BPP University College Of Professional Studies Limited (BPP)
Notes on Criminal Law for the GDL at BPP University. These revision notes summarise key SGS course content in a way that is easy to understand and helped me achieve a Distinction.
BPP University College Of Professional Studies Limited (BPP)
BPP University College Of Professional Studies Limited
Criminal Law
All documents for this subject (9)
2
reviews
By: cherylli • 2 year ago
By: natashabrazil99 • 2 year ago
Seller
Follow
lpc-exam-notes
Reviews received
Content preview
BPP GDL – Criminal Law Exam Notes
Actus Reus and Causation
Factual Causation
- The ‘but for’ test. R v White.
- Factually, it must be proved that ‘but for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, the relevant
consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did.
Legal Causation
- Operating and substantial cause of the prohibited consequence – R v Pagett.
• R v Hughes: Substantial means more than de minimis.
- The defendant’s act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence – R v Benge.
Intervening Acts/Events may Break the Chain of Causation
Medical Negligence
- Courts are reluctant to allow medical negligence to break the chain of causation, unless
overwhelming and independent – R v Cheshire.
Intervention of Third Parties
- R v Pagett. Do not break chain if act reasonably, e.g. in self-defence. May only be a break in
the chain of causation if the actions of the third party were ‘free, deliberate and informed’.
Thin skull rule
- A person who inflicts harm on another cannot escape liability if the victim, owing to some pre-
existing infirmity or peculiarity, suffers greater harm than would have been expected.
- The defendant must take his victim as he finds him – R v Hayward.
Acts of the Victim – Fright and Flight Cases
- R v Roberts – jumps from car. Did not break chain. Victim’s reaction would only break the
chain of causation if ‘so daft’ that no reasonable person could foresee it.
Acts of the Victim – Refusal of Medical Treatment
- Courts unlikely to hold that breaks the chain – R v Holland; R v Blaue.
Natural Events
- Natural events only break chain of causation if ‘extraordinary’ and not reasonably
foreseeable.
Which Test Should You Use?
- For new situations arising, use the reasonable foreseeability test from R v Girdler.
Criminal Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 1 of 20
, Mens Rea
Intention
- R v Moloney. Word should be given its ordinary meaning.
- Defendant’s aim or purpose to commit the actus reus. Wholly subjective test.
Recklessness
- The current definition of recklessness comes from the case of R v G.
- A person acts recklessly with respect to a result when (a) he is aware of a risk that it will occur
and (b) it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.
- Subjective test – if the risk has not entered D’s mind then not reckless.
- In respect of the second part of the test, the risk must have been objectively unreasonable.
- If there is no social utility, then probably unreasonable to take even a tiny risk.
Transferred Malice
- The doctrine of transferred malice operates to allow the mens rea against X to be transferred
and joined with the actus reus that causes the prohibited harm to Y. The mens rea is
transferred from the intended harm to the actual harm.
- R v Latimer.
- However, the defendant must have the mens rea for the crime charged. It is not possible to
mix and match the mens rea of different crimes – R v Pembliton.
Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
- As a general rule the defendant must have the relevant mens rea for the offence at the precise
moment when he commits the actus reus.
Continuing Act Theory
- Fagan v MPC. Held actus reus to be a continuing act, and it was enough that Fagan had the
mens rea at some point during its continuance.
One Transaction Principle
- Sometimes the courts will categorise the actions of the accused as a series of acts, making up
one transaction. In certain circumstances, it is enough for the defendant to have the mens rea
at some time during that transaction.
- R v Le Brun – Unlawful act and act causing death were all part of the same transaction. Did
not matter that there was no preconceived plan and that D knew his wife was still alive.
Transaction continued as long as D was trying to cover up crime he believed he committed.
Criminal Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 2 of 20
, Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person
Assault
à An assault is committed when the accused ‘intentionally or recklessly causes another person to
apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’ – Fagan v MPC.
Actus Reus
There must be an apprehension of personal violence:
- Must cause victim to believe he can and will carry out threat – R v Lamb. Need not fear.
- Irrelevant that D does not in fact have the means to carry out that threat – Logdon v DPP.
• R v Wilson – words may be sufficient to constitute assault.
• R v Ireland – Silence can be sufficient.
• Tuberville v Savage – Words spoken can negate an assault. Ultimately depends on
whether the victim apprehended immediate unlawful personal violence.
- R v Ireland – victim must apprehend physical violence. Personal violence defined as any
intentional touching of another person without consent – Collins v Wilcock
The threat of violence must be immediate:
- The victim must believe that immediate violence will be inflicted upon him: therefore, fear
that the force might be applied sometime in the future would be insufficient.
- Generous interpretation of ‘immediacy’. Does not mean instantaneous – Smith v Woking.
Mens Rea
- R v Venna – mens rea for assault is intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to
apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.
Battery
à A battery is ‘actual intended use of unlawful force to another person without his consent’ – Fagan
v MPC.
Actus Reus
There must be application of force:
- Force includes the merest touching – Collins v Wilcock.
- Application of force need not be aggressive – Faulkner v Talbot
- Force need not be applied directly – DPP v K
- A battery can be constituted by omission – DPP v Santana-Bermudez.
- The force applied must be unlawful – Collins v Wilcock, implied consent.
Mens Rea
Intentional or reckless application of force upon another – R v Venna
Criminal Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 3 of 20
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lpc-exam-notes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.02. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
