The rules of criminal law: actus reus (including omissions), mens rea (intention and recklessness), the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea, causation, transferred malice, and strict liability.

What this dot point is asking

This dot point covers the general principles of criminal liability that underpin every offence in WJEC's criminal law option. You need to explain actus reus (the guilty act, including omissions), mens rea (the guilty mind, intention and recklessness), the coincidence of the two, causation (factual and legal, with intervening acts), transferred malice, and strict liability. WJEC tests accurate explanation with cases and the application of these rules to scenarios.

The answer

Actus reus

There is generally no liability for omissions, but a duty to act can arise from a contract, a special relationship, the voluntary assumption of care (Stone v Dobinson), holding a public office, a statute, or the creation of a dangerous situation (Miller, a squatter who failed to deal with a fire he started).

Mens rea

Coincidence and transferred malice

The actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time. The courts apply this flexibly: a continuing act can satisfy it (Fagan v MPC, a car left on a policeman's foot), as can a series of connected events (Thabo Meli). Transferred malice allows the mens rea aimed at one victim to be transferred to the actual victim of the same type of harm (R v Latimer, a blow aimed at one person struck another), but not where the harm is of a different type (R v Pembliton).

Causation

Causation has two stages. Factual causation uses the "but for" test (R v White, where poison did not cause the death that occurred first). Legal causation requires the defendant's act to be a more than minimal (operating and substantial) cause (R v Smith), and the thin skull rule means the defendant takes the victim as found (R v Blaue). A novus actus interveniens (the victim's unreasonable act, a third party, or medical treatment that is "palpably wrong", R v Jordan) may break the chain, though negligent treatment usually does not where the original wound is still operating (R v Cheshire).

Strict liability

Some offences are of strict liability, requiring no mens rea as to at least one element of the actus reus (often regulatory offences such as selling food unfit for consumption). They are justified by the need for high standards and ease of enforcement, but criticised for punishing the blameless.

Examples in context

The causation cases show how the chain is tested and when it breaks. In R v White the defendant put poison in his mother's drink intending to kill her, but she died of an unrelated heart attack before drinking it, so under the 'but for' test he was not the factual cause of her death (though liable for attempt). The thin skull rule in R v Blaue prevented the defendant escaping liability when his stabbing victim refused a blood transfusion for religious reasons and died: he had to take her as he found her, beliefs included. Medical treatment cases mark the boundary: in R v Cheshire poor hospital care did not break the chain because the original wound was still a significant cause, whereas in R v Jordan treatment that was "palpably wrong" did. Together these rules let you decide whether a defendant legally caused a prohibited result.

Try this

Q1. Name the two forms of intention in criminal law. [2 marks]

• Cue. Direct intention (the defendant's aim) and oblique intention (a virtually certain result appreciated by the defendant, Woollin).

Q2. What is the 'but for' test and which case illustrates it? [2 marks]

• Cue. But for the defendant's act, would the result have occurred? (R v White.)

Q3. Explain actus reus, mens rea and the rules on causation in criminal law. [12 marks]

• What the marker wants. Actus reus (including omissions and duties), mens rea (intention and recklessness), coincidence and transferred malice, and causation (factual, legal, thin skull, intervening acts) with cases.