RUMMAN LAW NOTES
CRIMINAL LAW
REVISION GUIDE
Core principles, offences, homicide and general defences
COMPLETE COURSE NOTES
Structured from the original 94-page study file
EXAM-FOCUSED
Rules, cases, statutory provisions and application guidance
FIRST EDITION
August 2026
Independent revision material - not affiliated with any university
,Copyright and Use
Copyright © 2026 Rumman Law Notes. All rights reserved.
This guide is licensed to the purchaser for individual study only. It may not be redistributed, resold, uploaded,
shared publicly, reproduced in another product, or used for commercial teaching without written permission.
This is an independent revision aid. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by Nottingham Law School, Nottingham
Trent University, or any other university, publisher or legal information provider.
The material is educational and does not constitute legal advice. Law, assessment methods and module content
can change. Readers should check current legislation, cases, official course materials and assessment guidance.
Editorial note: the original substantive content has been preserved. Spelling, grammar, headings, formatting and
obvious typographical inconsistencies have been standardised. This edition has not been independently verified
as a complete statement of current law.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Use these notes for revision and understanding. Do not submit the wording as assessed work or present it
as your own independent research.
How to Use This Guide
Start with the offence definition, then separate actus reus and mens rea.
Use the case headings to identify authority for each legal principle.
For problem questions, apply each element to the facts and address causation and defences where relevant.
Use the exam-focus boxes as prompts rather than as substitutes for full legal analysis.
,Contents
CH. TOPIC PAGE
1 Foundations of Criminal Liability 4
2 Actus Reus, Omissions and Voluntariness 8
3 Result Crimes and Causation 13
4 Mens Rea 19
5 Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person 26
6 Homicide and Manslaughter 38
7 General Defences 45
8 Theft: Introductory Notes 53
A Further Reading Links from the Original Notes 54
Guide Structure
Foundations: offence classifications, proof, actus reus, mens rea and coincidence.
Actus reus: acts, omissions, duties, dangerous situations and voluntariness.
Causation: factual causation, legal causation and intervening acts.
Mens rea: intention, recklessness, transferred malice and proof of state of mind.
Non-fatal offences: assault, battery, ABH, GBH, consent and exam technique.
Homicide: murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter and gross negligence.
Defences: intoxication, insanity, automatism, self-defence and duress.
Theft: introductory statutory elements and research reminders.
, 01 Foundations of Criminal Liability
Foundations of Criminal Liability
What Is Crime?
Legally defined prohibited conduct
Legislation and common law
Types of Offences
Summary offences
e.g. common assault
Case will be heard at a magistrates court
Offences triable either way
e.g. theft, burglary
Case can be heard at a magistrates court or the crown court, depending on the circumstances
Indictable only offences
e.g. Murder, rape
Case must be tried in the Crown Court
Burden and Standard of Proof
Burden of proof: which party has to prove a fact in issue
The prosecution have to prove the case against the accused - not the accused to prove his case (This is the
General Rule)
Woolmington v DPP
This case set a precedent for the Burden of proof Woolmington was a 21-year-old farmer. On November 22,
1934, three months after his poor marriage to 17-year-old Violet Kathleen Woolmington, his wife left him and
went to live with her mother. On December 10, Woolmington stole a double-barrel shotgun and cartridges from
his employer, saw off the barrel, threw it into a river,
and then cycled over to his mother-in-law's house where he accidentally shot and killed his wife. He was
arrested on January 23 the following year and charged with the wilful murder of his wife Violet. A
note was found in his pocket in which he had written that he wanted to kill both his wife and himself. He claimed
to have written it after the shooting.
Issue: Was Woolmington denied his right to the presumption of innocence?
Decision: Appeal allowed plea of not guilty - no new trial.
The House of Lords held that the jury instruction means that the responsibility is on Woolmington to prove that
he did not intend to kill his wife. This seems to have obviously violated the presumption of innocence principle in
criminal law. The judge got this definition from Halsbury's "Laws of England", however it came from a time
before there was a criminal court of appeal, and before the accused was even allowed to testify. They state that
the presumption of innocence is the "golden thread" (Lord Viscount Sankey L.C.) that holds the criminal law
together, and that it must be given the highest accord. In order to prove the charge, the Crown must prove both
that he murdered his wife, and that he intended to do it beyond a reasonable doubt.
They also say that the Court of Appeal was wrong to dismiss the
appeal; the condition can only be used when you can reasonably say that a jury would have come to the same
conclusion if they had been properly directed. The House of Lords does not think that this is the case here and
therefore, a new trial with a proper charge to the jury is ordered.
Standard of proof
Standard of proof: the degree of probability to which it must be proved
CRIMINAL LAW
REVISION GUIDE
Core principles, offences, homicide and general defences
COMPLETE COURSE NOTES
Structured from the original 94-page study file
EXAM-FOCUSED
Rules, cases, statutory provisions and application guidance
FIRST EDITION
August 2026
Independent revision material - not affiliated with any university
,Copyright and Use
Copyright © 2026 Rumman Law Notes. All rights reserved.
This guide is licensed to the purchaser for individual study only. It may not be redistributed, resold, uploaded,
shared publicly, reproduced in another product, or used for commercial teaching without written permission.
This is an independent revision aid. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by Nottingham Law School, Nottingham
Trent University, or any other university, publisher or legal information provider.
The material is educational and does not constitute legal advice. Law, assessment methods and module content
can change. Readers should check current legislation, cases, official course materials and assessment guidance.
Editorial note: the original substantive content has been preserved. Spelling, grammar, headings, formatting and
obvious typographical inconsistencies have been standardised. This edition has not been independently verified
as a complete statement of current law.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Use these notes for revision and understanding. Do not submit the wording as assessed work or present it
as your own independent research.
How to Use This Guide
Start with the offence definition, then separate actus reus and mens rea.
Use the case headings to identify authority for each legal principle.
For problem questions, apply each element to the facts and address causation and defences where relevant.
Use the exam-focus boxes as prompts rather than as substitutes for full legal analysis.
,Contents
CH. TOPIC PAGE
1 Foundations of Criminal Liability 4
2 Actus Reus, Omissions and Voluntariness 8
3 Result Crimes and Causation 13
4 Mens Rea 19
5 Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person 26
6 Homicide and Manslaughter 38
7 General Defences 45
8 Theft: Introductory Notes 53
A Further Reading Links from the Original Notes 54
Guide Structure
Foundations: offence classifications, proof, actus reus, mens rea and coincidence.
Actus reus: acts, omissions, duties, dangerous situations and voluntariness.
Causation: factual causation, legal causation and intervening acts.
Mens rea: intention, recklessness, transferred malice and proof of state of mind.
Non-fatal offences: assault, battery, ABH, GBH, consent and exam technique.
Homicide: murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter and gross negligence.
Defences: intoxication, insanity, automatism, self-defence and duress.
Theft: introductory statutory elements and research reminders.
, 01 Foundations of Criminal Liability
Foundations of Criminal Liability
What Is Crime?
Legally defined prohibited conduct
Legislation and common law
Types of Offences
Summary offences
e.g. common assault
Case will be heard at a magistrates court
Offences triable either way
e.g. theft, burglary
Case can be heard at a magistrates court or the crown court, depending on the circumstances
Indictable only offences
e.g. Murder, rape
Case must be tried in the Crown Court
Burden and Standard of Proof
Burden of proof: which party has to prove a fact in issue
The prosecution have to prove the case against the accused - not the accused to prove his case (This is the
General Rule)
Woolmington v DPP
This case set a precedent for the Burden of proof Woolmington was a 21-year-old farmer. On November 22,
1934, three months after his poor marriage to 17-year-old Violet Kathleen Woolmington, his wife left him and
went to live with her mother. On December 10, Woolmington stole a double-barrel shotgun and cartridges from
his employer, saw off the barrel, threw it into a river,
and then cycled over to his mother-in-law's house where he accidentally shot and killed his wife. He was
arrested on January 23 the following year and charged with the wilful murder of his wife Violet. A
note was found in his pocket in which he had written that he wanted to kill both his wife and himself. He claimed
to have written it after the shooting.
Issue: Was Woolmington denied his right to the presumption of innocence?
Decision: Appeal allowed plea of not guilty - no new trial.
The House of Lords held that the jury instruction means that the responsibility is on Woolmington to prove that
he did not intend to kill his wife. This seems to have obviously violated the presumption of innocence principle in
criminal law. The judge got this definition from Halsbury's "Laws of England", however it came from a time
before there was a criminal court of appeal, and before the accused was even allowed to testify. They state that
the presumption of innocence is the "golden thread" (Lord Viscount Sankey L.C.) that holds the criminal law
together, and that it must be given the highest accord. In order to prove the charge, the Crown must prove both
that he murdered his wife, and that he intended to do it beyond a reasonable doubt.
They also say that the Court of Appeal was wrong to dismiss the
appeal; the condition can only be used when you can reasonably say that a jury would have come to the same
conclusion if they had been properly directed. The House of Lords does not think that this is the case here and
therefore, a new trial with a proper charge to the jury is ordered.
Standard of proof
Standard of proof: the degree of probability to which it must be proved
