Introduction to criminal liability

 A railway crossing gate-keeper forgot to

 A man had driven considerable distance and had a car accident
shut the gate and a passing haycart was
 Couldn’t remember anything => struck by a train
 Hypothetical situation he was attacked by a swarm of bees => cannot be liable
 Cart’s driver died
 D was ‘driving with skill’
 D vas convicted of manslaughter on the
 D was found guilty; voluntary act or omission can qualify as actus reus
bases of ‘gross and criminal negligence’
because he failed to do his job (his duty)

Hill v Baxter (1958)
Conduct of the crime;
physical element of the
crime; Latin term; must
be voluntary
R v Pittwood (1902)
Contractual
R v Gibbins and
Statutory (arising Proctor (1938)
from specific
 Father had to look after his 7-year-old
relationship)
Types of duties; if a
daughter
 Locked her in a basement, didn’t feed her
person is found to have  Girl died => father had failed to carry out
had one of the following his duty of parenting => was liable for her
Voluntary
types of duties, he/she death
assumption of
may be found liable for
duty/responsibility
her actions

Actus reus R v Stone and

Dobinson (1977)

Arising from  A couple assumed a duty of care

dangerous for an elderly sick relative; they
conduct/situation could’ve easily discharged their
Through public
duty by calling for help/providing
position/office even basic care
State of affairs  Neglected the relative (didn’t
R v Miller (1983) feed her; didn’t bathe her) => she
died severely emaciated
R v Dytham (1979)
 D accidentally started a fire on
a mattress in a room; went to
 A citizen was getting kicked to death in front of a
the other room instead of
nightclub
extinguishing the fire
 A police officer failed to observe his duty of
 D was liable as he admitted he
preserving the queen’s peace (took no
This is when D participates was aware of the fire, but chose
actions)
in an involuntary act. This is to do nothing

the situation D finds himself

in. State of affairs does not
look at the mens rea of D’s
conduct, but focuses of the
actus reus.
 D was forced to leave UK
 D went to IRE, deported back to UK (had previous
R v Larsonneur convictions – that’s why)
(1933)  D was said to be ‘an alien to whom leave to land in the UK
had been refused’
 D was ‘found in the UK’ and arrested
 D found herself in a state of affairs

CAUSATION
Factual causation Legal causation
D factually performed the physical element D’s conduct was legally wrong.
of the crime. D must be the operative and substantial
But for D’s actions, the consequence would cause of the harm.
not have happened There must not be a new intervening act
breaking the chain of events.

‘But for test’ used in R v Pagett and R v R v Smith (1961)

White  Two soldiers had a fight => on is stabbed
 V was carried to hospital; medical staff
gave him artificial respiration by pressing
his chest => injury worsened
 Introduction to criminal liability

 Smith was guilty because the wound on

V’s lung was still ‘operating’ (not healed
up) and it was the substantial cause of
V’s death

R v Pagett (1983) R v Jordan (1956)

 D was in a shootout with the police (had
committed an armed robbery); D used
his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield
=> both she and the baby die
 Baby was not born => not a human being
=> one count of murder
 But for D using his girlfriend as a human
shield she wouldn’t have died => D is
liable

R v White (1910)
 D was V’s son; D wanted inheritance
from his mother (V)
 D put cyanide in V’s tea
 V suffered a heart attack before the
drank tea and died; death was inevitable
 But for D putting cyanide in V’s tea, she
would have died anyway => not guilty of
murder because chain of events is
broken
 V was stabbed in stomach, hospital
treatment => wound’s healing well
 Suffered an allergic reaction due to being
given an antibiotic; next day another
doctor gave a large dose of the antibiotic
 V died due to an allergic reaction =>
doctor’s actions are the intervening act
=> D was not guilty of murder
R v Blaue (1975)
 D stabs a young woman, who is a
Jehovah Witness => she needs blood
transfusion
 Religion prohibits her blood transfusion
=> she dies (being a Jehovah Witness
made it more fatal)
 D’s guilty because he has to take V as
he found her (had to respect religion)

New intervening act

 Novus actus interveniens = new intervening act
 The new intervening act breaks the chain of events, which resulted from D’s conduct.
 The new intervening act must be sufficiently independent from D’s actions.
 The new intervening act must be serious enough to break the chain of causation.
 Examples: actions of a third party; V’s own actions; natural but unpredictable event

The ‘thin skull’ rule means that

D should take V as he finds
 Introduction to criminal liability

Actions of a third V’s own actions Natural but

party unpredictable event

 A third party’s actions  V’s own actions break  Tsunami

break the chain of the chain of events.  Earthquake
events.  Necessary to consider  Flood
the surrounding  Heart attack
R v Jordan (1956) circumstances.
 V was stabbed in  Considers whether V’s
stomach, hospital actions broke the chain
treatment => wound’s of events due to a minor
healing well threat.
 Suffered an allergic
reaction due to being R v Roberts (1972)
given an antibiotic; next  Girl jumped from a car
day another doctor gave (driving between 20-40
a large dose of the mph) in order to escape
antibiotic from D’s sexual
 V died due to an allergic advancements
reaction => doctor’s  D was held liable for her
actions are the injuries
intervening act => D was  ABH under s47 of
not guilty of murder Offences Against the
Person Act 1861
R v Smith (1961)  V’s actions were
 Two soldiers had a fight reasonable + foreseeable
=> on is stabbed
 V was carried to hospital; R v Williams (1992)
medical staff gave him  A hitch-hiker jumped
artificial respiration by from D’s car and died
pressing his chest => from head injuries
injury worsened caused by his head
 Smith was guilty because hitting the ground
the wound on V’s lung  D attempted to rob V
was still ‘operating’ (not (steal his wallet)
healed up) and it was the  Car was travelling at 30
substantial cause of V’s mph
death  V’s act had to be
reasonably foreseeable
and had to be
proportionate to the
threat
 Did V’s actions break the
chain of events?
 Two men were convicted of throwing
concrete blocks from a bridge over a taxi
killing the driver
Introduction to criminal liability
 They wanted to block to road to prevent  A father threw his 3-month old baby into
miners going to work (the miners were on a pram
strike)  Baby hit the wall  D broke not a house in order to steal money from a
R v Woollin (2000)  Baby died => father did not want that to gas meter
happen, but should’ve foreseen it  Gas leaked + didn’t smell => D was unaware of it
R v Hancock and  D was charged with administering a noxious
Shankland (1985) D didn’t desire the
substance (OAPA 1861)
 Est. the principle of subjective recklessness (D takes
consequence, but
risk despite foreseeing the consequence)
D desires the should’ve foreseen it
being likely to happen
consequence Lower level of MR;
this is when D
Direct Indirect takes and R v Cunningham
unjustifiable risk (1957)
Highest level of MR;
also known as specific
Subjective
intention
recklessness
Gross
Intention negligence

Levels of mens rea

This is the mental
element of a crime;
mens rea means ‘guilty
mind’ (Latin)
Mens rea
Transferred malice

Contemporaneous rule
D transfers the MR from one
crime to another crime
This is when AR and MR coincide where V(s) is/are from the
‘same kind’; D performs the
crime in a different way: e.g.
R v Thabo Meli (1954) V is different; D is still found
Fagan v Metropolitan Police
liable
Commissioner (1969)

 D wanted to kill V = mens rea

 Fagan drove over the foot of a police
officer; police officer asked Fagan to
move the car; Fagan refused
 Before refusing to move the car D only
had the AR, but consequently developed
the MR
 D was guilty
 D attacks V at the back of a van with a
baseball bat R v Latimer (1886)
 V is unconscious, D thinks V is dead and
throws him off a cliff = actus reus R v Pembliton
appears (1874)
 V was not dead but later died due to
exposure to the elements (wind, water,
sun) => act was formed
 Two people had a dispute in a bar
 D took his belt off and tried to hit the  D threw a stone at some people
other person, but hit a woman instead intentionally
 D wanted to hit them
 People are of ‘the same kind’ => D is
 D missed and broke a window
guilty and MR is transferred to the other  D was not found guilty because the MR
person cannot be transferred onto aa thing
from different kind (people and a
window are not victims from the same
kind
 Introduction to criminal liability

 School teacher rents cottage to students

 Students smoke cannabis on premises
 Students argue that the teacher should be responsible
Sweet v Parsley  MR required; they tried to argue that the owner was
In unclear acts of (1970) responsible (as in HBC v Shah and Shah)
parliament where MR is
(not) present, judges
presume if MR is required Presumption is displaced that
it is clear or necessary
implication of statute
If the offence is ‘truly
If an Act of Parliament criminal’ in nature, i.e. Presumption is displaced
clearly states that no MR is needed, the of strict liability would
MR is required, it is a presumption is strong promote the statute’s
case of strict liability purpose
Presumption Statute has to relate to
of MR an issue of social
When an Act of 5 rules
Parliament contains concern/public safety
 An architect drew up some plans + minor error on plans
words indicating MR => nobody notices
(knowingly, recklessly,  Building starts to go forward
 Building collapses due to the error in the plan
maliciously) => the  Architect is responsible for the mistake
offence requires MR and  Architect had to encourage safe practice/ high
standards in construction
is not a strict liability
offence
Gammon v Attorney General of
No need to prove MR; D Hong Kong (1985)
is guilty because of the
AR
Strict liability Regulatory offences are
not ‘truly criminal’, but
offences of social concern
or public safety are.
R v Larsonneur (1933)

 D was forced to leave UK

 D went to IRE, deported back to UK (had Smedleys Alphacell v
previous convictions – that’s why)
 D was said to be ‘an alien to whom leave to Harrow London Borough v Breed Woodward (1972)
land in the UK had been refused’
Council v Shah (1999) B v DPP (1974)
 D was ‘found in the UK’ and arrested
 D found herself in a state of affairs
(2000)
 A factory burning waste
 Manufacturer of tinned
 Fault in chimney =>
 Boy buys a lottery ticket pens owner’s unaware
 Illegal to sell tickets to U-16s  A teenaged boy (aged 15) was  One tin contained a  Environment pollution
 Shop assistant did not check for ID travelling on a bus when a girl caterpillar  Owners were liable =>
 Shop owner convicted (13) gets on  Manufacturer was strict liability
 Boy encourages girl to give him responsible  A nominal fine was
‘a shiner’ thinking that the girl is issued => shows they
older than 13 are responsible, but
couldn’t do much
 Boy was charged with common
Reasons for/against strict liability assault
 Any crime to which social stigma
or serious penal implications
attached should normally require
 Encourages high  May be in unjust
MR => MR couldn’t be proved =>
boy was not guilty
standards
 Need for MR
 Makes conviction should not be
easier by removing dispensed with
MR
 May not deter
 Provides a deterrent
 Punishments not
 Small punishments always small