The general elements of criminal liability: actus reus (conduct, omissions and causation), mens rea (intention and subjective recklessness), the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea, transferred malice and strict liability.

What this dot point is asking

Eduqas criminal law begins with the general elements that every offence shares: the actus reus (conduct, omissions and causation), the mens rea (intention and subjective recklessness), the coincidence of the two, transferred malice and strict liability. The skill is to apply these elements to a scenario (AO2) and to evaluate concepts such as intention (AO3).

The answer

Actus reus: conduct, omissions and causation

For result crimes the defendant's act must cause the consequence. Factual causation uses the "but for" test (White, poison that did not kill; Pagett, using a human shield). Legal causation requires the act to be a more than minimal, operating and substantial cause (Smith; Cheshire). The chain is broken only by a novus actus interveniens so independent and potent that it relegates the original act to history (palpably wrong medical treatment, Jordan, but not ordinary treatment, Smith); the victim's own act does not break it if reasonably foreseeable (Roberts, jumping from a car), and the thin skull rule (Blaue, a refusal of a blood transfusion) keeps the defendant liable for the victim as found.

Mens rea: intention and recklessness

Coincidence, transferred malice and strict liability

The actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time. The courts soften this by treating a continuing act (Fagan v MPC, a car left on a foot) or a single transaction / series of acts (Thabo Meli) as satisfying coincidence. Transferred malice moves the mens rea from the intended victim to the actual victim where the harm is of the same type (Latimer, a belt strike); it does not apply where the harm is of a different type (Pembliton, intending to hit a person but breaking a window). Strict liability offences need no mens rea for at least one element of the actus reus; they are usually regulatory (Sweet v Parsley; Smedleys v Breed), justified by protecting the public though criticised as unfair to the blameless.

Examples in context

A strong answer takes factual then legal causation and considers intervening acts before concluding.

Try this

Q1. Explain the rules on criminal liability for an omission (a failure to act). [10 marks]

• What the marker wants. Precise AO1: the general rule of no liability for omissions, then the duty situations (statute, contract Pittwood, relationship Gibbins and Proctor, assumption of care Stone and Dobinson, creating danger Miller, public office Dytham).

Q2. Maria pushes Nina, who falls awkwardly; Nina, a haemophiliac, suffers severe bleeding and dies. Advise on whether Maria caused Nina's death. [20 marks]

• Cue. An AO2 application: factual causation (but for the push, no fall, White); legal causation (the push is an operating and substantial cause); the thin skull rule means Maria takes Nina as found, including her haemophilia (Blaue), so the unusual susceptibility does not break the chain and Maria caused the death.