• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

AS level Criminal Paper

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Criminal law part A Actus Reas is described as the physical element. For a criminal case to win actus reas must be proved and also along with mens rea. An Actus reas can be committed in three different ways. Firstly, the omissions of a person meaning they have failed to do something that an existing duty required by you. There are two kinds of omissions common law and statutory. Statutory for example would be failure to supply a breathe sample when stopped on suspicion of drink driving violating the Road Traffic act 1988 section 2. However, common law duties can be split up into 5 parts. 1. A duty will arise from a relationship towards people who are dependent on others. For example a parent towards a child owes responsibility for foreseeable harm towards the vulnerability of a child. Such as in R v Gibbons and Proctor. 2. Were by a duty that has voluntarily been undertaken a duty will still exist, as the same standard will be expected of you. Such as in R v Stone and Daganson. 3. A contractual duty will arise. For example R v Pittwood 4. A professional duty will arise such as a doctor, police officers. As shown in R v Dytham. ...read more.

Middle

Also, actions by a third party can amount to a novus actus intervenes. However for medical treatment to amount to a novus actus intervenes after a criminal assult has occurred it must be serious. For example in the cases R v Chesire and R v Jordon. Firstly, In R v Chesire it was held not the doctors were not liable when later on the patient died from a traciostimy after being shot in the leg. However, Secondly In R v jordon the courts held the doctors were liable as a different doctor had given the patient antibiotics which the hospital found out earlier that he was allergic to them. Mens rea is the term used to describe the mind in which the defendant had when committing the crime. A criminal mind must be proven. There are two blameworthy states of mind. The most blameworthy being intention. In the serious crimes such as murder this must be proven beyond reasonable dought that there was intention. The first of this is direct intent, this is by the defendants aim or purpose is to intentionally bring any unlawful consequences.This was first established in the case of Mohan were the court said 'intedintion is a decision to about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power , no matter whether the acues desired that consequence of his act or not' ...read more.

Conclusion

This is were the mens rea of the case meets the actus reus for the first time as Alan now has the intention to keep his lorry there causing more and more serious harm to Denis the longer it is there for even though Alan never set out to cause this damage failure to undo the actions he caused unknowingly amounts to sufficient mens rea for the crime. This specific scenario can be contrasted with Fagon v Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police as Fagon park on the policemans foot there has been no mens rea therefore no crime committed but however after Fagon refuses to move the car from the Policemans foot then the mens rea has occurred and meet the actus reus. Although Fagon can be contrasted with this case the seriousness of the injuries in which Denis has received due to the consequences of Alan not removing the car when realizing what had happened should be taken into account. Due to the seriousness of the injuries inflicted and the dismissal of not wanted to move the car when the victim was in substantial pain either a section 20 or section 47 should apply here. A section 20 could apply as the seriousness of the injuries were by Denis suffered a fractured spine and was permanently paralysed and also the failure to move the lorry when Denis was noticed to be trapped means the crime should be taken far more seriously. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Criminal Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

  1. Law - Unit 3 - Mock Exam Question

    The extent of the victim's injuries clearly suggests the defendant will be liable at minimum for s.20 OAPA. The mens rea of the offence is to intend to cause the victim some harm. On cutting the victims tongue off it seems likely Reg wanted to do more than just cause some harm.

  2. Property Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Police Powers of Search and Entry.

    Involuntary manslaughter - This is where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury, however death is due to carelessness or criminal negligence. The differences between the others are that involuntary manslaughter is when someone unintentionally kills a human being without legal justification if their acts, whether

  1. Explain the meaning of Actus reus and mens rea

    wounds ? these were operating on the V when he died, A defendant may wish to argue a novus actus interveniens i.e claim that there was another act which caused the outcome such as medical negligence, unforeseen events and the thin skull rule.

  2. Explain what is meant by the term 'causation' in criminal law and assess how ...

    This was shown in the case of Jordan, where the victim was stabbed and taken to hospital, then given an antibiotic. It was then discovered that the victim was allergic to the antibiotic, however, a different doctor still ordered the victim to be given a large dose of the same antibiotic.

  1. Explain what is meant by the term causation in criminal law and assess how ...

    Even though the gunshot wound had almost healed the victim died due to negligent treatment. The negligent treatment must be so independent of D?s acts, and in itself so potent in causing death, that they regard the contribution made by his acts as insignificant.? The courts will use whichever direction will avoid breaking the chain of causation.

  2. The History and Main Features of Criminal Law in the USA.

    guilt and the third was by far the worse crime that humans were capable of committing against the law of nature. Justifiable homicide is killing under circumstances of necessity or duty without any evil intent; for example state executions. Excusable homicide occurs when one kills another by mistake or in self-defense.

  1. Critically discuss the Labour Governments record of crime control since coming to power in ...

    crime prevention programmes; the BCS has shown that risks of crime are highest for young people, the unemployed, single parents, private renters, those living in inner-city areas, and in areas of high physical disorder. However, the current limitations of the BCS are indeed manifold, firstly with the limitation of coverage,

  2. Nina runs a burger bar. She puts up a sign in the window saying ...

    Furthermore, the representation was 'made' by the defendant (Nina), she explicitly states these 'misleading' and 'untrue' statements. The mens rea for fraud by false representation is provided by section 2(2)(b) states that the defendant must know that the statement is or might be untrue or misleading, it is clear that Nina knows that her statement about vegetable oils is 'untrue'.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work