Criminal Law
The Criminal Justice System
A crime: a public wrong committed against society and deserving of punishment. It is an act that cannot be
compensated with money under civil law.
Criminal proceedings are usually brough by a public official, often the CPS. Charges are laid, and then the
case will proceed to trial if the defendant pleads not guilty. Concluded with a final verdict.
Purposes of criminal sections:
1. To punish offenders
2. To reduce crime (including by deterrence)
3. To reform and rehabilitate offenders
4. To protect the public
5. To enable offenders to make reparation to persons affected by their offences
Reasons for criminalising certain behaviours:
1. To punish wrongdoers
2. Deter people from behaving in unacceptable or dangerous ways
3. To react to public opinion
4. To react to more enlightened public attitudes
Moralist versus Utilitarian approach
Moralist: criminalises conduct that is regarded as morally blameworthy even if no harm has been
caused.
Utilitarian: criminalises conduct that, in addition to being blameworthy, also causes identifiable
harm.
In reality, criminal behaviour will usually be both blameworthy and potentially harmful.
General Rules of Criminal Law
No criminal liability except for conduct specifically prescribed by law.
Offences should not be related to have retrospective effect (can’t be liable for an act yesterday
which has only become a crime today).
No criminal liability unless the defendant is convicted following a proper trial according to the law.
The classification of offences
Criminal offences are divided into 3 categories:
1. Summary only offences.
o E.g., driving without insurance or common assault.
o Minor offences and must be dealt with in the magistrates' court.
2. Indictable only offences
, o E.g., murder or robbery.
o Most serious offences and can be tried only in the Crown Court.
3. Either way offences
o May be dealt with in either court.
o Typically, offences which are capable of being more or less serious depending upon the way in
which they were committed. For example, theft may involve taking a chocolate bar from the local
shop or a sophisticated fraud involving millions of pounds.
Burden and standard of proof
The burden of proof that a defendant is guilty lies with the prosecution. Woolmington v DPP the
prosecution had to prove that the defendant had intended to kill his wife, rather than the defence
needing to prove that her death had been an accident.
o Exceptions – the defendant has to prove their defence if they are claiming insanity or
diminished responsibility.
The standard of proof is extremely high – beyond reasonable doubt.
Some evidential burden will usually be placed on the defendant – they will have to raise some
evidence of a fact in issue. Especially when raising a specific defence e.g., reasonable force in self-
defence.
3 key components required for a conviction:
1. Actus reus
2. Mens Rea
3. Absence of any valid defence
Unit 1: Actus reus and mens rea
,Both actus reus and mens rea must be proved to establish criminal liability.
Actus reus
Actus reus = guilty act
Anything other than the state of mind required of the defendant.
Generally, requires taking some positive action.
Actus reus may require certain circumstances and/or consequences before the offence is
established.
Actus reus will consist of one or more of the following:
a) A positive act (or failure to act in certain circumstances) by the defendant
b) The existence of certain circumstances at the time of the defendant’s conduct
c) The existence of certain consequences flowing from the defendant’s conduct
Discerning the actus reus
Criminal offences are defined by statute or case law. So, for each offence, the actus reus can be
found by going to its definition and picking out all the elements the make the actus reus.
Murder: causing the death of a human being.
Rape: a man has sexual intercourse with a person who does not consent.
Criminal damage: destroying or damaging another person’s property without lawful excuse.
It is essential to check the definition of an offence in order to identify all the elements of actus reus:
1. Conduct Crimes
Requires an act (or an omission to act).
The actus reus is defined so that it requires conduct on the part of the accused.
Perjury is the ‘pure’ conduct crime – it is the defendant’s behaviour itself (wilfully making a
statement under oath which is known to be untrue), rather than the result, that is
criminalised.
2. Result Crimes
Requires that certain circumstances must follow from a defendant’s act before actus reus
can be established. It is not enough that the defendant acted in a certain way.
Causation must be established.
E.g., for the offence of criminal damage, the property must be actually damaged.
Overlap between conduct and result crimes can be significant. E.g., ABH requires conduct
(e.g., a punch) and a result (harm).
3. States of Affairs Crimes
Requires no conduct at all. In rare cases, the defendant does not actually have to do
anything to be convicted.
Actus reus simply satisfied by the existence of a certain set state of affairs, even if the
defendant had no control over the situation.
R v Larsonneur a French citizen unwillingly deported from Ireland to England was convicted
of being found illegally in the UK despite having no choice in the matter.
Justification for such offences is public policy.
Voluntary Acts
Generally, conduct must be voluntary for actus reus to be established.
, If the defendant’s actions were involuntary or the result of a reflex action, they may not be to
blame.
E.g., in Hill v Baxter, the court gave the examples that a person attacked by a swarm of bees whilst
driving could not be charged with the actus reus of the offence of careless driving if they lost
control of their vehicle.
A defendant may be advised to plead the defence of automatism (an act committed during a state
of unconsciousness or grossly impaired consciousness). Defendant must be blameless.
Liability for omissions (failing to act)
Under the law of England and Wales, there is generally no criminal liability for failing to act (no obligation
to intervene to help someone in trouble).
There are a few exceptions, including special relationship, breach of contractual obligation to act, breach
of statutory obligation to act, dangerous situations.
An omission to act cannot constitute an assault or battery.
Special relationships
E.g., Parents.
R v Gibbins and Proctor defendants convicted of murdering a 7-year-old child who died of
starvation. Her father, as a parent, owed a duty of care to his child and failure to feed his daughter
resulting in her death satisfied the actus reus of murder. Live-in partner was also found to have a
duty of care as well.
Voluntary assumption of care
Where a person voluntarily undertakes to care for another who cannot care for themselves,
whether due to infancy, mental illness, or physical disability.
Breach of contractual obligation to act
If a contract of employment specifies certain obligations to act, a failure to comply with these can
lead to criminal liability.
E.g., lifeguard or swimming instructor will be held criminally liable for failing to intervene if a child
in their care drowns.
R v Pittwood a railway worker employed to guard the gate at a level crossing was convicted of
manslaughter when his failure to close to gate on one occasion led to a person being killed by a
train.
Breach of statutory obligation to act
People will be held criminally liable for failing to stop at a red light and causing a road accident, or
for failing to pull over after an accident.
Dangerous situation
If a defendant does something that endangers the victim and they are aware of it, they are under a
duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm from occurring.
R v Miller the defendant was convicted of criminal damage after choosing to fall back to sleep and
ignore his lighted cigarette which had fallen on to the mattress. Judges stated that the defendant
had created a dangerous situation by smoking in bed and having realised this, he was under a duty
to take steps to prevent further damages.
Causation
The prosecution must prove that the act actually caused the outcome.
The Criminal Justice System
A crime: a public wrong committed against society and deserving of punishment. It is an act that cannot be
compensated with money under civil law.
Criminal proceedings are usually brough by a public official, often the CPS. Charges are laid, and then the
case will proceed to trial if the defendant pleads not guilty. Concluded with a final verdict.
Purposes of criminal sections:
1. To punish offenders
2. To reduce crime (including by deterrence)
3. To reform and rehabilitate offenders
4. To protect the public
5. To enable offenders to make reparation to persons affected by their offences
Reasons for criminalising certain behaviours:
1. To punish wrongdoers
2. Deter people from behaving in unacceptable or dangerous ways
3. To react to public opinion
4. To react to more enlightened public attitudes
Moralist versus Utilitarian approach
Moralist: criminalises conduct that is regarded as morally blameworthy even if no harm has been
caused.
Utilitarian: criminalises conduct that, in addition to being blameworthy, also causes identifiable
harm.
In reality, criminal behaviour will usually be both blameworthy and potentially harmful.
General Rules of Criminal Law
No criminal liability except for conduct specifically prescribed by law.
Offences should not be related to have retrospective effect (can’t be liable for an act yesterday
which has only become a crime today).
No criminal liability unless the defendant is convicted following a proper trial according to the law.
The classification of offences
Criminal offences are divided into 3 categories:
1. Summary only offences.
o E.g., driving without insurance or common assault.
o Minor offences and must be dealt with in the magistrates' court.
2. Indictable only offences
, o E.g., murder or robbery.
o Most serious offences and can be tried only in the Crown Court.
3. Either way offences
o May be dealt with in either court.
o Typically, offences which are capable of being more or less serious depending upon the way in
which they were committed. For example, theft may involve taking a chocolate bar from the local
shop or a sophisticated fraud involving millions of pounds.
Burden and standard of proof
The burden of proof that a defendant is guilty lies with the prosecution. Woolmington v DPP the
prosecution had to prove that the defendant had intended to kill his wife, rather than the defence
needing to prove that her death had been an accident.
o Exceptions – the defendant has to prove their defence if they are claiming insanity or
diminished responsibility.
The standard of proof is extremely high – beyond reasonable doubt.
Some evidential burden will usually be placed on the defendant – they will have to raise some
evidence of a fact in issue. Especially when raising a specific defence e.g., reasonable force in self-
defence.
3 key components required for a conviction:
1. Actus reus
2. Mens Rea
3. Absence of any valid defence
Unit 1: Actus reus and mens rea
,Both actus reus and mens rea must be proved to establish criminal liability.
Actus reus
Actus reus = guilty act
Anything other than the state of mind required of the defendant.
Generally, requires taking some positive action.
Actus reus may require certain circumstances and/or consequences before the offence is
established.
Actus reus will consist of one or more of the following:
a) A positive act (or failure to act in certain circumstances) by the defendant
b) The existence of certain circumstances at the time of the defendant’s conduct
c) The existence of certain consequences flowing from the defendant’s conduct
Discerning the actus reus
Criminal offences are defined by statute or case law. So, for each offence, the actus reus can be
found by going to its definition and picking out all the elements the make the actus reus.
Murder: causing the death of a human being.
Rape: a man has sexual intercourse with a person who does not consent.
Criminal damage: destroying or damaging another person’s property without lawful excuse.
It is essential to check the definition of an offence in order to identify all the elements of actus reus:
1. Conduct Crimes
Requires an act (or an omission to act).
The actus reus is defined so that it requires conduct on the part of the accused.
Perjury is the ‘pure’ conduct crime – it is the defendant’s behaviour itself (wilfully making a
statement under oath which is known to be untrue), rather than the result, that is
criminalised.
2. Result Crimes
Requires that certain circumstances must follow from a defendant’s act before actus reus
can be established. It is not enough that the defendant acted in a certain way.
Causation must be established.
E.g., for the offence of criminal damage, the property must be actually damaged.
Overlap between conduct and result crimes can be significant. E.g., ABH requires conduct
(e.g., a punch) and a result (harm).
3. States of Affairs Crimes
Requires no conduct at all. In rare cases, the defendant does not actually have to do
anything to be convicted.
Actus reus simply satisfied by the existence of a certain set state of affairs, even if the
defendant had no control over the situation.
R v Larsonneur a French citizen unwillingly deported from Ireland to England was convicted
of being found illegally in the UK despite having no choice in the matter.
Justification for such offences is public policy.
Voluntary Acts
Generally, conduct must be voluntary for actus reus to be established.
, If the defendant’s actions were involuntary or the result of a reflex action, they may not be to
blame.
E.g., in Hill v Baxter, the court gave the examples that a person attacked by a swarm of bees whilst
driving could not be charged with the actus reus of the offence of careless driving if they lost
control of their vehicle.
A defendant may be advised to plead the defence of automatism (an act committed during a state
of unconsciousness or grossly impaired consciousness). Defendant must be blameless.
Liability for omissions (failing to act)
Under the law of England and Wales, there is generally no criminal liability for failing to act (no obligation
to intervene to help someone in trouble).
There are a few exceptions, including special relationship, breach of contractual obligation to act, breach
of statutory obligation to act, dangerous situations.
An omission to act cannot constitute an assault or battery.
Special relationships
E.g., Parents.
R v Gibbins and Proctor defendants convicted of murdering a 7-year-old child who died of
starvation. Her father, as a parent, owed a duty of care to his child and failure to feed his daughter
resulting in her death satisfied the actus reus of murder. Live-in partner was also found to have a
duty of care as well.
Voluntary assumption of care
Where a person voluntarily undertakes to care for another who cannot care for themselves,
whether due to infancy, mental illness, or physical disability.
Breach of contractual obligation to act
If a contract of employment specifies certain obligations to act, a failure to comply with these can
lead to criminal liability.
E.g., lifeguard or swimming instructor will be held criminally liable for failing to intervene if a child
in their care drowns.
R v Pittwood a railway worker employed to guard the gate at a level crossing was convicted of
manslaughter when his failure to close to gate on one occasion led to a person being killed by a
train.
Breach of statutory obligation to act
People will be held criminally liable for failing to stop at a red light and causing a road accident, or
for failing to pull over after an accident.
Dangerous situation
If a defendant does something that endangers the victim and they are aware of it, they are under a
duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm from occurring.
R v Miller the defendant was convicted of criminal damage after choosing to fall back to sleep and
ignore his lighted cigarette which had fallen on to the mattress. Judges stated that the defendant
had created a dangerous situation by smoking in bed and having realised this, he was under a duty
to take steps to prevent further damages.
Causation
The prosecution must prove that the act actually caused the outcome.
