8221036
Description
Mind Map by Molly Hope, updated more than 1 year ago
|
|
Created by Molly Hope
over 7 years ago
|
|
Where we see Fault in Law
- Mens Rea
- The key demonstration of
fault in operation in
criminal law - Did they
intend the crime?
- The hierarchy of
levels of mens rea is
often known as
blameworthiness for
i.e. fault
- Direct intent - most fault
- Oblique intent - medium fault
- Recklessness - least fault
- Recklessness - least fault
- Oblique intent - medium fault
- A lack of mens rea will mean
that a person is not guilty at
all for example R v Clarke
(1972) states that a moment
of absent mindedness is not
substantial.
- Direct intent - most fault
- The hierarchy of
levels of mens rea is
often known as
blameworthiness for
i.e. fault
- The key demonstration of
fault in operation in
criminal law - Did they
intend the crime?
- Negligence
- It must be fair, just
and reasonable to
impose a duty on
someone in the case
of Hill v Chief
constable of West
Yorkshire (1990)
- With the exception of
public services such as the
police because they are
only doing their job, thus
there is no fault
- With the exception of
public services such as the
police because they are
only doing their job, thus
there is no fault
- Harm must be foreseeable from the case
of Roe v Minister of Health - If you forsee
the harm then society considers it to be
your fault
- Causation and proximity -
The Wagon Mound
- Causation and proximity -
The Wagon Mound
- It must be fair, just
and reasonable to
impose a duty on
someone in the case
of Hill v Chief
constable of West
Yorkshire (1990)
- Defences
- If one of the defences applies (either partial or full) then the
defendants acquitted (or sentcen or reduced) as the law considers that
they are not at fault or less at fault.
- M'Naghten (1984) - Insanity
- Graham (1982) - Duress
- Gladstone and Willams (1987) - Automatism
- Gladstone and Willams (1987) - Automatism
- Graham (1982) - Duress
- M'Naghten (1984) - Insanity
- But what about intoxication? Kingston
(1994) says that if you are entirely
intoxicated and cannot form a mens rea
then you will be acquitted.
- If you claim a defence then you're not fully at fault.
- If you claim a defence then you're not fully at fault.
- If one of the defences applies (either partial or full) then the
defendants acquitted (or sentcen or reduced) as the law considers that
they are not at fault or less at fault.
- Actus Reus
- you must commit the actus reus of any crime voluntary - Hill v Baxter
- Causation - the rules of causation are rules
which prove a link between the
defendant's actions and the consequence
to establish that the defendant was at
fault
- If there is a novus actus then the
chain of causation is broken and the
defendant is no longer put at fault - R
v Williams
- If there is a novus actus then the
chain of causation is broken and the
defendant is no longer put at fault - R
v Williams
- Causation - the rules of causation are rules
which prove a link between the
defendant's actions and the consequence
to establish that the defendant was at
fault
- Ommissions - where the defendant is held to be at
fault even though they did not act:
- Stone and Dobinson - voluntary acts
- Gibbins and Proctor - duty because of a relationship
- Gibbins and Proctor - duty because of a relationship
- Stone and Dobinson - voluntary acts
- you must commit the actus reus of any crime voluntary - Hill v Baxter
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.