CRIMINAL
LAW
NOTES
, Basic elements
What makes the law the law?
Common law – Law that comes from cases and judges, not found in statute
Burden of proof – For the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty
Standard of proof – For the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt
Reverse onus – Where the burden of proof is shifted onto the defendant
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------Criminal liability:
- Specific intent – usually where the mens rea is intention only e.g.
murder or s18 GBH
- Basic intent – usually where the mens rea can include recklessness
e.g. involuntary manslaughter s20 GBH or s47 ABH
- Transferred malice – (R v Gnango) when the malice of one crime can
be applied to another, if you intended to kill one person and you killed
the other, then you’re guilty for the unintended crime
- Coincidence rule – when the actus reus and mens rea must happen
at the same time, so they have the guilty mind while committing the
guilty act (exceptions are a continuing act and single transaction)
- Continuing act – (R v Fagan) when the actus reus continued through
a chain of events
- Single transaction – (Thabo Meli) a series of connected events can
be seen as a single transaction (one event) for the purpose of
coincidence
, Actus reus and mens rea
The elements that make up a crime – resulting in criminal liability
Actus Reus – the prohibited (guilty) act that the defendant commits
This can be a positive act or an omission that the defendant committed
voluntarily
There are conduct crimes, in which the conduct itself is the crime
There are also result crimes, in which the certain outcome is the
crime e.g. a person dying (for murder)
Omission - the failure to act in a situation where you’re obligated to, there
are certain situations in which an omission may form the actus reus:
Contractual duty - (R v Adomako) a contract specifies a duty to act,
and the defendant fails to do so
Special relationship - (R v Gibbins & Proctor) If a parent/carer/ someone
with a special relationship fails to provide the person in their care with
adequate care, harming them
Assumed responsibility - (R v Instan) When a person assumes
responsibility over a person and causes them harm
Contribution to a dangerous situation - (R v Evans) When a person
creates a dangerous situation and does nothing to mitigate it
Public duty - (R v Dytham) A police officer has a public duty to all of
society due to their position, failure to act is an omission
Combination of factors - (R v Willoughby) Can be an omission if there’s
a combination of factors
Mens Rea – The mental element of a crime (the guilty mind)
Indirect/oblique intent – (R v Woolin) Where death or serious injury
may have been a virtual certainty (objective) but the defendant
realised this risk and took it anyway (subjective)
Direct intent – (R v Mohan) Where the defendant directly intends to
cause a criminal consequence
Recklessness – (R v Cunningham) the defendant took an unjustifiable
risk, while realising that it was bad
LAW
NOTES
, Basic elements
What makes the law the law?
Common law – Law that comes from cases and judges, not found in statute
Burden of proof – For the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty
Standard of proof – For the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt
Reverse onus – Where the burden of proof is shifted onto the defendant
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------Criminal liability:
- Specific intent – usually where the mens rea is intention only e.g.
murder or s18 GBH
- Basic intent – usually where the mens rea can include recklessness
e.g. involuntary manslaughter s20 GBH or s47 ABH
- Transferred malice – (R v Gnango) when the malice of one crime can
be applied to another, if you intended to kill one person and you killed
the other, then you’re guilty for the unintended crime
- Coincidence rule – when the actus reus and mens rea must happen
at the same time, so they have the guilty mind while committing the
guilty act (exceptions are a continuing act and single transaction)
- Continuing act – (R v Fagan) when the actus reus continued through
a chain of events
- Single transaction – (Thabo Meli) a series of connected events can
be seen as a single transaction (one event) for the purpose of
coincidence
, Actus reus and mens rea
The elements that make up a crime – resulting in criminal liability
Actus Reus – the prohibited (guilty) act that the defendant commits
This can be a positive act or an omission that the defendant committed
voluntarily
There are conduct crimes, in which the conduct itself is the crime
There are also result crimes, in which the certain outcome is the
crime e.g. a person dying (for murder)
Omission - the failure to act in a situation where you’re obligated to, there
are certain situations in which an omission may form the actus reus:
Contractual duty - (R v Adomako) a contract specifies a duty to act,
and the defendant fails to do so
Special relationship - (R v Gibbins & Proctor) If a parent/carer/ someone
with a special relationship fails to provide the person in their care with
adequate care, harming them
Assumed responsibility - (R v Instan) When a person assumes
responsibility over a person and causes them harm
Contribution to a dangerous situation - (R v Evans) When a person
creates a dangerous situation and does nothing to mitigate it
Public duty - (R v Dytham) A police officer has a public duty to all of
society due to their position, failure to act is an omission
Combination of factors - (R v Willoughby) Can be an omission if there’s
a combination of factors
Mens Rea – The mental element of a crime (the guilty mind)
Indirect/oblique intent – (R v Woolin) Where death or serious injury
may have been a virtual certainty (objective) but the defendant
realised this risk and took it anyway (subjective)
Direct intent – (R v Mohan) Where the defendant directly intends to
cause a criminal consequence
Recklessness – (R v Cunningham) the defendant took an unjustifiable
risk, while realising that it was bad
