Revision Notes
AQA A-Level Law: General Elements of Criminal Liability — Revision Notes
Condensed recall notes on actus reus, mens rea, causation, transferred malice and strict liability for AQA A-Level Law (7162), General Elements of Liability.
- Subject
- Law
- Level
- A LEVELS
- Topic
- Criminal law
- Author
- Marlbridge Academic Team
- Updated
- Reviewed by
- Aizaz Raoof Ali (what this means)
Aligned to AQA A Level Law (7162), For teaching from September 2017 onwards, A-level exams 2019 onwards. Official specification .
Syllabus page (what it covers and how it is assessed): AQA A Level Law.
Syllabus points this page covers
7162
- General elements of liability
Found an error? Report a correction.
Need help with this topic? Request a free trial class for A Level Law (7162).
Condensed for the final weeks. For the full explanation, use the General Elements of Liability study guide.
The two building blocks
Most crimes need actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) present at the same time — the “coincidence” requirement, and a favourite application point when the two occur at different moments.
Actus reus — four elements
| Element | What it means |
|---|---|
| Conduct | Acts (positive conduct), omissions (failure to act, only where the law recognises a duty to act) and states of affairs (simply being in a situation satisfies actus reus) |
| Voluntariness and involuntariness | Liability generally requires voluntary conduct; an involuntary act does not satisfy actus reus |
| Causation | Conduct must be both factual and legal cause of the consequence |
| Consequences | Where the offence is defined by its result, that result must actually follow from the defendant’s conduct |
Causation test: “but for” the defendant’s act, would the consequence have occurred? (factual) — plus a separate legal-cause test.
Mens rea — three levels of fault, plus one exception
- Intention — aim/purpose; a jury may, but need not, also find intention where the defendant foresaw a consequence as virtually certain.
- Subjective recklessness — the defendant personally foresaw a risk and unreasonably took it anyway.
- Negligence — judged against an objective reasonable-person standard, not the defendant’s own state of mind.
- Strict liability — the specification’s own named exception: no mens rea needed for at least one element.
Transferred malice
Mens rea aimed at intended victim A can transfer to actual victim B — but only if B suffers the same type of harm A was meant to suffer.
Worked example
Defendant punches at A, misses, hits B.
Actus reus: the punch (act) caused injury (consequence) to B
Mens rea: intended towards A, not B
Doctrine: transferred malice — mens rea transfers from A to B
because the harm to B is the same type as intended for A
Conclusion: defendant liable for the offence against B
Always work actus reus → mens rea → doctrine → conclusion, in that order — this is the structure AQA mark schemes reward.
Omissions: when does a duty to act arise?
Because criminal law generally does not punish a failure to act, omissions liability depends on proving a recognised duty to act first. The specification’s general elements content requires you to recognise that such duties can arise from, for example, a contractual obligation, a special relationship (such as parent and child), a voluntary assumption of responsibility for another person, or a statutory duty. Without identifying which duty applies, an omissions-based scenario answer cannot proceed to actus reus at all — this is the step examiners most often find missing.
Comparing the fault elements side by side
| Fault element | Test | Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Intention | Aim/purpose, or foresight of virtual certainty | Subjective |
| Subjective recklessness | Personally foresaw the risk, unreasonably took it anyway | Subjective |
| Negligence | Fell below the standard of a reasonable person | Objective |
| Strict liability | No mens rea required for at least one element | None |
Keep “subjective” (about this defendant’s actual state of mind) and “objective” (about what a reasonable person would have done) clearly separate — confusing the two is one of the most common ways a Law essay loses marks on this content, since intention and recklessness require evidence of the defendant’s own mind, while negligence does not.
Exam traps
- Assuming every offence needs mens rea — strict liability is the specification’s own named exception.
- Confusing intention (aim/virtual certainty) with subjective recklessness (foresaw a risk, took it anyway) — these are different, gradated fault levels.
- Applying transferred malice where the actual harm is a different type from what was intended — the doctrine does not apply then.
- Forgetting the coincidence requirement when actus reus and mens rea occur at different times in a scenario.
Building a scenario answer
Scenario questions on this content reward a consistent structure: identify the actus reus first (what is the conduct — an act, an omission or a state of affairs — was it voluntary, did it cause the consequence, and did the required consequence follow?), then identify the mens rea (intention, subjective recklessness, negligence, or strict liability), then check the coincidence requirement, then apply any relevant doctrine such as transferred malice. Working through the elements in this fixed order, rather than jumping straight to a conclusion about guilt, is what AQA’s law mark schemes reward at the higher bands — the reasoning process is assessed, not just the final answer.
A final practical tip: in a timed answer, briefly label each element as you address it (Actus reus: …, Mens rea: …, Doctrine: …, Conclusion: …) rather than writing continuous prose that blurs the boundaries — examiners marking against a levels-based scheme find it far easier to award marks for each element when the structure is visibly signposted.
Self-test
- State the “but for” test and what it establishes.
- Distinguish intention from subjective recklessness.
- What condition must be met for transferred malice to apply?
- Name the specification’s own exception to the general mens rea requirement.
- Why does “state of affairs” differ from an ordinary “act”?
Answers: 1. But for the defendant’s act, would the consequence have occurred? — it establishes factual causation. 2. Intention is the defendant’s aim or purpose (or foreseeing a consequence as virtually certain); subjective recklessness is personally foreseeing a risk and unreasonably taking it anyway — a lower level of fault. 3. The harm actually caused to the unintended victim must be the same type of harm intended for the original victim. 4. Strict liability. 5. A “state of affairs” offence can be satisfied simply by being in a certain situation, regardless of any voluntary conduct, unlike an ordinary act which requires positive, voluntary conduct.
Related resources
General Elements of Liability study guide | General Elements of Liability practice questions
Get free revision emails (optional)
Occasional emails with practice questions, worked explanations and links to free resources for the qualification and subjects you choose. No spam, and you can unsubscribe from any email. The free tools on this site never need an email.
Related resources
-
Study guides
AQA A-Level Law: General Elements of Criminal Liability (7162)
Actus reus, mens rea, strict liability and the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea – 3.2.3 General Elements of Liability, the foundational content of AQA A-Level Law (7162)'s Criminal Law section.
Law · AQA · A Level
Read guide -
Practice questions
AQA A Level Law: General Elements of Criminal Liability — Practice Questions
Original exam-style practice questions with full worked answers on actus reus, mens rea, causation, transferred malice and strict liability for AQA A-Level Law (7162), General Elements of Liability.
Law · AQA · A Level
Try questions -
Exam preparation
AQA A-Level Law: Preparing for Three Papers That Share a Common Core
Why the nature of law and the English legal system is examined on all three AQA A-Level Law 7162 papers, how the 25/75 mark split works, the Paper 3 option choice, and a worked IRAC-style routine.
Law · AQA · A Level
Read guide
Related articles
-
teaching
A Level tuition in Dubai: Cambridge or Pearson Edexcel International A Level?
Schools in Dubai and Abu Dhabi teach either Cambridge International AS & A Level or Pearson Edexcel International A Level. How the two are structured, why it matters for tuition, and how online classes from Lahore work.
9 October 2026
-
curriculum guides
Choosing subjects at IGCSE and A Level
How subject choices at 14 and 16 affect university options later, and how to keep pathways open without overloading a timetable.
28 July 2026
Studying this with a teacher
Working through Law A LEVELS?
This page is free and stays free. If you would rather be taught it, Marlbridge runs Law classes one-to-one and in small groups of up to 15, online in your own time zone. The first trial class is free. WhatsApp replies within an hour (8am–11pm Pakistan time, every day); email the same day.
AQA Law teachers at Marlbridge