Concept
Actus Reus 1) voluntary
2) omissions
3) State of affairs/ absolute liability
Causation
1) factual ‘ but for’
Case
Hill v Baxter (outlined act that are involuntary e.g. bees
or storm come through window)
Act of parliament – s6 Road traffic Act(1988) provide
breath test
Contractual duty – Pitwood – railway crossing
Duty of official position – Dytham – policeman faced to
stop a fight
Relationship – Gibbons v Proctor- (parents failed to
feed 7 yr old who died of starvation)
Duty voluntarily – Stone & Dobinson (agrees to look
after unstable sister, but did not call for medical help)
Duty to minimise harm – Miller(Vagrant accidently set
fire to mattress with cigarette, but did nothing and
moved to another room & fire spread)
Winzar (Drunk in hospital taken by police to back of car
and arrested for being drunk on public highway)
Larsonneur (D deported to Ireland, but when arrived
sent back to England even though didn’t want to go and
then arrested on arrive in England)
White - son can mother poison, but she had already
died of heart attack before it took affect – no factual
causation
Pagett - D used his girlfriend as human shield and she
was shot by police - factual causation but for his acion
she would not have died
2) Legal – operating and substantial Smith –soldier stabbed in fight, but then dropped on way
and receive wrong medical care – stab wound was
operating & substantial cause = legal causation
Victims own act
Roberts – V jumped from moving car as made
unwanted sexual advances. V’ s act was foreseeable –
no break in causation – D guilty
Williams- V jumped from the car being D as allegedly
tried to take wallet – reaction sen as unforeseeable break of causation – not guilty
Third party act – medical treatment Smith – see above
not breaking chain
Cheshire- d was shot, but died later from complications
resulting from hospital conducting the tracheotomy –
although medical negligence may have contributed gun
shot still significant factor – no break - guilty
Malcherek – D stabbed his wife resulting in brain
damage. Doctors decision to switch off life support
machine did not break the chain of causation.
Third party act – medical treatment Jordan – d stabbed and given a large dose of medicine
breaking chain
that he was known to be allergic too. This was seen as
abnormal medical treatment and it was ‘palpably wrong’
= broke the chain of causation 3) Thin skull rule
Blaue- V injured and declined blood transfusion on
religious grounds as Jehovah’s witness. Take victim as
find him a and s did not break causal link – D guilty
Mens Rea
1) Direct intention
2) Oblique intention/ foresight of
consequence –
3) Recklessness
Transferred Malice
Contemporaniety rule
Mohan ‘ decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within
the accused power…. the prohibited consequence
Woolin/ Nedrick ‘ it’s a virtual certainty and defendant
knows it’s a virtual certainty
Cunningham ‘ unjustifiable risk’- pulled gas meter off
wall to get money
DPP v QBD – hide acid in toilet drier V used drier and
caused burns of face = reckless
Yes - Latimer- soldier tried to hit another soldier with
belt and it accidently rebounded and hit the V( landlady)
- malicious intention could be transferred as same
offence
Yes- Mitchell- D and another man S became involved
in a scuffle in a Post Office; D pushed S, who fell onto an
elderly lady C, causing C injuries from which she later
died. Intention to assault could be transferred
No –Pembliton - D picked up a stone and threw it at the
group of men he had been fighting, missed them and
broke the window behind them. – not same offence so
intent for assault not transferred to criminal damage
Fagan – D parked his car on policeman’s foot without
knowing and was told refused to move it – although =
failure to act still assault as continuing act.
/ Thabo Meli v R - D and accomplices took V to a hut and
beat him over the head intending to kill him. They rolled his
body over a cliff to make the death appear accidental. In fact,
the victim survived both the beating and the fall from the cliff,
but died from exposure shortly afterwards.
Strict Liability
Non Fatal offences
Assault
1) Actus reus
2) Mens rea
Harrow Council v Shah- selling lottery ticket to 13 year
old even tough though he was 16 – issue of social
concern - gambling
Blake/ Howell/ Gammon v Attorney General Hong Kong
Constanza – words alone can be assault
Ireland – can be silent phones
Lamb- joking with revolved and didn’t realise barrel
moved – as V did not feel threatened = technically no
assault
Logdon - D showed V, a customs officer a replica gun
that would not fire in a drawer and told her he would hold
her prisoner until money owing him was repaid. threat
sufficient – even if means not present
Mith v Chief Constable woking Police – can be through a
window as long as victim fears immediate violence
Tubervillw v savage – actions can be negated by words
e.g. put hand on sword
Venna - D struggled with the police officers who were
arresting him. D fell to the ground and lashed out wildly
with his legs, fracturing a bone in the hand of an officer.
The court laid down the standard. The offence of is
satisfied by proof that the defendant intentionally or
recklessly applied force to the person of another."
Battery
1) Actus reus
2) Mens rea
S47 ABH
1) Actus reus
2) Mens rea
S20 Wounding
1) Actus reus
2) Mens rea
S20 GBH
1) Actus reus
2) Mens rea
Thomas- touching clothing can be battery
Fagan – continuing act can be battery
DPP v K ( acid in hand dryer) & Haystead (punch
women and drop baby) – indirect acts still meet actus of
battery
Venna - see above
Roberts – see above - merely an assault that lead to
actual bodily harm
Chan-Fook, - D subjected V to questioning about the
theft of a ring belonging to D's fiancée. D then dragged V
upstairs to a room and locked him in. V feared D's return
and injured himself when he fell to the ground escaping
through a window.
"Actual bodily harm" includes psychiatric injury but does
not include emotions, such as fear or panic
Savage (1991) D went to throw beer over V but glass
broke and cut V/ No need to prove intention to cause
harm, intention for assault battery (touching with beer)
enough
Eisenhower- shot in eye with pellet , but judge defined
wounding as piercing both layers of skin not a
rupture so no wounding in this case
Parmenter – must intend some injury or realise risk of
injury (but not serious injury)
Same as assault
Causing grievous bodily harm
Burstow _- can by psychological harm = D = campaign
of harassment of v that cause psychiatrist suffering
Dica - can also be biological GBH. D infected two
women with HIV. Knowing he was infected he
persuaded them to have unprotected sex; he did not
warn them that he was infected –
Bollom – serious bruising may be abh – need to
consider effect on victim
Mowatt - Foreseeing ( intending) some harm that
results in serious injury. D struck V several times,
knocking him unconscious. D's companion had taken
money from V.
V had seized D by the lapels and demanded to know
where D's companion was.
Parmenter – see above
S18 GBH/ wounding
1) Actus reus
2) Mens rea
Causing grievous bodily harm
See s 20
Belfon - D pushed a girl to the ground, and he and an
accomplice attacked those who came to help her. D
slashed one man with a razor, causing severe wounds to
his head and chest, and was charged with wounding
with intent. Foresaw risk , but need specific intent for
s18 and d didn’t have it.