Additional principles

Question 1

What is the coincidence of AR and MR?

Answer 1

Idea that D must have relevant MR for offence at precise moment D commites AR
* though there has been some flexible interpretation to get round this:
- continuing act theory
- and one transaction principle

Question 2

What is the continuing act theory?

Answer 2

• D can be guilty of an offence if they form MR for offence at some point during AR continuing
• e.g., D formed MR when he realised that his vechile was on C’s foot and did not move it

Question 3

What is the one transaction principle?

Answer 3

• Courts will categorise actions of D as a series of fact making one transaction - enough for D to have MR at some point during transaction
• extended to cases where there was no prior planning - viewing act done with MR (e.g., D knocking wife unconcious caused him to drag her home and drop her)

Question 4

What is transferred malice?

Answer 4

Where D’s MR transferred from intended to actual harm
* e.g., D aims to hit C with a belt only hiting them slightly but V was hit in the face wounding them severely - court held intention to injure C could be transferred to V
* can be applied to manslaughter

Question 5

What is the effect on D’s mistake on criminal liabilty?

Answer 5

Ignorance of law:
* if D does not know they are breaking law, mistake will not help avoid liabilty
* even if D’s mistake is reasonable and impossible for them to know, they can still be held liable

Mistake negate MR:
* D might make a mistake as to some element of AR which will prevent D from having MR
* e.g., mistake of fact (taking wrong umbrella mistakenly so not liable for theft as they weren’t dishonest)
* if MR needed for AR is intention or recklessness no need for mistake to be reasonable but if MR is negligence, mistake must be reasonable