Liability depending on fault;
Actus Reus: The act must be a voluntary one; As shown in Hill v Baxter

In Criminal law:

The fault element is often considered as the Mens Rea of a crime
D won't be liable if causation cannot be proved using the 'but for' test, as demonstrated in R v White, R v Pagett
D won't be responsible if there is a break in the chain of causation - this can be seen in medical negligence cases such as R v Jordan, where 'palpably wrong' treatment broke the chain, or in cases where the V's own actions contributed to the consequences as was the case in R v Williams and Davis
Homicide highlights the idea of liability depending on fault as intent has to be proven to establish a murder, this is demonstrated in R v Woolins. In cases of involuntary man slaughter, subjective recklessness or gross negligence will suffice; Subjective recklessness was bought back by the courts in the case of R v G & R and gross negligence can be seen in the case of R v Adomako
Defences may arise where D has the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea but is not blameworthy. 'Defending an innocent party' can be used to reduce liability dependant on fault, as well as Consent (Shown in R v Wilson).
Partial defences may also reduce liability dependant on fault;
Diminished responsibility is permitted as a defence under the Homicide Act 1957, section 2. This can be seen in cases such as R v Bryne, where it occured from perverted sexual desires that created irresistable impulses, in R v Clarke, where it occurred by depression, in R v Ahulawalia where it occurred from battered wife syndrome, in R v Sanderson, where it occurred by paranoid psychosis (arising from a bad upbringing) and in R v Reynolds, where it was said that it could arise from 'diseases of the mind' such as post-natal depression or Premenstrual tension.
Loss of control (formerly known as Provocation) is also allowed as a partial defence under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, sections 54 and 55. S.54(1) says that a person who kills or was party to a killing my be convicted of man-slaughter rather than murder, where there is (a) a loss of self-control, (b) where the loss of self-control has a 'qualifying trigger' and (c) where a person of D's age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint may have reacted in the same or in a similar manner.
Self-Defence may also be used.
Mens rea (the guilty mind) is a required element except in cases of Strict Liability. Without Mens rea in normal cases, the defendant cannot be proven at fault. In R v Clarke, depression was used to prove absent-mindedness and therefore there wasn't sufficient fault for theft. In Elliot v C, it was seen that the D didn't have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of her own actions and therefore didn't have the mens rea to prove fault.
Sentencing - The Criminal Prosecution Service must prove the required degree of fault for the offence charged.

	Created by Sophie.J.E almost 11 years ago

Law and Morals, Balancing Conflicting Interests, Fault