1
Final Exam Revision
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. INTRODUCTION
a. ACTUS REUS
b. MENS REA
2. HOMICIDE
a. HOMICIDE MURDER
b. HOMICIDE VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
c. HOMICIDE INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
3. OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSONS
4. SEXUAL OFFENCES
5. PROPERTY OFFENCES
a. THEFT
b. ROBBERY
c. BUGLARY
d. CRIMINAL DAMAGE
6. SELF DEFENCE AND THE PREVENTION OF CRIME
a. SELF DEFENCE
b. NECESSITY
c. DURESS
d. INTOXICATION
e. INSANITY
f. AUTOMATISM
7. ATTEMPTS AND COMPLICITY
a. ENCOURAGING AND ASSISTING
b. CONSPIRACY
c. ATTEMPTS
d. ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY
,2
1. INTRODUCTION
What are the subjects of the substantive criminal law?
- The typical subject is a natural person. Minors (under 10), those affected by conditions for
competence, also legal persons (corporations) are all unfit to plead.
Sources of Criminal law?
- The common law (murder and manslaughter)
- Statute; a formal enactment of a legislative authority. (theft act 1968, fraud act 2006)
- European convention on human rights (ECHR)
- European Union Law
- International law; a system of treaties and agreements between nations.
o International criminal court act 2001; UN; EC.
- The Law Commissions of England and Wales
- The draft criminal code
Internal Structure of Offences
- Actus Reus (guilty act) + Mens Rea (guilty mind) - Defence (necessity, reasonability)
- Burden of proof in criminal trials; the legal burden is placed on the prosecution – defendant is
presumed innocent until proven guilty.
- Reverse burdens are controversial, they apply in contexts where the defendant claims insanity or
self-defence.
a. ACTUS REUS
- 3 Elements
o Conduct; Focuses on the external movement or the lack thereof.
o Circumstances: the f acts surrounding circumstances exist which lead to liability.
o Consequences: Where D causes a result see causation below.
- Requirement of voluntariness: an offence must be voluntary in order for a criminal liability imposed.
(Kay v Butterworth)
- Special relations: if a relationship exists between V and D the D will be under a positive duty to act a
certain way.
- Conduct crimes are complete as soon as D performs the certain conduct prescribed to the
circumstances.
- Causation “result crime” which require the D action to culminate in a particular unlawful result.
- Causation at three stages a defendant will only be convicted of a result crime if the prosecution can
establish the following.
o Factual causation: meaning the unlawful result would not have occurred as and when it did
“But For” the actions of D. (R v White)
Test; Accelerating the result, and more than one result
o Legal causation: Ds behaviour was more than minimal cause of the result. (Pagett 1983)
Test: substantial; blameworthy; operative.
o No intervening act: no outside act. (Novus actus intervenes)
Act of a third party; r v Pagett (used V as a shield)
Medical Treatment: r v Jordan (palpably wrong administration of medication)
Act of the victim/ Self negligent: r v Kennedy ( V injects himself and dies)
b. MENS REA
, 3
- Subjective Mens rea: examines what the saw to be the consequences of his actions (intention,
recklessness)
- Objective Mens rea: compares Ds actions with the reasonable person. (negligence)
- Elements requires by the crime.
o Intention: Can only be committed if the defendant performed the actus reus intentionally
o Direct: is found when an individual intends a specific consequence from their actions
o Oblique: refers to an natural consequence of a voluntary act, which they are able to
foresee.
Test Wollin 1999: Consequences must be virtual certain to occur, and the
defendant must appreciate this.
o Intoxication: voluntary intoxication, offences have been loosely categorised into offences
of specific intent and basic intent.
Specific Intent: requires mens rea as intention
Basic Intent: committed within a lesser form of mens rea than intention. A
defendant will have no defence to a basic offence.
o Recklessness: a person who does not intend to cause a harmful result causes a harmful
result by taking an unjustifiable risk.
R v Caldwell [1982], (objective) a person acts reckless as to whether property is
destroyed or damaged where (1) he does an act which creates an obvious risk and
(2) when he does the act he has not given any thought to the possibility of there
being any such risk or recognized there was some risk and nonetheless gone on to
do it.
o Knowledge: involved a person being certain that circumstances exist.
o Belief: requires led certainty that circumstances exist.
o Negligence: a person is negligent when he sees the risk but takes inadequate steps to
avoid the risk. (R v Adomako)
- The principle of coincidence states that the AR and MR must overlap, they must happen at the
same time, without this on criminal offence will be committed.
- The continuing act theory (Fagan v MPC) states that the mens rea does not need to be present
throughout the act but it can start at the beginning (Thabo Meli v r) or at the end (Fagan).
- Single transaction theory (Thabo Meli) states that an act such as a murder has been committed
the courts treat that act as being one transaction.
- The Doctrine of transferred malice states that the mens rea in relation to the intended target
will be transferred to the actual victim. (Latimer 1886)
- Strict liability offences do not require mens rea to be proved in respect of at least one element of
the actus reus.
- Absolute liability offences require’s the prosecution to show that the accused performed the
prohibited act.
- Rule of evidence shows that the Ds foresight of the consequence as virtually certain to occur
would only be one piece of evidence from which the jury can infer that he intended those
consequences.
- Rule of law states that the defendant’s foresight is evidence from which the jury could find that
the defendant has necessary intention.
2. HOMICIDE
is the death of a human being is circumstances attributable to the conduct of 1+ humans
(encompasses both lawful and unlawful acts)
a. MURDER – common law definition of murder.
Final Exam Revision
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. INTRODUCTION
a. ACTUS REUS
b. MENS REA
2. HOMICIDE
a. HOMICIDE MURDER
b. HOMICIDE VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
c. HOMICIDE INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
3. OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSONS
4. SEXUAL OFFENCES
5. PROPERTY OFFENCES
a. THEFT
b. ROBBERY
c. BUGLARY
d. CRIMINAL DAMAGE
6. SELF DEFENCE AND THE PREVENTION OF CRIME
a. SELF DEFENCE
b. NECESSITY
c. DURESS
d. INTOXICATION
e. INSANITY
f. AUTOMATISM
7. ATTEMPTS AND COMPLICITY
a. ENCOURAGING AND ASSISTING
b. CONSPIRACY
c. ATTEMPTS
d. ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY
,2
1. INTRODUCTION
What are the subjects of the substantive criminal law?
- The typical subject is a natural person. Minors (under 10), those affected by conditions for
competence, also legal persons (corporations) are all unfit to plead.
Sources of Criminal law?
- The common law (murder and manslaughter)
- Statute; a formal enactment of a legislative authority. (theft act 1968, fraud act 2006)
- European convention on human rights (ECHR)
- European Union Law
- International law; a system of treaties and agreements between nations.
o International criminal court act 2001; UN; EC.
- The Law Commissions of England and Wales
- The draft criminal code
Internal Structure of Offences
- Actus Reus (guilty act) + Mens Rea (guilty mind) - Defence (necessity, reasonability)
- Burden of proof in criminal trials; the legal burden is placed on the prosecution – defendant is
presumed innocent until proven guilty.
- Reverse burdens are controversial, they apply in contexts where the defendant claims insanity or
self-defence.
a. ACTUS REUS
- 3 Elements
o Conduct; Focuses on the external movement or the lack thereof.
o Circumstances: the f acts surrounding circumstances exist which lead to liability.
o Consequences: Where D causes a result see causation below.
- Requirement of voluntariness: an offence must be voluntary in order for a criminal liability imposed.
(Kay v Butterworth)
- Special relations: if a relationship exists between V and D the D will be under a positive duty to act a
certain way.
- Conduct crimes are complete as soon as D performs the certain conduct prescribed to the
circumstances.
- Causation “result crime” which require the D action to culminate in a particular unlawful result.
- Causation at three stages a defendant will only be convicted of a result crime if the prosecution can
establish the following.
o Factual causation: meaning the unlawful result would not have occurred as and when it did
“But For” the actions of D. (R v White)
Test; Accelerating the result, and more than one result
o Legal causation: Ds behaviour was more than minimal cause of the result. (Pagett 1983)
Test: substantial; blameworthy; operative.
o No intervening act: no outside act. (Novus actus intervenes)
Act of a third party; r v Pagett (used V as a shield)
Medical Treatment: r v Jordan (palpably wrong administration of medication)
Act of the victim/ Self negligent: r v Kennedy ( V injects himself and dies)
b. MENS REA
, 3
- Subjective Mens rea: examines what the saw to be the consequences of his actions (intention,
recklessness)
- Objective Mens rea: compares Ds actions with the reasonable person. (negligence)
- Elements requires by the crime.
o Intention: Can only be committed if the defendant performed the actus reus intentionally
o Direct: is found when an individual intends a specific consequence from their actions
o Oblique: refers to an natural consequence of a voluntary act, which they are able to
foresee.
Test Wollin 1999: Consequences must be virtual certain to occur, and the
defendant must appreciate this.
o Intoxication: voluntary intoxication, offences have been loosely categorised into offences
of specific intent and basic intent.
Specific Intent: requires mens rea as intention
Basic Intent: committed within a lesser form of mens rea than intention. A
defendant will have no defence to a basic offence.
o Recklessness: a person who does not intend to cause a harmful result causes a harmful
result by taking an unjustifiable risk.
R v Caldwell [1982], (objective) a person acts reckless as to whether property is
destroyed or damaged where (1) he does an act which creates an obvious risk and
(2) when he does the act he has not given any thought to the possibility of there
being any such risk or recognized there was some risk and nonetheless gone on to
do it.
o Knowledge: involved a person being certain that circumstances exist.
o Belief: requires led certainty that circumstances exist.
o Negligence: a person is negligent when he sees the risk but takes inadequate steps to
avoid the risk. (R v Adomako)
- The principle of coincidence states that the AR and MR must overlap, they must happen at the
same time, without this on criminal offence will be committed.
- The continuing act theory (Fagan v MPC) states that the mens rea does not need to be present
throughout the act but it can start at the beginning (Thabo Meli v r) or at the end (Fagan).
- Single transaction theory (Thabo Meli) states that an act such as a murder has been committed
the courts treat that act as being one transaction.
- The Doctrine of transferred malice states that the mens rea in relation to the intended target
will be transferred to the actual victim. (Latimer 1886)
- Strict liability offences do not require mens rea to be proved in respect of at least one element of
the actus reus.
- Absolute liability offences require’s the prosecution to show that the accused performed the
prohibited act.
- Rule of evidence shows that the Ds foresight of the consequence as virtually certain to occur
would only be one piece of evidence from which the jury can infer that he intended those
consequences.
- Rule of law states that the defendant’s foresight is evidence from which the jury could find that
the defendant has necessary intention.
2. HOMICIDE
is the death of a human being is circumstances attributable to the conduct of 1+ humans
(encompasses both lawful and unlawful acts)
a. MURDER – common law definition of murder.
