Legal principles and the law with true examples and cases that are relevant to the area of discussion.
P1,P2,P3
Actus Reus of a crime.
Actus reus is the elements of a crime which is considered as a guilty act. It is made up of all the elements of crime except for the men’s Rea ( the
mental state of the defendant)
The actus Reus can be made up of the following:
• Conduct- Actus reus is made up from the action which is already criminal e.g. Rape, possession of a gun.
• Result- The action is not criminal (conduct) but what has happened as a result of the action makes up the actus reus. E.g. throwing a
stone and it killing someone. It is not illegal to throw a stone but it it has killed someone as a result of that stone hitting them it is an
offence.
• State of affairs- Actus reus is made up of the background information and not the conduct itself. Here is an example in a real case of
this:
Duck v peacock 1949
• Defendant was charged with the offence of drink-driving. When found the man was simply asleep in his car so was not Intitially
charged but upon appeal it was stated that it was a case of a man who is unfit to take control of a car still doing it and therefore that was
strong enough reason to impose a disqualification.
Omissions
• Omissions can also be a factor in deciding the actus reus of a crime.
• An omission is the failure to act which can result in a crime. It only applies when D had a duty to act. There is a duty to act when
there is a:
• Special relationship- a relationship imposed by law such as a marriage partner, children and parents.
• Contractual obligation- Ignoring a contract to act in certain way.
• Assumed duty of care- Creating a dangerous situation and failing to correct it. Here in the case of R vs Miller [1983] we will see this:
• D had been drinking in the evening. When he got back to sleep he lit a cigarette which set his mattress on fire. When realising the
mattress was on fire instead of putting it out or calling the fire brigade, he went to another room and went back to sleep. The court held
that the actus reus relied solely on the Fact that when were on fire he failed to take appropriate steps to deal with it. Therefore he was
liable for his omission.
Causation.
• Causation is where the defendants act is enough to be the cause of the victims harm. To prove causation The harm must have
occurred without any event taking place which would make the defendant innocent. This is known as factual causation as the prosecution
must prove the other events were not the cause of the harm using facts.
• Sure causation is established when the but for test is applied. This establish is whether the event would’ve still occurred in any event
without interference of the defendant. If this establishes the answer is no then the defendant is liable because their action is a factual
cause the harm.
R v White [1910]
• This was the case that established the ‘but for’ test.
• The defendant put poison in his mothers milk in the aim of killing her which and was successful. Medical reports revealed that she
died from a heart attack and not the poison.
• As a result of the but for test D was not liable for her murder as the poisoning was not the cause of death instead it was a heart
attack which would’ve occurred anyway. He was however liable for attempted murder.
Men’s rea
• Mens rea is the guilty mind of the defendant which is the act which will make a person liable if the mind is legally to blame.
• There are three main forms of a men’s Rea:
• Intention.
, • Recklessness.
• Negligence.
• The most culpable form of men’s rea is ‘intention’ and a defendant had intention if the consequence of their act was their reason for
it in the first place.
R v Maloney [1985]
D and his stepfather had a drunken competition to see which of them could load a shotgun
faster. Maloney won, and was then challenged by his stepfather to fire the gun. He did, killing
his stepfather. Maloney was charged with murder. He appealed and the Court of Appeal
allowed appeal to the House of Lords.
Court held There was no intention to kill his stepfather
Subjective recklessness.
• Recklessness is a factor in establishing the men’s Rea of a defendant.
• recklessness can be defined as taking an unjustified risk.
• When establishing a mens rea recklessness falls between intention and negligence.
R vs Cunningham [1957]
• This is the leading case established a subjective test to determine recklessness.
• This test known as Cunningham recklessness, decides whether the defendant could
foresee the harm that occurred from his actions, and therefore continued regardless of the
risk.
Gross negligence
• Gross negligence can be defined as disregard for the health and safety of others through
actions that are likely to cause foreseeable harm.
• Lord Hewart of the House of Lords defines gross negligence as “ Beyond the main
matter of compensation between subjects, and shows such disregard for the life and safety
of others to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving of punishment”
• Someone is negligent when their duty of care falls below that of the reasonable man.
R v Adomako (1994)
• defendant during an operation failed to notice that the victims specialised breathing
equipment came loose. He only noticed 9 minutes in when the person went into cardiac
arrest. This was too late and the victim died 6 months later after never recovering from the
coma. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter because of his failure to uphold his
duty of care.
Liability-Corporate, individual, strict and absolute.
Corporate liability.
• Corporate liability can be defined as how far the business is responsible for their employees and their negligent actions.
• It covers all actions taken by the company that could be deemed as negligent.
• As a company, any organisation has its own legal personality, but under the identification principle, employees or anyone part of the
organisation can be charged.
• Identification principle is when a prosecutor can identify any individuals who’s actus reus and men’s rea can be attributed to the
company, so that they represent the company’s “directing mind and will” when carrying out the act.
• Taylor wimpy management and board could find themselves liable in certain scenarios if they represent the directing mind and will
if they have been allocated total responsibility for the act that has been committed negligently.
• An example case of this is Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972]
P1,P2,P3
Actus Reus of a crime.
Actus reus is the elements of a crime which is considered as a guilty act. It is made up of all the elements of crime except for the men’s Rea ( the
mental state of the defendant)
The actus Reus can be made up of the following:
• Conduct- Actus reus is made up from the action which is already criminal e.g. Rape, possession of a gun.
• Result- The action is not criminal (conduct) but what has happened as a result of the action makes up the actus reus. E.g. throwing a
stone and it killing someone. It is not illegal to throw a stone but it it has killed someone as a result of that stone hitting them it is an
offence.
• State of affairs- Actus reus is made up of the background information and not the conduct itself. Here is an example in a real case of
this:
Duck v peacock 1949
• Defendant was charged with the offence of drink-driving. When found the man was simply asleep in his car so was not Intitially
charged but upon appeal it was stated that it was a case of a man who is unfit to take control of a car still doing it and therefore that was
strong enough reason to impose a disqualification.
Omissions
• Omissions can also be a factor in deciding the actus reus of a crime.
• An omission is the failure to act which can result in a crime. It only applies when D had a duty to act. There is a duty to act when
there is a:
• Special relationship- a relationship imposed by law such as a marriage partner, children and parents.
• Contractual obligation- Ignoring a contract to act in certain way.
• Assumed duty of care- Creating a dangerous situation and failing to correct it. Here in the case of R vs Miller [1983] we will see this:
• D had been drinking in the evening. When he got back to sleep he lit a cigarette which set his mattress on fire. When realising the
mattress was on fire instead of putting it out or calling the fire brigade, he went to another room and went back to sleep. The court held
that the actus reus relied solely on the Fact that when were on fire he failed to take appropriate steps to deal with it. Therefore he was
liable for his omission.
Causation.
• Causation is where the defendants act is enough to be the cause of the victims harm. To prove causation The harm must have
occurred without any event taking place which would make the defendant innocent. This is known as factual causation as the prosecution
must prove the other events were not the cause of the harm using facts.
• Sure causation is established when the but for test is applied. This establish is whether the event would’ve still occurred in any event
without interference of the defendant. If this establishes the answer is no then the defendant is liable because their action is a factual
cause the harm.
R v White [1910]
• This was the case that established the ‘but for’ test.
• The defendant put poison in his mothers milk in the aim of killing her which and was successful. Medical reports revealed that she
died from a heart attack and not the poison.
• As a result of the but for test D was not liable for her murder as the poisoning was not the cause of death instead it was a heart
attack which would’ve occurred anyway. He was however liable for attempted murder.
Men’s rea
• Mens rea is the guilty mind of the defendant which is the act which will make a person liable if the mind is legally to blame.
• There are three main forms of a men’s Rea:
• Intention.
, • Recklessness.
• Negligence.
• The most culpable form of men’s rea is ‘intention’ and a defendant had intention if the consequence of their act was their reason for
it in the first place.
R v Maloney [1985]
D and his stepfather had a drunken competition to see which of them could load a shotgun
faster. Maloney won, and was then challenged by his stepfather to fire the gun. He did, killing
his stepfather. Maloney was charged with murder. He appealed and the Court of Appeal
allowed appeal to the House of Lords.
Court held There was no intention to kill his stepfather
Subjective recklessness.
• Recklessness is a factor in establishing the men’s Rea of a defendant.
• recklessness can be defined as taking an unjustified risk.
• When establishing a mens rea recklessness falls between intention and negligence.
R vs Cunningham [1957]
• This is the leading case established a subjective test to determine recklessness.
• This test known as Cunningham recklessness, decides whether the defendant could
foresee the harm that occurred from his actions, and therefore continued regardless of the
risk.
Gross negligence
• Gross negligence can be defined as disregard for the health and safety of others through
actions that are likely to cause foreseeable harm.
• Lord Hewart of the House of Lords defines gross negligence as “ Beyond the main
matter of compensation between subjects, and shows such disregard for the life and safety
of others to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving of punishment”
• Someone is negligent when their duty of care falls below that of the reasonable man.
R v Adomako (1994)
• defendant during an operation failed to notice that the victims specialised breathing
equipment came loose. He only noticed 9 minutes in when the person went into cardiac
arrest. This was too late and the victim died 6 months later after never recovering from the
coma. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter because of his failure to uphold his
duty of care.
Liability-Corporate, individual, strict and absolute.
Corporate liability.
• Corporate liability can be defined as how far the business is responsible for their employees and their negligent actions.
• It covers all actions taken by the company that could be deemed as negligent.
• As a company, any organisation has its own legal personality, but under the identification principle, employees or anyone part of the
organisation can be charged.
• Identification principle is when a prosecutor can identify any individuals who’s actus reus and men’s rea can be attributed to the
company, so that they represent the company’s “directing mind and will” when carrying out the act.
• Taylor wimpy management and board could find themselves liable in certain scenarios if they represent the directing mind and will
if they have been allocated total responsibility for the act that has been committed negligently.
• An example case of this is Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972]
