Criminal Law I
Seminar 2
Mens rea concepts and homicide
Learning outcomes
By the end of the seminar you will be able to:
explain the law governing the mens rea concepts of intention and recklessness and apply it to
hypothetical factual scenarios;
explain the doctrine of transferred mens rea and apply it to hypothetical factual scenarios;
explain the requirements for establishing criminal liability for: (a) murder; (b) unlawful act
manslaughter; and, (c) gross negligence manslaughter and apply these to hypothetical
factual scenarios;
explain the requirements for establishing the partial defence of loss of control and apply these to
hypothetical factual scenarios; and,
evaluate and critically discuss the mens rea of murder, the two-tier structure of the law of homicide
and the loss of control defence.
Essential Reading
Pearson Revel Chapters 4 and 5 or Macdonald, Text, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law (2nd edn.,
2018), chapters 4 and 5
(Alternative Text): Smith, Hogan and Ormerod’s Text, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law 13edn.,
(2020), chapters 5, 7, 8 and 9.
Further Reading
Law Commission (2006) Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (Report No 304) HC 30, parts 1, 2 and
3 (available from:
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/lc304_Murder_Manslaughter_and_Infan
ticide_Report.pdf)
Ashworth, ‘Principles, Pragmatism and the Law Commission’s Recommendations on Homicide Law
Reform’ (2007) Criminal Law Review 333 [available via Westlaw]
Tadros, ‘The Homicide Ladder’ (2006) 69 Modern Law Review 601 [available via Wiley Online]
Seminar Questions
Please ensure that you come to the seminar ready to participate in the discussion, having prepared
(in note form at least) answers to the following questions.
1 (a)
Thomas had had a miserable day. First, he was late for work because his car wouldn’t start. Then he
lost his wallet. And then his boss had told him that he was being made redundant. As Thomas
walked home in the rain he wondered whether things could get any worse.
, Gordon, a well-known local thief, spotted Thomas trudging along on the other side of the road. He
quickly crossed over the road, crept up behind Thomas, then grabbed hold of him and held him in an
arm-lock. “Give me your wallet” Gordon demanded. At this point Thomas, a self-defence expert,
snapped. He nimbly twisted out of the arm-lock and punched Gordon three times, twice in the face
and once in the stomach. Then, as Gordon lay in a crumpled heap on the pavement, Thomas kicked
him three times in the ribs, as hard as he could.
Murder
Requirement mens rea and actus reaus
Factual causation-legal ...thick skull rule coz V had a medical problem
Mens rea – intention to kill or cause GBH (1) was GBH a virtual certain- yes (2) did
Thomas realize the danger of what he was doing –yes..he was an expert he must have
known ...no but he was
(1) victim was a person
Victim died
As soon as he had calmed down Thomas regretted his actions. He telephoned 999 on his mobile
phone and waited with Gordon until the ambulance arrived. However, Gordon was declared dead on
arrival at hospital.
It was later discovered (a) that Gordon had suffered from a rare medical condition that made him
extremely susceptible to physical violence; and (b) that Thomas suffered from a psychiatric illness
that made it difficult for him to control his temper.
Discuss Thomas’ criminal liability.
(b)
Vicki, an 18-year-old student, arrives at the beachside burger bar for her first day in her new job. The
manager, Ronald, tells her that he is too busy to give her the basic training and that she should start
work immediately in the kitchen. Vicki gets to work making chicken burgers. She is in such a rush
that she does not cook the chicken properly. Had she been properly trained; she would
have realized that the chicken was undercooked and not safe to eat.
The next day several customers telephoned the burger bar and complained that the food they ate
there caused them to feel extremely unwell. One customer, Vera, who suffers from a weak immune
system, is particularly ill. A few days later Vera dies.
Gross negligence manslaughter ….not murder coz there is no intention to murder
Discuss Vicki’s criminal liability.
(see over for essay question)
(2)
“Under the existing law of homicide some defendants may only be convicted of manslaughter when
a murder conviction would be more appropriate, whilst some other defendants who do not deserve
the label ‘murderer’ may be convicted of this offence. Enacting the Law Commission’s proposed
homicide ladder would rectify this situation”.
Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement
Seminar 2
Mens rea concepts and homicide
Learning outcomes
By the end of the seminar you will be able to:
explain the law governing the mens rea concepts of intention and recklessness and apply it to
hypothetical factual scenarios;
explain the doctrine of transferred mens rea and apply it to hypothetical factual scenarios;
explain the requirements for establishing criminal liability for: (a) murder; (b) unlawful act
manslaughter; and, (c) gross negligence manslaughter and apply these to hypothetical
factual scenarios;
explain the requirements for establishing the partial defence of loss of control and apply these to
hypothetical factual scenarios; and,
evaluate and critically discuss the mens rea of murder, the two-tier structure of the law of homicide
and the loss of control defence.
Essential Reading
Pearson Revel Chapters 4 and 5 or Macdonald, Text, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law (2nd edn.,
2018), chapters 4 and 5
(Alternative Text): Smith, Hogan and Ormerod’s Text, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law 13edn.,
(2020), chapters 5, 7, 8 and 9.
Further Reading
Law Commission (2006) Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (Report No 304) HC 30, parts 1, 2 and
3 (available from:
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/lc304_Murder_Manslaughter_and_Infan
ticide_Report.pdf)
Ashworth, ‘Principles, Pragmatism and the Law Commission’s Recommendations on Homicide Law
Reform’ (2007) Criminal Law Review 333 [available via Westlaw]
Tadros, ‘The Homicide Ladder’ (2006) 69 Modern Law Review 601 [available via Wiley Online]
Seminar Questions
Please ensure that you come to the seminar ready to participate in the discussion, having prepared
(in note form at least) answers to the following questions.
1 (a)
Thomas had had a miserable day. First, he was late for work because his car wouldn’t start. Then he
lost his wallet. And then his boss had told him that he was being made redundant. As Thomas
walked home in the rain he wondered whether things could get any worse.
, Gordon, a well-known local thief, spotted Thomas trudging along on the other side of the road. He
quickly crossed over the road, crept up behind Thomas, then grabbed hold of him and held him in an
arm-lock. “Give me your wallet” Gordon demanded. At this point Thomas, a self-defence expert,
snapped. He nimbly twisted out of the arm-lock and punched Gordon three times, twice in the face
and once in the stomach. Then, as Gordon lay in a crumpled heap on the pavement, Thomas kicked
him three times in the ribs, as hard as he could.
Murder
Requirement mens rea and actus reaus
Factual causation-legal ...thick skull rule coz V had a medical problem
Mens rea – intention to kill or cause GBH (1) was GBH a virtual certain- yes (2) did
Thomas realize the danger of what he was doing –yes..he was an expert he must have
known ...no but he was
(1) victim was a person
Victim died
As soon as he had calmed down Thomas regretted his actions. He telephoned 999 on his mobile
phone and waited with Gordon until the ambulance arrived. However, Gordon was declared dead on
arrival at hospital.
It was later discovered (a) that Gordon had suffered from a rare medical condition that made him
extremely susceptible to physical violence; and (b) that Thomas suffered from a psychiatric illness
that made it difficult for him to control his temper.
Discuss Thomas’ criminal liability.
(b)
Vicki, an 18-year-old student, arrives at the beachside burger bar for her first day in her new job. The
manager, Ronald, tells her that he is too busy to give her the basic training and that she should start
work immediately in the kitchen. Vicki gets to work making chicken burgers. She is in such a rush
that she does not cook the chicken properly. Had she been properly trained; she would
have realized that the chicken was undercooked and not safe to eat.
The next day several customers telephoned the burger bar and complained that the food they ate
there caused them to feel extremely unwell. One customer, Vera, who suffers from a weak immune
system, is particularly ill. A few days later Vera dies.
Gross negligence manslaughter ….not murder coz there is no intention to murder
Discuss Vicki’s criminal liability.
(see over for essay question)
(2)
“Under the existing law of homicide some defendants may only be convicted of manslaughter when
a murder conviction would be more appropriate, whilst some other defendants who do not deserve
the label ‘murderer’ may be convicted of this offence. Enacting the Law Commission’s proposed
homicide ladder would rectify this situation”.
Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement
