in fact have the means to carry out that threat – Logdon v DPP.
• R v Wilson – words may be sufficient to constitute assault.
• R v Ireland – Silence can be sufficient.
• Tuberville v Savage – Words spoken can negate an assault. Ultimately depends on
whether the victim apprehended immediate unlawful personal violence.
- R v Ireland – victim must apprehend physical violence. Personal violence defined as any
intentional touching of another person without consent – Collins v Wilcock
The threat of violence must be immediate:
- The victim must believe that immediate violence will be inflicted upon him: therefore, fear
that the force might be applied sometime in the future would be insufficient.
- Generous interpretation of ‘immediacy’. Does not mean instantaneous – Smith v Woking.
Mens Rea
- R v Venna – mens rea for assault is intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to
apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.
Battery
à A battery is ‘actual intended use of unlawful force to another person without his consent’ – Fagan
v MPC.
Actus Reus
There must be application of force:
- Force includes the merest touching – Collins v Wilcock.
- Application of force need not be aggressive – Faulkner v Talbot
- Force need not be applied directly – DPP v K
- A battery can be constituted by omission – DPP v Santana-Bermudez.
- The force applied must be unlawful – Collins v Wilcock, implied consent.
Mens Rea
Intentional or reckless application of force upon another – R v Venna
Criminal Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 3 of 20
Actus Reus and Causation
Factual Causation
- The ‘but for’ test. R v White.
- Factually, it must be proved that ‘but for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, the relevant
consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did.
Legal Causation
- Operating and substantial cause of the prohibited consequence – R v Pagett.
• R v Hughes: Substantial means more than de minimis.
- The defendant’s act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence – R v Benge.
Intervening Acts/Events may Break the Chain of Causation
Medical Negligence
- Courts are reluctant to allow medical negligence to break the chain of causation, unless
overwhelming and independent – R v Cheshire.
Intervention of Third Parties
- R v Pagett. Do not break chain if act reasonably, e.g. in self-defence. May only be a break in
the chain of causation if the actions of the third party were ‘free, deliberate and informed’.
Thin skull rule
- A person who inflicts harm on another cannot escape liability if the victim, owing to some pre-
existing infirmity or peculiarity, suffers greater harm than would have been expected.
- The defendant must take his victim as he finds him – R v Hayward.
Acts of the Victim – Fright and Flight Cases
- R v Roberts – jumps from car. Did not break chain. Victim’s reaction would only break the
chain of causation if ‘so daft’ that no reasonable person could foresee it.
Acts of the Victim – Refusal of Medical Treatment
- Courts unlikely to hold that breaks the chain – R v Holland; R v Blaue.
Natural Events
- Natural events only break chain of causation if ‘extraordinary’ and not reasonably
foreseeable.
Which Test Should You Use?
- For new situations arising, use the reasonable foreseeability test from R v Girdler.
Criminal Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 1 of 20
, Mens Rea
Intention
- R v Moloney. Word should be given its ordinary meaning.
- Defendant’s aim or purpose to commit the actus reus. Wholly subjective test.
Recklessness
- The current definition of recklessness comes from the case of R v G.
- A person acts recklessly with respect to a result when (a) he is aware of a risk that it will occur
and (b) it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.
- Subjective test – if the risk has not entered D’s mind then not reckless.
- In respect of the second part of the test, the risk must have been objectively unreasonable.
- If there is no social utility, then probably unreasonable to take even a tiny risk.
Transferred Malice
- The doctrine of transferred malice operates to allow the mens rea against X to be transferred
and joined with the actus reus that causes the prohibited harm to Y. The mens rea is
transferred from the intended harm to the actual harm.
- R v Latimer.
- However, the defendant must have the mens rea for the crime charged. It is not possible to
mix and match the mens rea of different crimes – R v Pembliton.
Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
- As a general rule the defendant must have the relevant mens rea for the offence at the precise
moment when he commits the actus reus.
Continuing Act Theory
- Fagan v MPC. Held actus reus to be a continuing act, and it was enough that Fagan had the
mens rea at some point during its continuance.
One Transaction Principle
- Sometimes the courts will categorise the actions of the accused as a series of acts, making up
one transaction. In certain circumstances, it is enough for the defendant to have the mens rea
at some time during that transaction.
- R v Le Brun – Unlawful act and act causing death were all part of the same transaction. Did
not matter that there was no preconceived plan and that D knew his wife was still alive.
Transaction continued as long as D was trying to cover up crime he believed he committed.
Criminal Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 2 of 20
, Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person
Assault
à An assault is committed when the accused ‘intentionally or recklessly causes another person to
apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’ – Fagan v MPC.
Actus Reus
There must be an apprehension of personal violence:
- Must cause victim to believe he can and will carry out threat – R v Lamb. Need not fear.
- Irrelevant that D does not in fact have the means to carry out that threat – Logdon v DPP.
• R v Wilson – words may be sufficient to constitute assault.
• R v Ireland – Silence can be sufficient.
• Tuberville v Savage – Words spoken can negate an assault. Ultimately depends on
whether the victim apprehended immediate unlawful personal violence.
- R v Ireland – victim must apprehend physical violence. Personal violence defined as any
intentional touching of another person without consent – Collins v Wilcock
The threat of violence must be immediate:
- The victim must believe that immediate violence will be inflicted upon him: therefore, fear
that the force might be applied sometime in the future would be insufficient.
- Generous interpretation of ‘immediacy’. Does not mean instantaneous – Smith v Woking.
Mens Rea
- R v Venna – mens rea for assault is intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to
apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.
Battery
à A battery is ‘actual intended use of unlawful force to another person without his consent’ – Fagan
v MPC.
Actus Reus
There must be application of force:
- Force includes the merest touching – Collins v Wilcock.
- Application of force need not be aggressive – Faulkner v Talbot
- Force need not be applied directly – DPP v K
- A battery can be constituted by omission – DPP v Santana-Bermudez.
- The force applied must be unlawful – Collins v Wilcock, implied consent.
Mens Rea
Intentional or reckless application of force upon another – R v Venna
Criminal Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 3 of 20
