• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Bec1 lesson powerpoint
 

Bec1 lesson powerpoint

on

  • 1,536 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,536
Views on SlideShare
1,529
Embed Views
7

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
0
Comments
1

3 Embeds 7

http://aquinaslawas1213.blogspot.co.uk 5
http://aquinaslawas1213.blogspot.com 1
http://ilearn.barnetsouthgate.ac.uk 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Bec1 lesson powerpoint Bec1 lesson powerpoint Presentation Transcript

    • A2 Law – Introduction to CRIME
    • Need to know: o The 3 types of actus reus oThe rules of causation oThe categories ofA2 Law – Basic omissionsElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Introductory questions? 1. What is the burden of proof? The prosecution have the burden to prove the defendant is guilty. 2. What is the standard of proof? „beyond all reasonable doubt.‟ 3. What are the 3 types of crime?A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime – Summary, either-way & indictable.part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • 4. Which court deals with all criminal cases? Magistrates‟ Court 5. Where are serious cases heard? Crown Court 6. Who will decide the outcome in a serious case? Jury 7. Who will sentence a defendant who is found guilty? JudgeA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • 8. What are the aims of sentencing? Punishment, reduction of crime, rehabilitation, protection of the public, reparation. 9. What are the four types of sentence? Custodial, community, fine, discharge. 10. Where can the defendant appeal? From the Magistrates‟ Court, appeals goA2 Law – Basic to Crown Court or the High Court.Elements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS From Crown Court, appeals go to the Court of Appeal.
    • What is a crime? „An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment isA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime – imposed uponpart 1 ACTUS REUS conviction.‟
    • Task o Rank the 4 cases in order of severity of criminality (who is the worst criminal?)A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Actus Reus & Mens Rea BATTERY: o „The application of unlawful force to the victim with intention or recklessness‟ THEFT: o „Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive‟. MURDER: o „Unlawful killing with malice aforethought‟.A2 Law – Basic LICENSING:Elements of Crime – o „A person commits an offence if he sells alcoholpart 1 ACTUS REUS to a person under 18.‟
    • o SilkA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Voluntary Conduct oA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Types of Actus Reus 1. Result Crimes 2. Conduct Crimes 3. State of Affairs CrimesA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • R v Larsonneur oA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • State of Affairs Crimes o Can you spot the state of affairs? BATTERY: o „The application of unlawful force to the victim with intention or recklessness‟ THEFT: o „Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive‟. MURDER:A2 Law – Basic o „Unlawful killing with malice aforethought‟.Elements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Terminology Check ACTUS REUS Guilty Act MENS REA Guilty Mind VOLUNTARYA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime – The act or omission must bepart 1 ACTUS REUS voluntary on the part of the defendant.
    • Terminology Check RESULT CRIMES Where the actus reus requires the defendant to cause a particular result in order to be liable. CONDUCT CRIMES The actus reus requires the defendant toA2 Law – Basic simply do a particular act, with noElements of Crime – particular result needing to be achieved.part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Terminology Check STATE OF AFFAIRS CRIMES The actus reus consists of both conduct + circumstances.A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Introduction to causation Causation is an important element of many crimes. Before learning the rules of causation, in groups or pairs, discuss whether or not the defendants caused the victim‟s injuries in the situations.A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Introduction to causationA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Causation o For „result‟ crimes, the prosecution must prove that the defendant‟s voluntary act or omission „caused‟ the victim‟s death or injury. Specifically, the prosecution must establish and prove the Rules of Causation. Factual Legal Causation CausationA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Factual Causation o The D’s conduct must be a factual cause of the V’s death or injury. o In order to establish factual causation, the prosecution must prove: The ‘but for’ test: o ‘But for’ the conduct of the defendant, the victim would notA2 Law – Basic have suffered the injury or death asElements of Crime – and when they did.part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • R v White (1910) Do you think this was the right decision? o It was fair that D was found not guilty of murder because his actions did not actually kill her. It is fair that he was found guilty of attempted murder because he is a danger to society. It would not beA2 Law – Basic fair on the victim if he wasElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS completely acquitted.
    • R v White (1910) Is the ‘but-for’ test fair? o It must be proved that the D caused the victim‟s injury or death. o The „but-for‟ test is fair because there has to be a factual connection between D‟s act and the consequence to the victim toA2 Law – Basic allocate blame.Elements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS o If the consequence would have happened anyway, there is no liability. (White 1910)
    • Factual Causation o Suppose D invites V to his house for a party. On the way V is run over and killed. Clearly if D had not invited V he would not have died in those circumstances. Should D be liable? o The mere establishment of a factual connection between D‟s act and V‟s death is insufficient. Here there is no MRA2 Law – Basic or AR, but the missing element is legalElements of Crime – causation.part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Legal Causation o Once factual causation has been established, the prosecution must then prove that the defendant’s act was a cause of the victim‟s death or injury in law. o This is linked with moral responsibility. The question is whether the result can fairlyA2 Law – Basic be said to be the fault of theElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS defendant.
    • Legal Causation There are three issues in legal causation that need to be considered: 1. Substantial and operative cause 2. Intervening acts (Novus Actus Interveniens) that are reasonably foreseeable 3. Susceptibility of the victim („thin skull test‟)A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Legal Causation 1. The defendant’s act/ omission was a substantial and operative cause of the victim’s death or injury, but it need not be the only or main cause: o There must be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence. This is known as the chain of causation. In some situations ifA2 Law – Basic something else happens after theElements of Crime – defendant‟s act or omission and, ifpart 1 ACTUS REUS sufficiently separate from the defendants conduct, it may break the chain of causation.
    • Legal Causation Break in the chain of causation o For a defendant to be liable there must be no break in the chain of causation. o In order to break the chain of causation so that the df is not responsible for the consequence, the intervening act must be sufficiently independent of the df‟s conduct and sufficiently serious. However, the chain of causation can be broken by:A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime – o Palpably wrong medical treatmentpart 1 ACTUS REUS o Unreasonable action of a third party o Unreasonable action of the victim
    • Medical treatment o Poor medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation. o D stabs V  V goes to hospital and receives the poor medical treatment that makes his injuries worse  V dies  D still liable for V‟s death. o Poor medical treatment will only break the chain of causation if it is so independent of the D’s acts and inA2 Law – Basic itself is so palpably wrong that it isElements of Crime – potent in causing the V’s death thatpart 1 ACTUS REUS the D’s acts can be regarded as insignificant.
    • Medical Treatment What was the key difference in Jordan that broke the chain of causation? o In Jordan, the drug and not the stab wound was the substantial and operative cause of death. (The wounds had almost healed)Therefore the doctor who administered the injection broke the chain of causation.A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Medical Treatment Why are the courts reluctant to break the chain of causation in medical cases? o The medical negligence is not independent of the D‟s acts. o In Smith and Cheshire the doctors were carrying out treatment for the injuries in an attempt to save V‟s life. The V‟s would not have needed treatment if they had not been seriously injured by D. o D‟s acts are a significant factor therefore medical negligence should not excuse liability for their actions. It may seem unfair that it is so difficult toA2 Law – Basic break the chain even where the medical treatmentElements of Crime – has contributed to the death of the V, however thepart 1 ACTUS REUS law states that the D‟s actions do not need to be the only or the main cause of V‟s injury or death.
    • Medical Treatment o Is it fair and morally right that where a defendant has injured the victim who then receives medical treatment that is unsatisfactory, should the defendant be able to claim that they are no longer liable and that the treatment broke the chain of causation? In groups create arguments for YES and NO o Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the D‟s acts and in itself is so palpably wrong in causing the V‟s death that the D‟s acts are insignificant. E.g. inA2 Law – Basic Jordan the fact that V was given a largeElements of Crime – amount of a drug which the doctors knewpart 1 ACTUS REUS he was allergic to, it was sufficiently independent act to break the chain of causation.
    • Actions of a third party o The courts tend to take the view that it is only in extreme circumstances that the defendant can avoid liability for causing someone‟s death by trying to blame somebody else. o Pagett (1983) illustrates this.A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Actions of the victim o If the defendant causes the victim to react in a foreseeable way, then the injury to the victim will be considered to have been caused by the defendant. o However if the victims reaction is unreasonable, then this may break the chain of causation.A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • R v Roberts (1972) Stephenson LJ: “if the victim does something „so daft or so unexpected that no reasonable person could be expected to foresee it, then it would break the chain of causation. o In order fot the df to be liable, TheA2 Law – Basic victims act has to be foreseeableElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS and in proportion to the threat.
    • Novus Actus Interveniens o Explain whether you think these cases were fair results? o Explain whether you think Pagett expected the police to return fire? o Explain whether you think RobertsA2 Law – Basic expected the girl to jump out of the car?Elements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Novus Actus Interveniens (A new intervening act) o The V‟s act has to be foreseeable and also has to be in proportion to the threat. o For example in Roberts when D touched V‟s skirt she feared she was about to be raped, so she jumped from the moving car. Her response in the circumstances was reasonably foreseeable and therefore did not break the chain of causation. o Where the threats to V are serious, then itA2 Law – Basic is more likely for it to be reasonable toElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS jump out of a moving car, window, river etc. o Compare with Williams and Davis
    • Williams & Davis (1992) The defendants had given a lift to a hitchhiker on his way to Glastonbury. The defendants tried to rob the hitchhiker so he jumped out of the car and died. The defendants were found guilty of robbery and manslaughter but the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions. The jury should have been asked to consider if the victim jumping out of the car was „within the range of responses‟ which might be expected.A2 Law – Basic o Where the threat is minor and the V takesElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS drastic action, it is more likely that the courts will hold that it broke the chain of causation.
    • Williams & Davis (1992) o Why do you think that the courts made a different decision in Williams and Davis to Roberts? o What were the threats in each of the cases? o Would it have made a difference if the victim in Williams and Davis was a woman? o Do you think the decision to find theA2 Law – Basic Df‟s not guilty in Williams was a fairElements of Crime – decision?part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Susceptibility of the victim One thing that will never break the chain of causation is: o Susceptibility of the victim because you must take your victim as you find them o This means that that if the victim has something unusual about their physical or mental state such as a medical condition/religious beliefs unknown to D,A2 Law – Basic which makes the injury more serious, theElements of Crime – defendant is still liable for the morepart 1 ACTUS REUS serious injury or death.
    • Susceptibility of the victim Is the ‘thin skull’ rule too harsh? o This rule can be seen as unjust as even where V has something unusual about their physical or mental state such as a medical condition/religious beliefs unknown to D, which makes the injury more serious, the defendant is still liable for the more serious injury or death.A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Susceptibility of the victim Is the ‘thin skull’ rule too harsh? o In Blaue (1975) the victim refused a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs. Her life could have been saved had she had a transfusion. o It can be argued therefore that the decision in Blaue was too harsh and that he should not be liable for her death. He could have been charged with s.18 OAPA 1861 wounding with intent, as the maximum penalty for this is life imprisonment, so a suitable punishment could have been imposed on D. o On the other hand, Blaue had stabbed the victimA2 Law – Basic several times, clearly intending serious harm or evenElements of Crime – death and it is clear that the stab wound was thepart 1 ACTUS REUS cause of the victims death, so on this basis he should be liable for her death.
    • Susceptibility of the victim Is the ‘thin skull’ rule too harsh? Note discussion of additional cases: o Holland o DearA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Terminology Check Factual causation The „but for‟ test – „but for‟ the conduct of the defendant, the victim would not have suffered the injury or death as and when they did. Legal causation The defendant‟s act was a cause of theA2 Law – Basic victim‟s death or injury in law.Elements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Breaks in the chain of causation The chain of causation can be broken by: o Palpably wrong medical treatment o Unreasonable action of a third party o Unreasonable action of the victim Palpably wrong medical treatment Medical treatment will not normally break the chain of causation unless it isA2 Law – Basic „palpably (obviously) wrong‟.Elements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Intervening act An unreasonable action of the victim or an unreasonable action of a third party will break the chain of causation. Susceptibility of the victim One thing that will never break the chain of causation is susceptibility of the victim because you must take your victim as you find them.A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • R v Cheshire (1991) 1. Did Cheshire succeed in his appeal? No 2. Outline the main facts of the case. Cheshire shot Trevor Jeffrey with a handgun after an argument. Bullets entered Mr Jeffrey‟s thigh bone and stomach. He was rushed to hospital and underwent surgery. He had to have a tracheotomy tube inserted into his windpipe to help him to breathe he died on February 14.A2 Law – Basic 3. Were the doctors to blame?Elements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS No
    • R v Cheshire (1991) 4. Were the gunshot wounds the substantial and operative cause of death? Yes 5. Why would the court prefer to blame Cheshire instead of the doctors? The victim would not have been in hospital in the first place. The defendant is a dangerous criminal whereas the doctors were just trying toA2 Law – Basic do their job.Elements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • R v Cheshire (1991) 6. Why is Cheshire „significantly different‟ than Jordan? In Jordan, the drug and not the stab wound was the substantial and operative cause of death. Therefore the doctor who administered the injection broke the chain of causation.A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Extra Causation Cases o Kennedy No.2 oWilliams & Davis oMalcherek & Steel oMarchant & MuntzA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime – oHollandpart 1 ACTUS REUS oDear
    • Breaks in chain of causation- extra cases o Victims own actA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Kennedy (2007)HL Simon Kennedy was living in a hostel. He went to visit Marco Bosque and Andrew Cody who shared a room in the same hostel. The group were drinking and Bosque asked Kennedy for “a bit to help him sleep”. Kennedy prepared a syringe of heroin and gave it to Bosque who injected the drug and returned the empty syringe to Kennedy. Bosque later died from choking on his own vomit.A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime – The victim had broken the chain ofpart 1 ACTUS REUS causation when he freely and voluntarily injected the heroin.
    • Williams & Davis (1992) The defendants had given a lift to a hitchhiker on his way to Glastonbury. The defendants tried to rob the hitchhiker so he jumped out of the car and died. The defendants were found guilty of robbery and manslaughter but the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions. The jury should have been asked to consider if the victim jumping out of the car was „within the range of responses‟ which might be expected.A2 Law – Basic o Where the threat is minor and the V takesElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS drastic action, it is more likely that the courts will hold that it broke the chain of causation.
    • Marchant & Muntz (2004) Muntz owed a tractor fitted with metre long tynes (spikes). Marchant drove the tractor on the road. The victim was killed when he crashed his speeding motorcycle into the tractor. It was argued that the tynes should have been covered with a guard. The convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal. M & M had not caused theA2 Law – Basic victim‟s death. Even if the tynes had beenElements of Crime – covered, the victim‟s injuries would havepart 1 ACTUS REUS been extremely serious.
    • Breaks in chain of causation- extra cases o MedicalA2 Law – Basic interventionElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Malcherek & Steel Malcherek stabbed his wife nine times. Steel attacked a woman with a large stone. Both women were put on life support machines which the doctors eventually switched off. The defendants were charged with murder but appealed. They argued that the doctors had broken the chain of causation. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument andA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime – said that to say the doctors were topart 1 ACTUS REUS blame was „bizarre‟.
    • Thin skull test - extra casesA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Holland (1841) The defendant cut the victim on the finger. The wound got infected but the victim would not have medical treatment (the finger needed amputating). The victim developed lockjaw and died.A2 Law – BasicElements of Crime – The defendant had caused thepart 1 ACTUS REUS victim‟s death.
    • Holland (1841) Is the thin skull test too harsh? o It can be argued that it is unjust for D to be liable when the V refuses medical treatment. The decision in Holland on the facts seems very harsh on the D when the original injury was a cut to the finger and D was liable for V‟s death. o However, this decision was probably justified, as in 1841 medical treatment was very primitive, especially when operations had to be carried out without anaesthetic.A2 Law – Basic o However it could be argued that D should not beElements of Crime – liable on the same scenario today.part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Dear (1996) The defendant slashed the victim severing an artery. The victim did not try to stop the bleeding and bled to death. The defendant had causedA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime – the victim‟s death.part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • Dear (1996) Is the thin skull test too harsh? o The victim in this case did not have the wounds attended to and possibly opened the wounds further making the bleeding worse. V died from a loss of blood which could have been prevented should V have sought medical treatment. It could therefore be argued that V had effectively decided to commit suicide by allowing the wounds to continue to bleed and therefore finding D guilty was a harsh result. o Despite this, the court held that, provided theA2 Law – Basic wounds were a substantial and operatingElements of Crime – cause, the jury were entitled to convict D.part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • OMISSIONS oA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS
    • oA2 Law – BasicElements of Crime –part 1 ACTUS REUS