Prepare for your exams
Get points
Guidelines and tips

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips

Sell on Docsity

Log in Sign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search Store documents

The best documents sold by students who completed their studies

Search through all study resources

Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents

20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions

5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points

Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

University Rankings

Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

From our blog

Exams and Study

Go to the blog

Criminal Law: Understanding Actus Reus and Mens Rea in Homicide Cases, Lecture notes of Law

Nottingham Trent University (NTU)Law

An in-depth analysis of the legal concepts of Actus Reus and Mens Rea in the context of homicide cases. It covers various aspects such as the definition of homicide, types of homicide, actus reus elements, voluntariness, causation, and mens rea forms. The document also discusses special cases like omissions, self-defenses, and legal causation. It is essential for students studying criminal law, particularly those focusing on homicide cases.

Typology: Lecture notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/12/2022

nath 🇬🇧

4.9

(8)

257 documents

1 / 8

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

TABLE&OF&CONTENTS&

TOPIC&2:&Homicide&and&Actus&Reus…………………………………………………………………………&1&

TOPIC&3:&Homicide&and&Mens&Rea…………………………………………………………………………..&5&

TOPIC&4:&Involuntary&Manslaughter…………………………………………………………………………&9&

TOPIC&5:&Assault……………………………………………………………………………………………………..&12&

TOPIC&6:&Rape&&&Sexual&Assault………………………………………………………………………………&20&

TOPIC&7:&Property&Offences-&Theft&&&Obtaining&Property&by&Deception………………….&26&

TOPIC&8:&Burglary&&&Robbery…………………………………………………………………………..……..&40&

TOPIC&8:&Strict&&&Absolute&Liability&Offences…………………………………………………………..&48&

TOPIC&9:&Inchoate&Offences…………………………………………………………………………………….&50&

TOPIC&10:&Participatory&Liability………………………………………………………………………………&57&

TOPIC&11:&Self-&Defences…………………………………………………………………………………………&62&

!

Criminal!Law!Week!1!Lecture!

Topic!2:!!

HOMICIDE!AND!Actus&reus&

!

&

!

Introduction!

• Homicide-&term&used&to&describe&the&lawful&or&unlawful&killing&of&a&human&being.&

• It&is&further&described&as&a&volitional/voluntary&act&(or&omission&to&act)&that&causes&

the&death&of&another&human&being&sooner&than&it&would&have&otherwise&occurred.&

• All&categories&of&unlawful&homicide&(murder&and&manslaughter)&share&an&identical&AR&

component&

&

•Types&of&Homicide&

•Actus!Reus!Element(s)&of&

Homicide&

•Voluntariness&

•Causation&

Note&acronyms&used&in&the&slides:&

AR&=&Actus!Reus!&

MR&=&Mens!Rea!&

Δ&=&the&accused,&defendant,&doer&

V&=&Victim&&

Partial preview of the text

Download Criminal Law: Understanding Actus Reus and Mens Rea in Homicide Cases and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

TOPIC 2: Homicide and Actus Reus………………………………………………………………………… 1 TOPIC 3: Homicide and Mens Rea………………………………………………………………………….. 5 TOPIC 4: Involuntary Manslaughter………………………………………………………………………… 9 TOPIC 5: Assault…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12 TOPIC 6: Rape & Sexual Assault……………………………………………………………………………… 20 TOPIC 7: Property Offences- Theft & Obtaining Property by Deception…………………. 26 TOPIC 8: Burglary & Robbery…………………………………………………………………………..…….. 40 TOPIC 8: Strict & Absolute Liability Offences………………………………………………………….. 48 TOPIC 9: Inchoate Offences……………………………………………………………………………………. 50 TOPIC 10: Participatory Liability……………………………………………………………………………… 57 TOPIC 11: Self- Defences………………………………………………………………………………………… 62 Criminal Law Week 1 Lecture Topic 2: HOMICIDE AND Actus reus Introduction

Homicide- term used to describe the lawful or unlawful killing of a human being.
It is further described as a volitional/voluntary act (or omission to act) that causes the death of another human being sooner than it would have otherwise occurred.
All categories of unlawful homicide (murder and manslaughter) share an identical AR component

• Types of Homicide

• Actus Reus Element(s) of

Homicide

• Voluntariness

• Causation

Note acronyms used in the slides:

AR = Actus Reus

MR = Mens Rea

Δ = the accused, defendant, doer

V = Victim

Omissions An omission can also form part of the actus reus of an offence only where a person is under a legal duty to act. It Applies:

Where there is a special relationship between Δ and V (See, R v Shepherd ; R v Russell )

Parents/minors; spouses; common carriers/passengers; Innkeepers/guests; primary and secondary school teachers/pupils.

Need causal connection between Δ’s voluntary act/omission and non MR (ie, AR) elements of offence
Objective test to determine whether the conduct that caused the death of V occurred in a continuing manner without an intervening event. Establishing Causation: 2 Elements Factual Causation Δ ‘s conduct is the “but for” cause of death (see pp 51-53) Asking what are the facts that contributed to the death of V? Exception- where two or more causes concur and either one would have brought about the death. Legal Causation “The absence of an event that the law regards as superseding in the relevant sense” (p.52) Requires:

Δ’s conduct must be an operating and substantial cause of V’s death (Operating and Substantial Cause test); AND
Immediate cause of death is not an intervening act or event to break chain of causation (see 2 nd , 3 rd and 4 th causal tests in text and medical negligence cases) Lets Review: Legal Causationà Operating and Substantial Cause test Rule: Δ’s conduct must be an operating and substantial cause of V’s death Notes from the case law :

An extraordinary event (i.e., “Acts of God”) may break chain of causation (R v Hallet )
Precise cause of death - not required to establish this fact where V commits a series of acts ( R v PL )
Eggshell Skull Rule - Take your V as you find them- applies to V’s physiological, psychological frailty and religious beliefs and will not break the causal chain. ( R v Blaue ) Legal Causation: intervening acts or events Medical Treatment Cases (pp. 58-67): ISSUE: Can medical treatment that is another “but for” cause of death constitute a superseding cause that severs the causal chain– absolving the Δ of any criminal liability for consequences that occur subsequent to the treatment?

R v Jordan (1956)
R v Smith (1959)
R v Evans & Gardiner (1976) Legal Causation: intervening acts or events Fright and Self Preservation Do situations where V is killed in an attempt to flee or avoid being violently attacked by Δ sever the causal connection between the violence and/or threats of violence and death?

Leading case: Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378; [1991] HCA 27 Legal Causation: intervening acts or events Fright and Self Preservation Elements prosecution must prove (pg.85):

That Δ induced in V a well-founded apprehension of physical harm;
That is was reasonable for V to wish to escape; and
That V selected a reasonable mode of escape
Look at V’s response being taken immediately and with a sense of emergency
If V’s reaction unreasonable/disproportionate-causal chain broken Criminal Law Week 2 Lecture Criminal Law Topic 3: HOMICIDE AND Mens Rea Forms of mens rea for homicide:
Intentional murder
Reckless murder
Constructive murder Note acronyms used in the slides: AR = Actus Reus MR = Mens Rea Δ = the accused, defendant, doer V = Victim GBH = Grievous bodily harm

How do we define intent? (a) s/he acted with the conscious purpose or desire to bring about such a result; or (b) s/he acted with the knowledge (‘awareness’ and ‘foresight’ are used interchangeably with knowledge) that such a result was substantially certain to follow as a result of his or her voluntary act or omission. p. 91 Intentional Murder Reckless Murder Δ causes death of another while acting with recklessness as to causing death or GBH Test for Recklessness

Under the common law it is murder for Δ to kill V by engaging in conduct that s/he foresees will PROBABLY cause the death or grievous bodily harm of V, even if Δ does not intend that result.
The test is a SUBJECTIVE one- look at Δ’s knowledge that death or GBH will probably result from his or her act/omission. Recklessness vs Intention Recklessness- do something and having knowledge of the risk that its probable that death or GBH will happen even if I do not want it to happen. Do not want them to die but still carried out act with knowledge that there is a risk it will happen. Was not purpose to kill but knew it was probable. Knowledge of likelihood of causing death or GBH that is lower than practical certainty (i.e., intention) will be recklessness as to causing death or GBH but only recklessness of a probability type (as opposed to the possibility type) suffices for murder. Justification for Doctrine of Reckless Murder Crimes Act 1958 (Vic): s.3 Punishment for Murder
Note that the term ‘murder’ is left undefined
Statute addresses punishment for the crime. Common Law Generally: Intentional Murder is when Δ causes the death of another with intention to kill or intention to cause GBH For further clarification of various terms, see:
R v Wilmott
R v Miller
R v Perks
R v Rhodes
R v Ross

Common law sees no difference in state of mind of D intending death or GBH and D who acts without that intention but adverts to/foresees the probability that death or GBH may result. Mentalities: After Crabbe , the degree of risk of death or GBH that Δ must intend when they proceed with their conduct requires a probability standard (rejected possibility standard in Pemble ) The prosecution does not need to prove that the Δ was aware that his or her conduct was wrong. (See, R v Morrison [2007] SASC 168) Measuring probability and likelihood? Risk must be ‘substantial’ – a ‘real and not remote’ chance regardless of whether it is less or more than 50%. (See, Boughey v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 10)