Summary PGDL/SQE Criminal Law Notes

UNIT 1: ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA

🟦 1. Rule of Law
 Ambiguities interpreted in favour of the defendant
 No criminal liability unless law specifically defines conduct
 No retrospective offences
 No criminal liability without proper trial & legal conviction

🟦 2. Classification of Offences (s17 MCA 1980)
2.1 Summary Only Offences
 Tried in magistrates’ court only
 Heard by lay magistrates or a district judge
 Cheaper, quicker than Crown Court
 Examples:
o Driving under influence
o Common assault
o Careless driving
o Joyriding
o Criminal damage under £5,000
2.2 Either-Way Offences
 Tried in either magistrates’ or Crown Court
 Magistrates assess suitability and sentencing power
 Defendant can choose Crown Court trial
 Examples:
o Theft
o Burglary
o Dangerous driving
o ABH-type assault
 Crown Court: Judge = law, Jury = facts
2.3 Indictable Only Offences
 Tried only in Crown Court
 Examples:
o Murder
o Rape
o Robbery

🟦 3. Burden & Standard of Proof
 Prosecution bears burden (Woolmington v DPP)
 Standard: Beyond reasonable doubt
 Defence: Balance of probabilities, evidential burden
 Can challenge legal burdens on defence (e.g. R v Lambert, HRA 1998, Art. 6-
right to a fair trial)

🟦 4. Key Components of a Criminal Offence
 Actus reus + Mens rea + No valid defence
4.1 Actus Reus Includes:
 An act or omission
 Circumstances
 Consequences
4.2 Types of Crimes:
 Conduct crimes: Act + circumstance (e.g. rape)
 Result crimes: Act + result (e.g. murder)
4.3 States of Affairs:
 Can impose liability even without voluntary act

, o R v Larsonneur – absolute liability

🟦 5. Liability for Omissions (Exceptions)
General Rule: No liability for failing to act
Exceptions:
5.1 Special Relationships
 R v Gibbins & Proctor: Parent/assumed duty = liable
 R v Stone & Dobinson: Ineffectual help = liability
 R v Ruffell: Duty to friend assumed = manslaughter
 R v Smith: Released from duty if victim refuses care
 Airedale NHS Trust v Bland:
o Doctors may stop treatment with court approval
o Cannot actively end life
5.2 Contractual Duty
 R v Pittwood: Gatekeeper failed contractual duty
 Applies to: Doctors, lifeguards, emergency staff
5.3 Statutory Duty
 E.g.:
o Failing to stop at red light
o Failing to report accident (RTA 1988, s170)
o Refusing breath specimen
5.4 Creating a Dangerous Situation
 R v Miller: Duty to rectify self-created danger

6. Voluntary Acts
 D’s conduct must be voluntary (Hill v Baxter).
 If D claims it was involuntary, consider automatism defence.

7. Mens Rea
 D must have intended or been reckless about the result or circumstances.
7.1 Direct Intent
 Aim, purpose or desire.
 Motive is irrelevant to criminal liabiltiy(e.g., mercy killing).
7.2 Indirect/Oblique Intent (R v Woollin)
1. Was consequence virtually certain?
2. Did D foresee that?
 Criminal Justice Act 1967 s8: Test is subjective foresight, but jury can use
reasonable foresight as an indicator.
7.3 Types of Intent
 Ulterior intent: Extra MR needed (e.g., burglary, s18 OAPA).
 Specific intent: Only intention suffices (e.g., murder, theft).
 Basic intent: Intention or recklessness suffices (e.g., assault).

8. Recklessness (Subjective Test)
 (1) D foresaw a risk, and (2) unjustifiably took it (R v Cunningham).
 Malice = intention or recklessness.
8.1 Justification of Risk
 Assessed by reasonable person standard.
 Social utility of act considered.
8.2 Subjective Recklessness
 D must actually foresee the risk (R v Cunningham, R v Stephenson).
 Stephenson: Schizophrenia meant he didn’t foresee risk → not reckless.

9. Transferred Malice

,  MR (intention/recklessness) can be transferred to unintended victim (R v
Latimer).
 Only applies if same type of crime (R v Pembliton).

10. Negligence
 Criminal liability if D falls below standard of reasonable person.
 Objective standard (McCrone v Riding).

11. Strict Liability Offences
 Mostly from statutes (e.g., health & safety, road traffic).
 If statute is silent, courts presume mens rea is required (Sweet v Parsley).
Sweet v Parsley Key Points
1. Clear wording → follow it.
2. Silence → presume mens rea required.
3. Can rebut presumption with good reason.
4. Other sections not needing MR ≠ conclusive.
5. Courts can look outside statute for intent.
6. Quasi-criminal acts → strict liability more likely.
7. Truly criminal acts → higher threshold.
 R v Brown (Richard): Mens rea presumption is constitutional; only displaced
by clear or necessary implication.

12. Coincidence of AR & MR
 AR and MR must coincide in time.
Key Cases
 Thabo-Meli v R: One series of acts = coincidence.
 R v Le Brun: Extends rule to continuous events, no need for pre-plan.

13. Ignorance of the Law
 No defence. Not knowing the act is criminal ≠ excuse.

14. Mistake of Fact
 No standalone defence, but can negate MR.
 Genuine mistake (even unreasonable) may suffice.
 But the more unreasonable, the less believable.


UNIT 2: ASSAULTS
1. Simple Assault
Definition:
An act which intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate
unlawful personal force (Fagan v MPC).
Actus Reus:
 Apprehend: No need for fear, only that the victim believes they’re about to be
touched.
 Force: No actual touching needed.
 Words/Silence: Can be enough (R v Ireland).
 Immediate: Must fear force could happen right away (R v Burstow, Read v
Coker).
Mens Rea:
 Intent or recklessness to cause apprehension (R v Venna, R v Spratt).
 Subjective recklessness test.