⚒
Criminal Law
Lecture 1/Tutorial 1: Ar and Mr
Actus Reus (Ar) - Guilty act
Mens Rea (Mr) - Guilty mind
Coincide of Ar and Mr;
1. Ar occurring before Mr:
D completes the act before he forms the Mr. Two distinct approaches have
been used to secure a convinction in situations where the Ar is complete
before the formation of the Mr.
Treating the Ar as a continuing act (Fagan)
Defendant was being instructed by a police officer where to park his car,
but accidentally stopped the car on the officer's foor but then refused to
move the car when he realised this. D appealed against the conviction of
assault on the grounds that when the Ar occurred he did not have the Mr
(because it was accidental) and by the time he had formed the Mr
(refusing to move) there was no act that he could do, he simply refused
to undo what had already happened.
Held: The Ar continued for the whole time that the car remained on the
officer's foot, ending only when the car moved. At the point that D
Criminal Law 1
, became aware that he was on the officer's foot and refused to move, he
developed the Mr and liability was complete.
Continuing act can only be used when there is ongoing conduct, it
cannot be used if the Ar is complete, e.g. if D had driven over the foot.
Ar complete prior to formation of Mr (Miller)
D fell asleep in an abandoned house whilst smoking a cigaretee. He
woke up to see the mattress was on fire and instead of putting it out or
calling someone he simply moved to another part of the house. Ar
(dropping the cigarette) occurred when D was asleep and so the Mr
(recklessness) occurred when he awoke. HoL hled that D created a
dangerous situation that gave rise to a duty to act. Thus, the Ar was met
by D's failure to act and coincided with the Mr, so D was held liable.
Neither of Fagan and Miller deal with situations when the Mr occurs before
the Ar, this resulted in the Single Transaction View.
R v Church
Facts: D attacked a woman intending to cause GBH (Mr). She became
unconscious, but D believed she was dead and threw her body into a
river to dispose of the body. The victim drowned (Ar).
Held: D held liable if the entire incident can be seen to be a 'seried of
events' designed to cause death or GBH. The elements of the offence
will be satisfied, provided that the Ar and Mr occur during a single
transaction.
A defendant cannot have the intention to kill someone if they believe that
they are dead already. By viewing the events as a whole - single
transaction - the courts were able to impose liability, but at the expense
of strict legal principles that state that Ar and Mr must coincide at one
single point in time (Principle of Contemporaneity)
Assault and Battery
1. Battery
Actus Reus (Ar)
Infliction of force or violence (even the slighest touching)
Mens Rea (Mr)
Intention or subjective recklessness thereto
Criminal Law 2
, 2. Common Assault
Actus Reus (Ar)
Causing apprehension of immediate and unlawful violence
Mens Rea (Mr)
Intention or subjective recklessness thereto
3. Assault occassioning actual bodily harm (ABH) [Section 47 OAPA 1861]
Actus Reus (Ar)
Common assault or battery resulting in ABH
Mens Rea (Mr)
Intention of subjective recklessness to the common assault or battery only
Lecture 2: Actus Reus and Murder
Traditionally, the definition of Murder arose from Coke, but a Modern restatement
is the following breakdown;
Ar:
1. D did an unlawful act or duty-violating omission
2. D's act was voluntary
3. The act was a significant (or 'substantial') cause of death
4. The death was of a person in being
5. The victum was under the Queen's peace (primarly a jurisdiction element:
Adeboljo)
Mr:
1. At the time of doing the act, D intended either to kill or cause serious bodily
harm to the victim (or, subject to the doctrine of transferred malice, to another
person).
Causation: Basic Principles
1. D's conduct must have some causal connection to the Death, e.g. White.
White decided to kill his mother. White put cyanide in mothers tea, then died.
Authorities found cyanide in tea, but she didnt actually drink it and she died
from an unrelated heart attack. White acquitted as his actions did not
Criminal Law 3
, contribute to the outcome. This is referred to as Factual Causation, the issue
with this test is that it is far too wide. This caused the courts to develop the
Hughes ruling;
2. The connection must be sufficiently proximate and not too remote. Compare
Hughes:
The law has frequently to confront the distinction between
"cause" in the sense of sine qua non (but,for) without
which the consequence would not have occurred, and
"cause" in the sense of something which was legally
effective cause of that consequence.
So when is proximate?
It must "significant", or "substantial" cause, not "de minimis" (more than
minimum), e.g. Cato. In the case of Adams, a hypothetical is given which
illustrates this point: a doctor takes a blood sample from a patient who is
bleeding out and needs a blood transfusion, the blood sample will
accelerate the patient to their death but it is so minimal/trivial that it
cannot amount to being cause.
In the context of homicide, this means a significant acceleration of death;
cf. Cato.
The contribution of D must be salient. E.g. Dalloway. In Dalloway, the
driver of the cart did not have his hands on the reigns (In todays terms,
this amounts to dangerous driving). Then, a child is hit and killed by the
horse and Dalloway is prosecuted for the equivalent of dangerous driving
causing death. Driving the cart was the cause of the death, but the
driving was not unlawful. Not holding the reigns was unlawful, and thats
what caused the death. The question for the court was, if he was holding
on would that have made a difference? The answer was No, the child
was right infront of the cart and he could do nothing even if he was
holding the reigns. Dalloway was acquitted. The case of Hughes
confirms the principle of Dalloway.
For omissions, ask if the consequence would not have occurred but for
D's omissions: Morby. Morby's child had small pox which is known to kill
children, Morby had religious beliefs and did not seek medical help. His
child died and Morby was prosecuted for manslaughter. The prosecution
Criminal Law 4
Criminal Law
Lecture 1/Tutorial 1: Ar and Mr
Actus Reus (Ar) - Guilty act
Mens Rea (Mr) - Guilty mind
Coincide of Ar and Mr;
1. Ar occurring before Mr:
D completes the act before he forms the Mr. Two distinct approaches have
been used to secure a convinction in situations where the Ar is complete
before the formation of the Mr.
Treating the Ar as a continuing act (Fagan)
Defendant was being instructed by a police officer where to park his car,
but accidentally stopped the car on the officer's foor but then refused to
move the car when he realised this. D appealed against the conviction of
assault on the grounds that when the Ar occurred he did not have the Mr
(because it was accidental) and by the time he had formed the Mr
(refusing to move) there was no act that he could do, he simply refused
to undo what had already happened.
Held: The Ar continued for the whole time that the car remained on the
officer's foot, ending only when the car moved. At the point that D
Criminal Law 1
, became aware that he was on the officer's foot and refused to move, he
developed the Mr and liability was complete.
Continuing act can only be used when there is ongoing conduct, it
cannot be used if the Ar is complete, e.g. if D had driven over the foot.
Ar complete prior to formation of Mr (Miller)
D fell asleep in an abandoned house whilst smoking a cigaretee. He
woke up to see the mattress was on fire and instead of putting it out or
calling someone he simply moved to another part of the house. Ar
(dropping the cigarette) occurred when D was asleep and so the Mr
(recklessness) occurred when he awoke. HoL hled that D created a
dangerous situation that gave rise to a duty to act. Thus, the Ar was met
by D's failure to act and coincided with the Mr, so D was held liable.
Neither of Fagan and Miller deal with situations when the Mr occurs before
the Ar, this resulted in the Single Transaction View.
R v Church
Facts: D attacked a woman intending to cause GBH (Mr). She became
unconscious, but D believed she was dead and threw her body into a
river to dispose of the body. The victim drowned (Ar).
Held: D held liable if the entire incident can be seen to be a 'seried of
events' designed to cause death or GBH. The elements of the offence
will be satisfied, provided that the Ar and Mr occur during a single
transaction.
A defendant cannot have the intention to kill someone if they believe that
they are dead already. By viewing the events as a whole - single
transaction - the courts were able to impose liability, but at the expense
of strict legal principles that state that Ar and Mr must coincide at one
single point in time (Principle of Contemporaneity)
Assault and Battery
1. Battery
Actus Reus (Ar)
Infliction of force or violence (even the slighest touching)
Mens Rea (Mr)
Intention or subjective recklessness thereto
Criminal Law 2
, 2. Common Assault
Actus Reus (Ar)
Causing apprehension of immediate and unlawful violence
Mens Rea (Mr)
Intention or subjective recklessness thereto
3. Assault occassioning actual bodily harm (ABH) [Section 47 OAPA 1861]
Actus Reus (Ar)
Common assault or battery resulting in ABH
Mens Rea (Mr)
Intention of subjective recklessness to the common assault or battery only
Lecture 2: Actus Reus and Murder
Traditionally, the definition of Murder arose from Coke, but a Modern restatement
is the following breakdown;
Ar:
1. D did an unlawful act or duty-violating omission
2. D's act was voluntary
3. The act was a significant (or 'substantial') cause of death
4. The death was of a person in being
5. The victum was under the Queen's peace (primarly a jurisdiction element:
Adeboljo)
Mr:
1. At the time of doing the act, D intended either to kill or cause serious bodily
harm to the victim (or, subject to the doctrine of transferred malice, to another
person).
Causation: Basic Principles
1. D's conduct must have some causal connection to the Death, e.g. White.
White decided to kill his mother. White put cyanide in mothers tea, then died.
Authorities found cyanide in tea, but she didnt actually drink it and she died
from an unrelated heart attack. White acquitted as his actions did not
Criminal Law 3
, contribute to the outcome. This is referred to as Factual Causation, the issue
with this test is that it is far too wide. This caused the courts to develop the
Hughes ruling;
2. The connection must be sufficiently proximate and not too remote. Compare
Hughes:
The law has frequently to confront the distinction between
"cause" in the sense of sine qua non (but,for) without
which the consequence would not have occurred, and
"cause" in the sense of something which was legally
effective cause of that consequence.
So when is proximate?
It must "significant", or "substantial" cause, not "de minimis" (more than
minimum), e.g. Cato. In the case of Adams, a hypothetical is given which
illustrates this point: a doctor takes a blood sample from a patient who is
bleeding out and needs a blood transfusion, the blood sample will
accelerate the patient to their death but it is so minimal/trivial that it
cannot amount to being cause.
In the context of homicide, this means a significant acceleration of death;
cf. Cato.
The contribution of D must be salient. E.g. Dalloway. In Dalloway, the
driver of the cart did not have his hands on the reigns (In todays terms,
this amounts to dangerous driving). Then, a child is hit and killed by the
horse and Dalloway is prosecuted for the equivalent of dangerous driving
causing death. Driving the cart was the cause of the death, but the
driving was not unlawful. Not holding the reigns was unlawful, and thats
what caused the death. The question for the court was, if he was holding
on would that have made a difference? The answer was No, the child
was right infront of the cart and he could do nothing even if he was
holding the reigns. Dalloway was acquitted. The case of Hughes
confirms the principle of Dalloway.
For omissions, ask if the consequence would not have occurred but for
D's omissions: Morby. Morby's child had small pox which is known to kill
children, Morby had religious beliefs and did not seek medical help. His
child died and Morby was prosecuted for manslaughter. The prosecution
Criminal Law 4
