General Elements of Liability and the Elements of a Crime

Elements of a Crime

• Remember that to be guilty of a crime there needs to be two elements present:
• Actus reus - the guilty act/physical element
• Mens rea - the guilty mind/the mental element
• Once both elements are established, the defendant will be found criminally liable
• The Prosecution have to convince the Judge or Jury that the defendant is criminally liable
• The burden of proof in criminal law is very high - to find a defendant guilty it has to be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the crime has been committed:
• Woolmington v DPP (1935)
• Woolmington showed his wife a gun and said that he would kill himself if she left him
• He accidentally shot her
• He was acquitted
• Subject to some exceptions, it is always for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question

Actus Reus

• The actus reus can be:
• a voluntary action
• and omission
• a state of affairs
• The actus reus will be different for each crime, e.g. for murder it is unlawful killing but for theft it is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another

A Voluntary Act

• The defendant must have committed the act or omission voluntarily
• If the act is done involuntarily, the defendant will not be guilty
• Hill v Baxter (1958)
• The defendant caused death through driving
• The court had to decide if criminal liability can be escaped through automatism
• Held - yes, but not in this case, as the defendant fell asleep and was not in a state of automatism
• He acted voluntarily in recklessness
• The courts gave examples of involuntary acts, e.g reflex actions after being hit on the head with a hammer or being stung by a swarm of bees
• The criminal law is concerned with fault

A State of Affairs

• The defendant has not acted voluntarily but has nonetheless been convicted of a crime
• They are 'being' rather than 'doing' offences
• Larsonneur (1933)
• A French woman was deported to England from Ireland against her will
• She was then charged for being an 'illegal alien' even though she had no choice in the matter
• Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)
• Man in hospital
• Turns out he's drunk so is told to leave
• Gets taken outside by police and then arrested for being intoxicated on a public highway - even though they put him there

Actus Reus & Consequence

• Some crimes must also produce a consequence for someone to have committed the actus reus
• For example, for murder someone has to end up dead. The defendant's act must have produced the unlawful killing

An Omission

• A failure to act does not usually result in someone being found criminally liable in English law
• Stephen LJ:
• "It is not a crime to cause death or bodily injury, even intentionally, by any omission"
• However, there are some exceptions to this rule. A person will be held criminally liable to failing to act where:
• there is a duty created by statute
• they have a contractual duty to act
• there is a duty imposed by their official position
• they have voluntarily accepted responsibility for another
• they have created a dangerous situation
• there is a special relationship
• Number 1 is a statutory duty - the others are common law duties

Duty Created by Statute

• Criminal liability is imposed under the Road Traffic Act 1988 for failure to provide a breath specimen when required
• It is also imposed under the Children and Young Persons' Act 1933 for failure to send a child to school

Contractual Duty to Act

• This may be contained in the person's contract, e.g a lifeguard has a duty to act to save people's lives if they are in the swimming pool when he's on duty
• Pitwood (1902)
• Pittwood was a railways employee who was responsible for opening and shutting the gates on the railway crossing
• He failed to shut them and went on his break
• A hay cart drove across and was hit by a train - the driver was killed
• Pittwood found criminally liable

Duty Imposed by Official Position

• This can be imposed where a person is guilty of misconduct
• Dytham (1979)
• An on-duty police officer saw a man being thrown out of a nightclub and being kicked to death by 3 men. He didn't intervene or get help and walked away from the scene
• He was found guilty of misconduct

Voluntary Acceptance of Responsibility for Another

• Stone & Dobinson (1977)
• Both defendants agreed to care for Stone's sister, Fanny, who came to live with them
• Fanny was anorexic and eventually became bedridden and unable to care for herself
• The defendants were elderly and of low intelligence
• Although they tried to get some help, she eventually died
• The court held them guilty of manslaughter as they owed Fanny a duty of care and failed in that duty
• This duty is often linked with the duty that can be imposed by a special relationship

Special Responsibility

• This is usually created in a parent-child relationship - a parent has a duty to care for their children
• Gibbins and Proctor:
• Gibbins, and several of his children from a previous marriage, lived together with his partner Proctor
• The 7 year old daughter was kept separate from the other children and starved to death
• The Court held that the Father had a duty of care for his child and Proctor had also taken the responsibility to care for the child
• The failure to feed her led to them both being convicted of murder
• Khan (1988)
• Drug dealer was found not to have a duty of care to his clients and a manslaughter conviction was quashed

Creation of a Dangerous Situation

• Miller (1983)
• A squatter had fallen asleep smoking. He woke to find his mattress on fire but instead of putting it out, he simply moved to another room and went back to sleep
• He was found guilty of arson
• Santana-Bermudez (2003)
• Policewoman was conducting a search of a suspect. She asked if he had any needles or sharp objects in his pockets]
• He said no
• She put her hand in his pocket and straight on to a needle, causing her to bleed
• He was convicted of ABH. His failure to warn her was sufficient for the actus reus

Involuntary Manslaughter and Omissions

• Involuntary manslaughter can be committed either by an unlawful and dangerous act or by gross negligence
• Unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter requires a positive act and cannot be committed by an omission
• Lowe (1973)
• Defendant was of low intelligence
• Had a 9 week old baby who became ill and died
• He said he had told the mother to take the child to the doctor, but had done nothing further
• He was convicted of manslaughter but this was quashed on appeal because there was no unlawful and dangerous act
• Lowe should have been charged with gross negligence manslaughter which can be committed by an omission because he owed the child a duty of care

Types of Manslaughter:

• Involuntary Manslaughter - where a person lacks the full mens rea for murder
• Unlawful Act/Constructive Manslaughter - when a death results from the commission of an illegal act, plus no mens rea for murder
• Gross Negligence Manslaughter - when a person breaks their duty of care

Duty of Doctors

• Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)
• Anthony Bland had been crushed in the Hillsborough Stadium disaster and was on a life support machine with sever brain damage and in a persistent vegetative state.
• After three years the doctors applied to the courts, for an order to allow them to stop feeding him, which would obviously lead to his death
• The court held that this was in Bland's best interests
• Treatment that is in the patient's best interests is not considered to be an omission so is therefore not the actus reus
• The law states that one has to be brain dead to be considered deceased
• Courts apply 'public policy' to this area - the duty to determine quality of life and the right to end it is only practised by medical experts
• Diane Pretty
• She had a severely diminished quality of life, due to motor neurone disease, but wasn't allowed to have her husband assist her suicide
• R v Nicklinson
• Had a stroke
• Wasn't allowed to have someone assist his suicide
• In both cases it was decided that denying someone the right to die does not contravene someone's human rights - However, if someone is helped by a non-medic to end their life, custody is not at all an automatic consequence, and other factors apply:
• Condition
• Consent of victim
• R v Adomako (1995)
• The defendant, a doctor, failed to notice that a respiratory tube had become disconnected from the patient during an operation
• The disconnection would have been obvious, and the patient died of cardiac arrest
• This satisfied the requirements for gross negligence manslaughter
• Gross negligence manslaughter requires a duty of care based on the tort of negligence, a breach which caused death and a breach which was serious enough to be a crime
• The doctor was under a duty to take reasonable care of the patient, which was clearly breached
• The jury decides whether the breach is serious enough to be considered a crime (Adomako test established)
• R v Misra & Srivasteva (2004)
• Two doctors convicted of gross negligence manslaughter, they claimed that it wasn't fair for the jury to decide as they would not be medically trained
• It was decided not to be against E.C.H.R Art 6 - right to a fair trial
• Deciding on the level of negligence is a question of fact for juries (it's literally their job)