Criminal Law

General Principle: Woolmington Rule(Woolmington v DPP1935) state the prosecution must prove the existence of the AR and MR beyond reasonable doubt. Mens Rea, 1.Causation, the prosecution must prove, in order to establish the AR, that the D caused that consequence. E.g.establish the AR of an offence of homicide, must prove the D caused the death of the victim. Q:“But for what the D did would the consequence have occurred?” No,the result would not have occurred, causation in fact is established. R v White1910, the medical evidence show that shee died of heart failure before the posion could take effect, so no liable. Reasonable foreseeable consequence of what the D had done, R v Pagett1983, it was reasonable foreseeablein thecircumstances that the officers would instinctively return fire and hit the victim. ‘Skin Skull’ Rule, the death is not foreseeable consequence, the D would still in law have caused that results if the victim suffered some physical or mental condition that made him especially vulnerable, and the D must take his victim as he finds him(Rv Blaue1975) 2.Omissions, as a general rule, a person is not criminally liable for what they do not do. However, there are exceptions where the D is under a positive duty to act. Family duty/ statutory duty/ contractual duty/duty to limit accidental harm/has the D given the victim an undertaking on which the victim is relying? 3.the conduct must be willed. If the D’s muscales acted without the control of his mind, he is not blameworthy.(Batty v AG 1963) 4.State of affairs offences, it may be enough if a specifid ‘state of affairs’ is proved to exist. “Strict liability”, not only is there no need to prove any action by the D, but also ther is no need to prove any MR either.

Recklessness, subjective test: the D must foresee the risk at the time of the offence rather than that risk was one that could be foreseen by an ordinary person(Cunningham 1957, the D’s conviction was quashed撤销 because he had not foreseen any...