‘Liability in criminal law normally requires the prosecution to establish that the accused has caused the relevant prohibited consequences to occur. For instance, in homicide that the accused caused the victim’s death.’
Explain by reference to decided cases how the courts have approached the requirement of causation
Causation is usually raised when result crimes are committed and means that the result of that crime must be proved by the prosecution to have been caused by the defendants act. The prosecution has to show that the defendants conduct was the factual and legal cause of the consequence and there was no intervening act to break the chain of causation.
The factual cause is when the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendants conduct. This can be seen in the case of Pagett. Pagett was found guilty of manslaughter because the girl would not have died but for him using her as a shield from police bullets.
In some cases there may be more than one act contributing to the consequence and some of these acts may be done by people other than the defendant. However the rule is that the defendant can be guilty if his conduct was more than a minimal cause of the consequence. The defendants conduct doesn’t need to be a substantial cause. In the case of Kimsey the defendant was in a high speed car chase with a friend when he lost control was not very clear however the defendant was still found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. The Court of Appeal upheld this conviction saying that the defendant was guilty as long as there was more than a slight or trifling link.
If the result of the crime is caused by an intervening act which is sufficiently independent of the defendants act and not foreseeable then the defendant will not be liable. This occurred in Jordan where the victim was stabbed but healing well. However, he had a severe allergic reaction to large dose of medicine he received and died. The defendant was found not guilty because the cause of the victim’s death was unconnected with the defendants act and so the chain of causation was broken.
The chain of causation can be broken by an act of a third party, the victim’s own act or a natural but unpredictable event. In Williams a hitchhiker jumped from the defendant’s car because the defendant was trying to steal his wallet and died from head injuries. The defendant was found not guilty and the Court of Appeal said the victims act had to be foreseeable and in proportion to the threat. If the victims act is unreasonable then the chain of causation is broken.
Where the result is caused by a combination of the defendants act and an intervening act and the defendants act remains a substantial cause then the defendant will be liable. This can be seen in Smith where the victim was stabbed and poor medical treatment made the injury worse and he died. Despite the poor medical treatment lessening the victim’s chances of recovery by 75%, the defendant was still found guilty of murder. This is because the defendants act was still a substantial and operating cause at the time of death.
Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation because it would make doctors unsure about performing certain treatments if they thought they could be accused of manslaughter. An example of this is Cheshire where the victim was shot but had nearly healed. He was given a tracheotomy and died from complications of it that weren’t diagnosed by the doctors. The defendant was found guilty of murder and the Court of Appeal said there was medical negligence but defendants acts contributed significantly so he was liable.
Robyn
‘Strict liability offences are contrary to fundamental legal principle. The imposition of criminal liability without reference to the state of mind of an accused can never be justified.’
Consider why and in what circumstances the court recognize the existence of crimes of strict and absolute liability.
A crime of strict liability is one where mens rea is not required in respect of at least one aspect of the actus reus. It is the imposition of criminal liability without proof of fault on the part of the defendant. This makes it an exception to the basic principle of criminal liability where actus reus and mens rea must be proved. In strict liability offences there may be no blameworthiness on the part of the defendant. This was seen in the case of Callow v Tillstone where a butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption. The vet said it was but it wasn’t and the butcher was convicted of the offence of exposing unsound meat for sale. For strict liability, all the prosecution needs to be proved is that the defendant committed a voluntary act.
In comparison to absolute liability as no mens rea is required for the offence and here is no need to prove that the defendant’s actus reus was voluntary. A case that illustrates this is Larsonneur where the defendant was ordered to leave the UK so she went back to Eire. However, the Irish police deported her back to the UK against her will and she was arrested for being an ‘alien’. These offences are very rare and involve offences where the actus reus is a state of affairs. This means that the defendant is liable because they have been found in a certain situation.
Nearly all strict liability offences have been created by stautes and are regulatory offences in nature. Strict liability offences were created as there was an increase in regulatory legislation and there were growing difficulties with enforcement. Therefore, the courts decided to do away with the requirement of mens rea in many cases where there were no express words in the statutes requiring proof of mens rea.
Judges interpret the definition of the offence in the act and although there is always a presumption that mens rea is required, judges are prepared to interpret the offence as one of strict liability if Parliament has not indicated any mens rea word in the relevant section of the act. If the statute includes certain words or expressions such as ‘wilfully’ or ‘intentionally’, then the offence requires mens rea and is not one of strict liability. However if the act makes it clear that mens rea is not required then the offence will be one of strict liability. This was seen in Sweet v Parsley, where the courts presumed mens rea was required because in their interpretation of the offence, Parliament did not mention the need for mens rea.
In Gammon, Lord Scarman gave other factors to be considered by judges when deciding if an offence is one of strict liability. Firstly, the presumption of mens rea is displaced if the statutes clearly say so. However, the presumption of mens rea is required if the offence is truly criminal in character. This occurred in B v DPP where the D’s conviction of inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency was quashed by the House of Lords, who argued that mens rea was required for this offence. Lastly, presumption is displaced if the statute is concerned with issues of social protection and public safety, which is why many regulatory offences are ones of strict liability. In Alphacell, the company was charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river when pumps they installed failed, even though there was no evidence either that the company knew of the pollution or that it had been negligent. The House of Lords held it to be one of strict liability and the company were found guilty because it was important that rivers should not be polluted.
For some offences the statute provides a defence of ‘due diligence’ which means that the defendant will not be liable if they can show that they did all that was within their power not to commit the offence. However, there is currently no sensible pattern for when Parliament decides to include a ‘due diligence’ defence or does not. In Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah, the staff of the defendant sold a lottery ticket to someone under 16. Magistrate dismissed the charges but the Divisional Court held that the offence did not require any mens rea and the act of selling the tickets to someone under 16 was enough to make the defendants guilty, even though they had done their best to prevent this happening in their shop.
Another feature of strict liability offences is that the defence of mistake is not available. In Cundy the defendant was charged with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person. Even though there was evidence that the defendant had not noticed that the person was drunk, the magistrate held that the offence was complete in proof that a sale had taken place to a drunk person and convicted the defendant. The lack of these two defences for strict liability cases means that I can be unjust as in the cases for Cundy and Harrow LBC, the defendants were unaware that an offence had been committed and were blameless.
This is reflected in the case of Prince where the defendant had taken an unmarried girl under 16 out of the possession of her father, thinking that she was 18. He was convicted of taking an unmarried girl under 16 out of the possession of her father because the offence doesn’t require mens rea for at least part of the actus reus and is thereby one of strict liability. On the other hand, in Hibbert the defendant met a 14 year old girl on the street and had sex with her but was acquitted because it was not proved that he had intention to take her away from he father and mens rea is required for this aspect. The case of Hibbert shows that even though one aspect of the offence was strict liability, mens rea was required for the main aspect. This provides a protection for some defendants who were unaware an offence had been committed and were blameless. However it also shows an inconsistency in the courts attitudes towards strict liability because even though Hibbert occurred before Prince, Prince was still found guilty.
Nevertheless the main reason for the creation of strict liability offences is to protect the public and this protection is needed in many different types of situations. Strict liability is easier to enforce as there is no need to prove mens rea and therefore saves court time as people are more likely to plead guilty. Also, as seen in Hibbert, allowances for levels of blameworthiness can be made in sentencing.
Robyn
‘In general, the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal liability for an omission. However, there are justifiable exceptions to this general principle.’
Assess the truth of this statement by reference to situations where a failure to act may result in criminal liability.
Criminal liability in criminal law accepts that a person must commit an unlawful act with mens rea. However criminal law accepts that in certain circumstances a person who fails to act where there is a duty of care and does something negligently can also be liable. This called omission.
Some countries have a good Samaritan law which means that all citizens have a duty to help one another in emergency situations. However British judges do not like this because it implies that the defendant ought to have acted and to impose a duty is to strike at the defendant’s freedom. Instead judges and parliament have established duties of care through common law and statutes.
An example of statutory duty comes from the Children and Young Persons Act 1991 which states that parents have a duty towards their children. Before the 1991 act the case of Gibbins and Proctor established that there is a duty of care where there is a relationship. This case is an example of the parent-child relationship as the defendants failure to feed his daughter was enough for the actus reus of murder.
Pittwood illustrates a contractual duty as the defendant, who was a railway keeper omitted to shut the gares and was found guilty of the manslaughter of a person hit and killed by a train.
There can also be a duty through ones official position. This is rare but occurred in Dytham where a police officer saw a man being beaten up and did nothing to help. He was found guilty of neglecting to perform his duty.
The defendant can also be liable where the duty was undertaken voluntarily. In Stone and Dobinson, Dobinson had voluntarily undertaken to look after Stone’s elderly sister and so was found guilty of her manslaughter when she died from malnutrition. The Court of Appeal said that by taking her into their home they had agreed to take care of her.
Lastly, there is a duty where the defendant set in motion a chain of events. This was created by Miller where the defendants mattress caught fire and the defendant did nothing. The house caught fire and the defendant was convicted of arson as he knew that there was a dangerous situation but failed to take any steps to deal with it.
However it can be difficult to decide when a duty of care exists. It is normally he judge who determines whether there is a duty of care and the jury decides if there is a duty of care and if that duty has been breached. This means that the law is capable of expanding to cover more situations, as stated obiter in Khan and Khan where the defendant had supplied heroin to a new user who took it in their presence and collapsed. The defendant left her alone and by the time they returned to the flat she had died. However this can be seen to make the law uncertain.
Secondly, it can seem harsh that someone who accepts an adult into their home has assumed a duty towards them as adults are generally considered to be responsible for their own life. The argument for this is that if the adult is vulnerable then the adult taking care of them is in the best position to ensure potential harm is avoided. This duty can be fulfilled simply by summoning help and the defendants in Stone and Dobinson were found guilty because they failed to do so.
Lastly, many statutes impose duties and many of the laws in this area have strict liability. The justification for this is that it is for the greater good of society. One example is the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act which makes all household members liable for failure to protect a child. This makes it easier to succeed in prosecution with is important because the law should provide children and vulnerable adults with as much protection as possible.
Robyn
The Break Up sees Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn play art dealer Brook Meyers and tour guide Gary Grobowski , a couple from Chicago whose relationship takes a turn for the worst. After an argument caused by 12 twelve lemons and ended by an angry outburst by Gary, Brooke breaks it off with him and a fierce battle of the sexes ensues. This film is an interesting spin on the traditional Rom-com, with the couple breaking up rather than trying to get together but still successfully incorporates and balances both elements of the genre.
Most of the laughs come from Vaughn’s usual talking-out-of-his-arse style, which is a pity considering the comic talent of the rest of the cast, including Jason Bateman, Justin Long and Jon Favreau. John Michael Higgins, who plays Brookes eccentric brother Richard, also provides plenty of laughs with his singing group “The Tone Rangers”. I must admit it was a pity that Aniston’s comic talents weren’t better used, especially considering her 10 year comic role as Rachel in the sitcom Friends.
I watched the film with the commentary, because I’m cool like that, and discovered that director Peyton Reed had Aniston and Vaughn ad-lib many of the scenes. This gives a natural feel to the conversations between Brooke and Gary and makes the ups feel or the more heart-warming and the downs all the more heart-wrenching. This also keeps the film from being another typical rom-com, although at moments it slows the pace of the film and makes it a little too realistic.
Aniston delivers a truly touching performance as Brooke, the art dealer determined to show her ex what he’s missing and make him crawl back on his knees and Vaughn keeps the laughs rolling and yet shows a sensitive side which I have never seen this funny man do before. Together, the chemistry is very natural and believable, most likely because Vaughn and Aniston started dating in real life during filming.
This film fits it’s genre like a glove and remains light heartedly entertaining throughout. Be warned, however, that on watching with a member of the opposite sex you may find yourselves taking sides and been in arguments yourselves and, ladies, you will definitely have more than a flash of déjà vu.
RobynThe books due are:
And the book si plan on ordering very soon are:
That will probably take me till about October and then i'll be ready for my long Winter evening lot!!!
Now, the significance of all this seemingly useless information is that i'll be posting my reviews and thoughts of all these books as i go along. Throughout this blogs creation i've been reading away but then leave it too late to write a review on it. This issue exists no more as i intend to keep you guys up to date with my mini thoughts as i go and then end with a nice fat review for you to enjoy at the end.
Has anyone already read any of these books and fancy telling me their opinion?
Why may some pressure groups choose to remain outside groups?
Although there are many benefits to being an insider group there are also many downsides. Firstly, insider groups must have objectives that are compatible with government which means that they wouldn’t be able to address all the issues they want. Outsider groups wouldn’t like this because it would mean sacrificing some of their aims.
Secondly, they must demonstrate capacity to ensure that their members abide by agreed decisions. This significantly restricts the groups freedom of manoeuvre. Outsider groups would also hate this because they would feel ‘domesticated’ or ‘controlled’ by the government.
Also, some groups recognize that outsider strategies, such as petitions, demonstrations and marches are the most likely way of engaging potential supporters and turning them into activists.
Also many outsider groups have been attracted by ‘new politics’ which lean towards more innovative and theatrical forms of protest politics rather than ‘established’ parties, pressure groups and representative processes.
Robyn
Why do liberals reject unlimited freedom?
Freedom is a core theme of liberalism and they believe individual liberty is a supreme political value. Although classical liberal believe liberty is an essential natural right for human existence and modern liberals see liberty as the only condition where people are able fulfil their potential, no liberals accept that individuals have an absolute entitlement to freedom.
They believe that unlimited freedom can become a ‘licence’ and give individuals the right to abuse others. This is related to the liberal belief that the individual is egotistical and self-seeking and it may be in the interest of certain individuals to abuse other individuals. Therefore John Mill argued that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
While liberals agree on the value of liberty, they disagree on what it means for an individual to be free. Classical liberals believe in negative freedom which is the absence of external restrictions or constraints on the individual, allowing freedom of choice. Modern liberals, however, believe in positive freedom which is based on the achievement of autonomy and the development of human capacities.
Liberals reject unlimited freedom because they do not believe that a balanced and tolerant society will develop naturally out of the free actions of the individuals. They fear that completely free individuals may wish to exploit others if it is n their interests to do so. Therefore, liberals believe that our liberty requires that others are restrained from encroaching on our freedom and that their liberty is safeguarded from us. This relates back to liberals belief in a liberal state as this protection can only be provided by a sovereign state capable of restraining all individuals and groups within society.
Robyn
