WJEC Eduqas A Level Law Book 1 sample

156 Criminal Law 4. Duty arising out of a person assuming responsibility for another If a person chooses to take care of another person who is infirm or incapable of taking care of themselves, they are under a duty to do so without negligence. The case of R v Stone and Dobinson (1977) illustrates this. 5. Defendant has inadvertently created a dangerous situation, becomes aware of it, but fails to take steps to rectify it R v Miller (1983) The defendant was squatting in a flat. He fell asleep without extinguishing his cigarette. When he awoke, he realised the mattress was alight but merely moved to the next room and went back to sleep. His failure to act and call for help caused hundreds of pounds’ worth of damage. He was convicted of arson. The difference between a positive act and an omission It is generally not a crime to fail to act, unless someone is under a duty to do so. For example, doing nothing while somebody drowns is an omission, but holding that person’s head under the water so that they drown is a positive act. In Airedale NHS v Bland (1993) , the removal of a feeding tube from a patient to allow him to die naturally was held to be an omission and therefore not a criminal act. Contrast this with euthanasia , where an act such as administering a deliberate overdose to terminate a person’s life would be classed as a positive act and therefore a criminal offence. Mens rea The general presumption is that a defendant must have committed a guilty act while having a guilty state of mind. Mens rea refers to the mental element of the definition of a crime. If Parliament intended mens rea in an offence, it will often include mens rea words in the statute such as ‘ intentionally ’, ‘ recklessly ’ and ‘ negligently ’. If Parliament deliberately left out a mens rea word then the offence may be considered to be one of strict liability . The mens rea differs according to the crime. For example, the mens rea of murder is malice aforethought , which has come to mean an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH,) whereas the mens rea of assault is intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful force. Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea The general rule is that, to be guilty of a criminal offence requiring mens rea, an accused must possess the required mens rea when performing the actus reus, and it must relate to that particular act or omission. This is also known as the contemporaneity rule. For example, Bob is planning to kill his colleague tomorrow, but kills him by accident today. This does not make Bob guilty of murder. There are two ways the courts have taken a flexible approach to this question: by continuing acts and single transaction of events . 1. Continuing acts It is not necessary for mens rea to be present at the start of the actus reus as long as, at some point in a continuous act, mens rea appears. The case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) demonstrates this point. Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) Fagan accidentally parked his car on a police officer’s foot when asked by the officer to park the car near the curb. Fagan did not mean to drive his car on the officer’s foot. However, when asked to move, he refused. It was at this point that mens rea was formed and driving onto the officer’s foot and remaining there was a continuing act. R v Stone and Dobinson (1977) Stone’s younger sister, Fanny, came to live with Stone and Dobinson. Fanny suffered from anorexia and, despite some weak attempts by Stone and Dobinson to get her help, she eventually died. The jury found that a duty was assumed from electing to take care of a vulnerable adult. They should have made more of an effort to get her help and were found guilty of manslaughter. KEY CASE strict liability: a group of offences, usually regulatory in nature, that only require proof of actus reus, not mens rea. KEY TERMINOLOGY