Notes created using ULaw materials for the purpose of assisting existing ULaw GDL students in ULaw GDL exams only. They are
intended to be used as a supplemental tool to aid revision in conjunction with ULaw materials, not as a replacement for them.
1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
BURDEN OF PROOF
= on the prosecution to prove the D’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt: Woolmington
LIABILITY FOR OMISSION (FAILURE TO ACT)
General rule = There is no liability for failure to act
Exception = A person can be liable for failing to act in the following circumstances:
Special relationship Family ties: Gibbons and Proctor, or
Where D has assumed a responsibility/duty to the victim: Stone & Dobinson
Contractual duty Failure to comply with contractual obligations: Pittwood
Statutory duty Eg failure to stop at a red traffic light is a crime
Dangerous situation D created dangerous situation and failed to remove the danger: Miller
MENS REA
1. Intention → Look at intent before recklessness
Direct Intent D’s primary purpose is to bring about a particular consequence or aim: Moloney
Indirect Intent Outcome was not D’s main aim, but an unfortunate by-product of his aim
Test: confirmed by Nedrick and refined by Woollin:
• Was the consequence virtually certain to occur from the D’s act?
AND
• Did the D foresee this consequence as virtually certain to occur?
Ulterior intent Where the D intends to produce a consequence that goes beyond the AR of the crime
No MR needed for strict liability offences eg drink driving
If intent cannot be proved, prosecution will turn to recklessness instead
, 2. Recklessness
= Foreseeing a risk resulting of the behaviour and going on, with that foresight and without justification, to
take that risk ie taking an unjustified risk
Cunningham test: Did the D FORESEE a risk (subjective) AND then go on to TAKE IT?
SPECIFIC AND BASIC INTENT CRIMES
Specific intent = Crimes where intention alone (not recklessness) make out MR eg murder
Basic intent = Crimes where EITHER intention or recklessness make out MR eg criminal damage
COINCIDENCE OF AR AND MR
General rule = AR and MR must coincide in time for a D to be criminally liable
Exception = D may be guilty where AR and MR do not precisely match up in time in cases where the D has
carried out a SERIES OF ACTS and from the outset appears involved in criminal activity: Le Brun
DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED MALICE
If D has malice to commit crime against 1 victim/property, this MR transfers to any unintended victim: Latimer
Eg if you intend to kill person A but accidentally kill person B, the malice transfers
→ principle only works if AR committed is of the same crime type as D originally had in mind: Pembliton
VOLUNTARY ACTS
Conduct of D must be voluntary instead of a reflex action or an act over which one has no control
Liability will only accrue where the conduct is willed
intended to be used as a supplemental tool to aid revision in conjunction with ULaw materials, not as a replacement for them.
1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
BURDEN OF PROOF
= on the prosecution to prove the D’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt: Woolmington
LIABILITY FOR OMISSION (FAILURE TO ACT)
General rule = There is no liability for failure to act
Exception = A person can be liable for failing to act in the following circumstances:
Special relationship Family ties: Gibbons and Proctor, or
Where D has assumed a responsibility/duty to the victim: Stone & Dobinson
Contractual duty Failure to comply with contractual obligations: Pittwood
Statutory duty Eg failure to stop at a red traffic light is a crime
Dangerous situation D created dangerous situation and failed to remove the danger: Miller
MENS REA
1. Intention → Look at intent before recklessness
Direct Intent D’s primary purpose is to bring about a particular consequence or aim: Moloney
Indirect Intent Outcome was not D’s main aim, but an unfortunate by-product of his aim
Test: confirmed by Nedrick and refined by Woollin:
• Was the consequence virtually certain to occur from the D’s act?
AND
• Did the D foresee this consequence as virtually certain to occur?
Ulterior intent Where the D intends to produce a consequence that goes beyond the AR of the crime
No MR needed for strict liability offences eg drink driving
If intent cannot be proved, prosecution will turn to recklessness instead
, 2. Recklessness
= Foreseeing a risk resulting of the behaviour and going on, with that foresight and without justification, to
take that risk ie taking an unjustified risk
Cunningham test: Did the D FORESEE a risk (subjective) AND then go on to TAKE IT?
SPECIFIC AND BASIC INTENT CRIMES
Specific intent = Crimes where intention alone (not recklessness) make out MR eg murder
Basic intent = Crimes where EITHER intention or recklessness make out MR eg criminal damage
COINCIDENCE OF AR AND MR
General rule = AR and MR must coincide in time for a D to be criminally liable
Exception = D may be guilty where AR and MR do not precisely match up in time in cases where the D has
carried out a SERIES OF ACTS and from the outset appears involved in criminal activity: Le Brun
DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED MALICE
If D has malice to commit crime against 1 victim/property, this MR transfers to any unintended victim: Latimer
Eg if you intend to kill person A but accidentally kill person B, the malice transfers
→ principle only works if AR committed is of the same crime type as D originally had in mind: Pembliton
VOLUNTARY ACTS
Conduct of D must be voluntary instead of a reflex action or an act over which one has no control
Liability will only accrue where the conduct is willed
