Criminal Law
Lecture 1: Crime in context
Cases:
Starred cases mean they are very important.
Squiggly line means you need more information on it (use westlaw.)
Criminal Law vs Civil Law:
Criminal:
- State instigates proceedings against an individual.
- Aim to punish guilty.
- Burden of proof is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (higher burden of proof.)
- Lay-decision makers (no legal expertise.) Three volunteer magistrates and 12
members or jury.
Civil:
- Disputes between individuals/corporations. Individual instigates proceedings.
- Aim to provide remedy.
- Burden of proof is ‘on a balance of probabilities.’
What is the purpose of criminal law?
Own answer: To keep society in order and to maintain justice. To differentiate from right and
wrong and to teach people who commit wrongful acts. To set an example to others.
Procedural definition of crime: Glanville Williams- something becomes a crime if it’s capable of
being followed by criminal proceedings and punishment.
Moral definition of crime: Richard C.Fuller- for conduct to be criminal, it must be something
more than the violation of group morality. It must also be a deviation from the criminal code
established by the state. E.g. adultery is considered immoral and wrong by majority but it is not
criminal.
On the other hand, there are a multitude of actions that are criminal, not because they are
morally wrong but because it is in society’s interest, for example driving three mph over limit. It
is a crime because we need to have hard lines on speed limits to ensure safety.
Modern definition of crime: that it is there to prevent harm.
Allen- there are some harms that threaten the security of society if left unchecked, so criminal
law is not about protecting individuals from harm as much it is about ensuring the stability of
society.
,This is useful for explaining why assaults are crimes, but breaches of contract is not. But
doesn’t explain why mercy killing is a crime if for example a spouse is killing their partner
because they truly want to die. How is this affecting society?
Own answer: that individual case would not be affecting society, however what measures are
there to distinguish whether it was really mercy killing (whether the spouse really did want to
die.) If mercy killing became decriminalised, people would use it as an excuse for murder/
make murder look like mercy killing. So, this act is criminal in order to protect society, but not
necessarily individuals who want to die.
It is nice to know that we are not going to be killed when we walk out of the forum or our
laptops won’t be stolen in the forum- in that way it provides security and protects us. However,
stealing a pen is a crime but arguably this crime would not harm us. On the other hand, e.g. in
employment law the negligent running of a factory would cause it to shut down, taking away
many peoples jobs and impacting the local economy. This is a great harm but not criminal.
Punishment and conviction
Unlike other areas of law, criminal law has an inherently moral outcome. Conviction and
punishment is the state’s way of saying that we view the individual as being outlaws
operating outside the norms of society.
,Lecture 2: Components of Crime
An act does not make someone guilty unless they also have the mind with them.
Actus Reus (guilty mind) + Mens Rea – Defences = Criminal Liability
Components of criminal liability: (what conduct is harmful enough to be criminal)
Require proof of two things:
- VOLUNTARY Act
- Guilty act must cause the criminal harm.
What about when harm is caused when the defendant did not act?
In many countries there is a Good Samaritan Law whereby people are obliged to prevent
harm in certain circumstances (none in UK.) But we do have some liability for failing to act
and this is where the courts have found that the defendant has a duty to act to prevent
victim from harm.
Omission’s liability (an act that was pre-agreed but failed to act upon.)
- Defendant must be under a duty to act
Duty of act - they are required to do what is reasonable to prevent the harm. So they aren’t
necessarily required to save victim but they are required to do what is reasonable. And the
Jury decides what is reasonable. Omission’s liability applies to any situation where the
defendant is under a duty to act and harm has been caused by that failure to act. The victim
does not need to have died for these duties to arise.
Duties of act include:
Relationship and Assumed Duties.
- Relationships
o Parent to child- parents have duty to look after their children (unless they are
over 18.)
o Married couples- spouse has duty to look after their other spouse.
What about other relationships? They do not have a duty to act based upon their
relationships, but they might be based on assumption of care.
Assumed Duties
- If the defendant starts on a path to looking after victim, it is right for the law to say
that the defendant must at the very least prevent the victim’s death and ensure
general well-being.
Dangerous situation
, - If defendant causes dangerous situation, then they are under duty to act.
Causation: only applied if defendant’s actions must have caused the result e.g. D shoots V
and V dies.
1. Factual Causation (always considered first.)
- D must have factually caused the harm.
- Established through the ‘Sine qua non’ test which translates to ‘but for’ test. So,
but for the defendant’s actions, the criminal harm wouldn’t have occurred.
2. Legal Causation
- D’s actions are considered blameworthy as to give rise to criminal liability.
- E.g. a man was driving a carriage and wasn’t holding the reigns and a child died.
Although, he passed the ‘but for’ test, there was nothing he could have done so he
wasn’t considered blameworthy.
Novus Actus intervention
- Chain of causation is the phrase we use to link the defendant’s action to the harm.
If there is a break in the chain of causation, then defendant’s actions can no longer
be said to be operative cause of death.
- Break in the chain- general principle: a free, voluntary and informed act of a
second person can render the original act no longer an operative cause.
- List of people who can break the chain:
o Act from defendant.
o Act of God.
o Act of the victim
§ Free, voluntary and informed actions of V can break chain.
§ However, where the v’s actions are a foreseeable response to d’s
actions, they will not break the chain.
§ Egg shell skull principle: D must take V as they find him. This means D
is assessed on the harm caused to that victim specifically and must
accept any medical condition that means the level of harm is higher
than normal. This is still the case when v’s medical condition isn’t
known or obvious.
o Act of third party.
§ Cases mostly involve medical personnel.
§ Test? ‘Palpably wrong treatment’- very high threshold.
Multiple causes?
- General test is whether the defendant’s actions remain a significant and operating
cause.
Applying Actus Reus in a problem question?
1. Always start with AR before MR.
Lecture 1: Crime in context
Cases:
Starred cases mean they are very important.
Squiggly line means you need more information on it (use westlaw.)
Criminal Law vs Civil Law:
Criminal:
- State instigates proceedings against an individual.
- Aim to punish guilty.
- Burden of proof is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (higher burden of proof.)
- Lay-decision makers (no legal expertise.) Three volunteer magistrates and 12
members or jury.
Civil:
- Disputes between individuals/corporations. Individual instigates proceedings.
- Aim to provide remedy.
- Burden of proof is ‘on a balance of probabilities.’
What is the purpose of criminal law?
Own answer: To keep society in order and to maintain justice. To differentiate from right and
wrong and to teach people who commit wrongful acts. To set an example to others.
Procedural definition of crime: Glanville Williams- something becomes a crime if it’s capable of
being followed by criminal proceedings and punishment.
Moral definition of crime: Richard C.Fuller- for conduct to be criminal, it must be something
more than the violation of group morality. It must also be a deviation from the criminal code
established by the state. E.g. adultery is considered immoral and wrong by majority but it is not
criminal.
On the other hand, there are a multitude of actions that are criminal, not because they are
morally wrong but because it is in society’s interest, for example driving three mph over limit. It
is a crime because we need to have hard lines on speed limits to ensure safety.
Modern definition of crime: that it is there to prevent harm.
Allen- there are some harms that threaten the security of society if left unchecked, so criminal
law is not about protecting individuals from harm as much it is about ensuring the stability of
society.
,This is useful for explaining why assaults are crimes, but breaches of contract is not. But
doesn’t explain why mercy killing is a crime if for example a spouse is killing their partner
because they truly want to die. How is this affecting society?
Own answer: that individual case would not be affecting society, however what measures are
there to distinguish whether it was really mercy killing (whether the spouse really did want to
die.) If mercy killing became decriminalised, people would use it as an excuse for murder/
make murder look like mercy killing. So, this act is criminal in order to protect society, but not
necessarily individuals who want to die.
It is nice to know that we are not going to be killed when we walk out of the forum or our
laptops won’t be stolen in the forum- in that way it provides security and protects us. However,
stealing a pen is a crime but arguably this crime would not harm us. On the other hand, e.g. in
employment law the negligent running of a factory would cause it to shut down, taking away
many peoples jobs and impacting the local economy. This is a great harm but not criminal.
Punishment and conviction
Unlike other areas of law, criminal law has an inherently moral outcome. Conviction and
punishment is the state’s way of saying that we view the individual as being outlaws
operating outside the norms of society.
,Lecture 2: Components of Crime
An act does not make someone guilty unless they also have the mind with them.
Actus Reus (guilty mind) + Mens Rea – Defences = Criminal Liability
Components of criminal liability: (what conduct is harmful enough to be criminal)
Require proof of two things:
- VOLUNTARY Act
- Guilty act must cause the criminal harm.
What about when harm is caused when the defendant did not act?
In many countries there is a Good Samaritan Law whereby people are obliged to prevent
harm in certain circumstances (none in UK.) But we do have some liability for failing to act
and this is where the courts have found that the defendant has a duty to act to prevent
victim from harm.
Omission’s liability (an act that was pre-agreed but failed to act upon.)
- Defendant must be under a duty to act
Duty of act - they are required to do what is reasonable to prevent the harm. So they aren’t
necessarily required to save victim but they are required to do what is reasonable. And the
Jury decides what is reasonable. Omission’s liability applies to any situation where the
defendant is under a duty to act and harm has been caused by that failure to act. The victim
does not need to have died for these duties to arise.
Duties of act include:
Relationship and Assumed Duties.
- Relationships
o Parent to child- parents have duty to look after their children (unless they are
over 18.)
o Married couples- spouse has duty to look after their other spouse.
What about other relationships? They do not have a duty to act based upon their
relationships, but they might be based on assumption of care.
Assumed Duties
- If the defendant starts on a path to looking after victim, it is right for the law to say
that the defendant must at the very least prevent the victim’s death and ensure
general well-being.
Dangerous situation
, - If defendant causes dangerous situation, then they are under duty to act.
Causation: only applied if defendant’s actions must have caused the result e.g. D shoots V
and V dies.
1. Factual Causation (always considered first.)
- D must have factually caused the harm.
- Established through the ‘Sine qua non’ test which translates to ‘but for’ test. So,
but for the defendant’s actions, the criminal harm wouldn’t have occurred.
2. Legal Causation
- D’s actions are considered blameworthy as to give rise to criminal liability.
- E.g. a man was driving a carriage and wasn’t holding the reigns and a child died.
Although, he passed the ‘but for’ test, there was nothing he could have done so he
wasn’t considered blameworthy.
Novus Actus intervention
- Chain of causation is the phrase we use to link the defendant’s action to the harm.
If there is a break in the chain of causation, then defendant’s actions can no longer
be said to be operative cause of death.
- Break in the chain- general principle: a free, voluntary and informed act of a
second person can render the original act no longer an operative cause.
- List of people who can break the chain:
o Act from defendant.
o Act of God.
o Act of the victim
§ Free, voluntary and informed actions of V can break chain.
§ However, where the v’s actions are a foreseeable response to d’s
actions, they will not break the chain.
§ Egg shell skull principle: D must take V as they find him. This means D
is assessed on the harm caused to that victim specifically and must
accept any medical condition that means the level of harm is higher
than normal. This is still the case when v’s medical condition isn’t
known or obvious.
o Act of third party.
§ Cases mostly involve medical personnel.
§ Test? ‘Palpably wrong treatment’- very high threshold.
Multiple causes?
- General test is whether the defendant’s actions remain a significant and operating
cause.
Applying Actus Reus in a problem question?
1. Always start with AR before MR.
