Criminal law
Content Page number
Introduction to criminal law 2-3
Omissions 4-6
Causation 7-10
Mens Rea 11-18
NFOAP – Assault and Battery 19-22
Statutory offences 23-27
Unlawful force 28-32
Murder 33-36
Voluntary Manslaughter 37-39
Involuntary Manslaughter 40-46
Insanity 47-52
Several questions… 53-57
Duress by threats 58-62
Necessity 63-66
Theft 67-75
Fraud 76-79
1
,What is a crime?
A crime is a wrong against society – as opposed to a civil wrong
The state decides what amounts to a crime
- Common law offences
- Statutory offences
Classification of offences
- Summary offences (Magistrates courts) – assault, battery etc
- Triable either way (Magistrates or Crown court) – Theft
- Indictable offences (Crown Court) – Murder, manslaughter etc
Terminology
The prosecution – Normally the CPS who prosecute on behalf of the state (R)
The defence – Who represent the defendant
The jury – Sits in the Crown court and decides on the matter of fact (but most the cases we will be dealing
with are appeal cases dealing with a point of law)
The judge – They are concerned with matters of law (how they interpret the law)
Presumption of innocence
It is for the prosecution to prove guilt – it is not for the defendant to prove his/her innocence
Legal burden of proof – beyond reasonable doubt
Woolmington v DPP (1935) All Rep 1 HL – Viscount Sankey LC
- Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of
the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt …. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle
that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no
attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."
- This is because we want to limit the risk of innocent people being wrongfully convicted
- State has the wealth and resources behind it
Legal and evidential burden
Burden of proving the case (charge) and each element of the case lies on the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt
So what does D have to do ? Evidential burden (make the issue ‘live’) (need evidence of defence
Reverse Burdens of proof
There are situations where the defendant may have to establish a defence on a balance of probabilities
- Diminished responsibility defence
- Insanity
Defences only become relevant when the prosecution have already provided evidence that the defendant
have committed elements of the offence – so the burden is passed on
Reverse burdens and Article 6 ECHR
Article 6 protects the right to a fair trial. This includes being innocent until proven guilty
Lambert (2001) 3 All ER 577
- Man was convicted of possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply
- He accepted he was in possession of some sort of drug
- He argued that he had no knowledge that he had a controlled drug
- He appealed his conviction
- The judge had directed the jury that to prove the defence , there was a legal rather than evidential burden
of proof on him
- He argued that he was being asked to prove that he didn’t have knowledge or reason to believe he was in
possession to a legal standard – beyond reasonable doubt
- HOL held that the defendant had to provide evidence of his belief (evidential burden) and not beyond
reasonable doubt
2
,Reform in the Criminal Law
The influences upon change in the law include:
- The law Commission
- Draft Criminal code Bill
- Draft Criminal Law Bill
- Draft Offences Against the Person Bill
Legislation:
- Human Rights Act 1998
- Sexual Offences Act 2003, Coroners and Justice Act 2009
The basic ingredients of criminal liability
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
- “The act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty”
Elements of liability:
- Actus Reus
- Mens Rea
- Absence of a defence
Actus Reus
The “guilty act” – the act itself
All the external elements of the definition of the offence except those that relate to the mental
elements (mens rea)
Definition: The prohibited conduct, circumstance, or result (or a combination of them)
The Actus Reus does not have to be an act; the conduct could be satisfied by an omission
All elements of the Actus Reus must be present
- White (1910) 2 KB 124
- D put poison in his mother’s drink with the intention of killing her
- She took a few sips, went to sleep and never woke up
- Medical reports revealed that she died from a heart attack and not the poison
- The defendant was not liable for her murder of his act of poisoning the milk was not the cause of the
death
- Causation was a necessary element of the actus reus.
Voluntary performance of the Actus Reus
The actus reus must be performed voluntarily
- Your mind must be controlling your body
This may not be the case if D is an automaton (automatism)
- i.e. Attacked by a swarm of bees
3
, Omissions
Omissions liability concerns liability for an offence which is capable of being committed by
an omission and where you are under a duty to act
- It is a failure to act
Offences that can be committed by omission
Murder
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Non-fatal offences (i.e. battery)
Fraud (i.e. failure to disclose)
Actus Reus by omission
Statutory provisions example:
- Failing to provide a breath specimen when required to do so by the police
Common law:
Liability will only arise if the law defines the situation as one where D was obliged to act i.e.
defines it as a duty situation
Liability for failure to act is the exception not the rule (we don’t normally do this in law, we
normally only criminalise acts)
- Done by case by case basis
Common law exceptions
Not generally under a duty to act
- Contract
- Public Office
- Relationship
- Assumption of a duty
- Creation of a dangerous situation
Overlap – for example a police office
You may owe a duty
By virtue of contract
And be in a position of public office
Relationships
Siblings? (possibly)
Marriage? (possibly)
Parent/child - certain
Child/parent?? (possibly)
- Most the time it depends on vulnerability
- Even drug dealers can be liable in some cases
4
Content Page number
Introduction to criminal law 2-3
Omissions 4-6
Causation 7-10
Mens Rea 11-18
NFOAP – Assault and Battery 19-22
Statutory offences 23-27
Unlawful force 28-32
Murder 33-36
Voluntary Manslaughter 37-39
Involuntary Manslaughter 40-46
Insanity 47-52
Several questions… 53-57
Duress by threats 58-62
Necessity 63-66
Theft 67-75
Fraud 76-79
1
,What is a crime?
A crime is a wrong against society – as opposed to a civil wrong
The state decides what amounts to a crime
- Common law offences
- Statutory offences
Classification of offences
- Summary offences (Magistrates courts) – assault, battery etc
- Triable either way (Magistrates or Crown court) – Theft
- Indictable offences (Crown Court) – Murder, manslaughter etc
Terminology
The prosecution – Normally the CPS who prosecute on behalf of the state (R)
The defence – Who represent the defendant
The jury – Sits in the Crown court and decides on the matter of fact (but most the cases we will be dealing
with are appeal cases dealing with a point of law)
The judge – They are concerned with matters of law (how they interpret the law)
Presumption of innocence
It is for the prosecution to prove guilt – it is not for the defendant to prove his/her innocence
Legal burden of proof – beyond reasonable doubt
Woolmington v DPP (1935) All Rep 1 HL – Viscount Sankey LC
- Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of
the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt …. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle
that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no
attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."
- This is because we want to limit the risk of innocent people being wrongfully convicted
- State has the wealth and resources behind it
Legal and evidential burden
Burden of proving the case (charge) and each element of the case lies on the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt
So what does D have to do ? Evidential burden (make the issue ‘live’) (need evidence of defence
Reverse Burdens of proof
There are situations where the defendant may have to establish a defence on a balance of probabilities
- Diminished responsibility defence
- Insanity
Defences only become relevant when the prosecution have already provided evidence that the defendant
have committed elements of the offence – so the burden is passed on
Reverse burdens and Article 6 ECHR
Article 6 protects the right to a fair trial. This includes being innocent until proven guilty
Lambert (2001) 3 All ER 577
- Man was convicted of possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply
- He accepted he was in possession of some sort of drug
- He argued that he had no knowledge that he had a controlled drug
- He appealed his conviction
- The judge had directed the jury that to prove the defence , there was a legal rather than evidential burden
of proof on him
- He argued that he was being asked to prove that he didn’t have knowledge or reason to believe he was in
possession to a legal standard – beyond reasonable doubt
- HOL held that the defendant had to provide evidence of his belief (evidential burden) and not beyond
reasonable doubt
2
,Reform in the Criminal Law
The influences upon change in the law include:
- The law Commission
- Draft Criminal code Bill
- Draft Criminal Law Bill
- Draft Offences Against the Person Bill
Legislation:
- Human Rights Act 1998
- Sexual Offences Act 2003, Coroners and Justice Act 2009
The basic ingredients of criminal liability
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
- “The act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty”
Elements of liability:
- Actus Reus
- Mens Rea
- Absence of a defence
Actus Reus
The “guilty act” – the act itself
All the external elements of the definition of the offence except those that relate to the mental
elements (mens rea)
Definition: The prohibited conduct, circumstance, or result (or a combination of them)
The Actus Reus does not have to be an act; the conduct could be satisfied by an omission
All elements of the Actus Reus must be present
- White (1910) 2 KB 124
- D put poison in his mother’s drink with the intention of killing her
- She took a few sips, went to sleep and never woke up
- Medical reports revealed that she died from a heart attack and not the poison
- The defendant was not liable for her murder of his act of poisoning the milk was not the cause of the
death
- Causation was a necessary element of the actus reus.
Voluntary performance of the Actus Reus
The actus reus must be performed voluntarily
- Your mind must be controlling your body
This may not be the case if D is an automaton (automatism)
- i.e. Attacked by a swarm of bees
3
, Omissions
Omissions liability concerns liability for an offence which is capable of being committed by
an omission and where you are under a duty to act
- It is a failure to act
Offences that can be committed by omission
Murder
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Non-fatal offences (i.e. battery)
Fraud (i.e. failure to disclose)
Actus Reus by omission
Statutory provisions example:
- Failing to provide a breath specimen when required to do so by the police
Common law:
Liability will only arise if the law defines the situation as one where D was obliged to act i.e.
defines it as a duty situation
Liability for failure to act is the exception not the rule (we don’t normally do this in law, we
normally only criminalise acts)
- Done by case by case basis
Common law exceptions
Not generally under a duty to act
- Contract
- Public Office
- Relationship
- Assumption of a duty
- Creation of a dangerous situation
Overlap – for example a police office
You may owe a duty
By virtue of contract
And be in a position of public office
Relationships
Siblings? (possibly)
Marriage? (possibly)
Parent/child - certain
Child/parent?? (possibly)
- Most the time it depends on vulnerability
- Even drug dealers can be liable in some cases
4
