1. Paper 2 – Criminal Liability Knowledge Questions

2. Criminal Liability Potential Questions – You will get 2 of these Explain, using three examples, how an omission can be the basis of the actus reus of a crime (7) Explain the meaning of the term “causation” in criminal law (8) Explain the meaning of the term “mens rea” (8) Explain the meaning of the coincidence (contemporaneity) rule (7) Explain the meaning of a “crime of strict liability” and the reasons for having such offences (8)

3. Explain, using three examples, how an omission can be the basis of the actus reus of a crime (7) 1.General description: Usually a person is not liable for omissions (as there would be no AR – guilty act) There are some exceptions where there is a duty to act 2.Example 1 - Contractual Duty Pittwood – D employed as a gatekeeper at a railway crossing. D went for lunch leaving the gate open. A cart crossing the line was hit by the train and one man in the cart was killed. D convicted on manslaughter based on failure (omission) to carry out his duty to close the gate, which was part of his contract of employment – there will be a duty to act when it is part on one’s contract which can mean an omission to act could form the AR of an offence 3.Example 2 - Where person’s public position requires him to act Dytham – uniformed police officer saw a man who ended up being kicked to death and took no steps to stop the attack and drove away when it was over – convicted of misconduct in a public office as he had omitted to act to protect the victim 4.Example 3 – creation of a dangerous situation Miller – D had been squatting in a house and fell asleep on a mattress while smoking a cigarette. He was awoken by the flames, but instead of putting the fire out, he simply got up and went into another room, where he found another mattress and went back to sleep. House was damaged in the fire. D convicted of criminal damage as once he awoke and realised what had happened, he had a duty to minimise the harmful effects of the fire, which was a dangerous situation he had created, which he had omitted to do 5.Example 4 - Voluntarily Taking On A Duty Stone and Dobinson – Ds lived together but were of low intelligence and had many personal difficulties. S’s sister, who was anorexic, came to live with them, and although she was ill she refused to leave her room to seek medical attention. Ds made some effort to care for the sick woman but did not call the medical services. Eventually she died. Ds convicted of manslaughter as they had taken on a duty of care voluntarily by allowing the sister to live in their home and then omitted to make other arrangements for her while knowing that she relied on them

4. Explain the meaning of the term “causation” in criminal law (8) 1.Causation is part of the Actus Reus of the crime. The prosecution must prove both factual and legal causation in all result crimes 2.Factual Causation D is only guilty if the consequence would not have happened “but for” his act. Then explain using one of the following cases: White – D put poison in his mother’s drink, intending to kill her. She died shortly after of a heart attack before poison had taken effect. Whilst D intended to kill her and she had died, he had not caused her death and she would have died regardless of his actions, therefore not guilty of murder Pagett – D used his girlfriend as a human shield while he shot at armed police. Police fired back and killed girlfriend. D convicted of girlfriend’s manslaughter as she would not have died “but for” his actions 3.Legal Causation Link between act and the consequence is the “chain of causation” and must remain unbroken D’s actions must be the operating and substantial cause - Smith –V received a stab wound that pierced his lung. V taken to medical station where he died an hour later. V had been dropped twice while being carried to the medical station, medical officer did not realise the serious extent of the wounds, the treatment he gave him was “thoroughly bad and might well have affected his chances of recovery”. Court held that D’s actions were still the operating and substantial cause of death as V died from loss of blood caused by stab wounds inflicted by D – no break in chain Novus Actus Interveniens of Third Party can break the chain of causation – e.g. medical negligence - Jordan – D stabbed V. V taken to hospital. A week later, wound was almost healed, doctors gave V an incorrect injection and he died. As medical treatment was “palpably wrong” chain of causation was broken – original injury was not the operating and substantial cause of death. Medical negligence will only be NAI if “palpably wrong” Novus Actus Interveniens by Victim can break the chain of causation if it is reasonably foreseeable – one of following cases: Roberts – girl was a passenger in D’s car and injured herself by jumping out of the car while it was moving. D had made sexual advances to her and was trying to pull her coat off. D convicted for injuries – court held that the result was the reasonably foreseeable consequence of what D was doing and therefore didn’t break chain of causation Williams – D gave a lift to a hitch-hiker (V). D allegedly tried to rob V who jumped from the moving car and died from head injuries. Held that V’s act was a NAI and broke the chain of causation as it was voluntary and unreasonable and therefore broke the chain of causation The “Thin Skull” Rule - If victim has an underlying physical condition or religious belief that will make injuries worse, D is still liable for full extent of injuries. Blaue – D stabbed V who was a Jehovah’s Witness. V rushed to hospital where doctors told her she would die if she did not have a blood transfusion. V refused on religious grounds and died from wounds shortly after. Court held that D had to take his victim as he found her and therefore liable for full extent of injuries

5. Explain the meaning of the term “mens rea” (8) 1.General Explanation Mens rea means guilty mind. Courts have developed definitions of the common states of mind found in criminal liability 2.Direct Intent D’s aim, purpose or motive Mohan – D responded to police officer's signal to stop by slowing down but then accelerated towards him. The officer moved out of the way and D drove off. D charged with attempt to cause bodily harm as this was his aim. Direct intention is the decision to bring about the criminal consequence 3.Oblique/Indirect Intent Where D’s aim is something different to the actual consequence Woollin – set out a test for the jury to consider where P is relying on oblique intent for mens rea. Answer to both questions must be yes for D to have oblique intent: 1.Was the consequence a virtually certain result of the act 2.Did D know that it was virtually certain (subjective) 4.Subjective Recklessness Has to be Subjective – D must know there is a risk of the consequence but takes the risk deliberately Cunningham – D broke a pre-gas meter to steal the money in it, with the result that the gas escaped into the next-door house. Neighbour became ill – D charged with administering a noxious substance. D found not- guilty as it could not be shown that he knew there was a risk of harming anyone

6. Explain the meaning of the coincidence (contemporaneity) rule (7) 1.General principle AR and MR must occur at the same time, in the same place and by the same person 2.Exceptions 1.Continuing Acts - Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner – D accidently stopped his car on a policeman’s foot. Policeman asked him to remove the car from his food, D replied “F*** off you can wait”. D guilty of causing injury as leaving the car on the foot seen as a continuing act – even though he didn’t have MR for the act when he stopped the car on the foot, he did form the MR when he refused to move it and the act of placing the car on the foot (AR) remained 2.A series of connected events Thabo Meli – D hit V over the head intending to kill him. D believed V was dead and threw V over a cliff to make it look like an accident. V later died of exposure – court held MR continued throughout as there was a series of connected events Church – D had gone to his van with a woman for sexual purposes. She mocked his impotence and he attacked her, knocking her out. D panicked, believing V was dead and threw her unconscious body in the river, where she drowned. D argued that all he had done wrong was to dispose of or conceal a dead body, and MR for the attack on the woman ended when he thought her unconscious body was dead. Court held MR continued throughout the series of connected events, so included her drowning.

7. Explain the meaning of a “crime of strict liability” and the reasons for having such offences (8) 2 elements to this question – the “meaning of” and the “reasons for” 1.Meaning of Strict Liability Offences that do not require Mens Rea in respect of all or part of the Actus Reus. Merely performing the act is sufficient to make a person guilty Vast majority are statutory offences. When statute uses Mens Rea terms like “knowingly” or “recklessly” then it is not strict liability and MR is required When it is not clear, it is up to courts to interpret the statute and decide whether MR is needed or not At least one of the following cases, making it clear how they are strict liability: Alphacell v Woodward – Papermakers caused polluted water to be discharged into a river due to a blockage. Company had alarm systems and regular maintenance and inspection programmes but could not predict when a blockage would occur. Company found guilty. AR of allowing polluted water to be discharged was all that was needed to prove offence. No MR needed Smedleys v Breed – 1 tin of peas out of millions produced by Ds contained a caterpillar. Ds convicted under the Food and Drugs Act 1955 even though they had taken all reasonable care. AR of causing contaminated food to be distributed was all that was needed to prove the offence. No MR needed London Borough of Harrow v Shah – court held that offence of selling a lottery ticket to a person under 16 was a strict liability offence. AR of selling the ticket was all that was needed to prove the offence even though there was no MR 2.Reasons for having strict liability offences Protecting the public from unfit food - Smedleys v Breed – 1 tin of peas out of millions produced by Ds contained a caterpillar. Ds convicted under the Food and Drugs Act 1955 even though they had taken all reasonable care. Help protect society by promoting greater care over matters of public safety – encourages higher standards of hygiene in processing and selling food; makes sure businesses are run properly Enforcing regulatory offences - Easier to enforce as there is no need to prove MR Most strict liability offences are relatively minor and punishable by fines only - Sweet v Parsley – decided that the offence of being involved in the management of premises which were used for the smoking of cannabis was not an offence of strict liability under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. Miss Sweet, a teacher, let her cottage to students and only visited rarely to collect post and see that things were in order. She kept a separate locked room for her use during her visits. She knew nothing of the drug taking and was acquitted when it was decided that an element of MR was needed for this offence as real social stigma was attached to this offence