UK Criminal Law Exam with Accurate
Solutions
Reverse proof burden: - ANS-Only for insanity and diminished responsibility
How is guilt proved? - ANS-Mens rea can be proved because the fact-finder (usually the
jury for our purposes) infers it from what D did or did not do. Section 8 Criminal Justice
Act 1967 - A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence
shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the
evidence, draw ing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the
circumstances.
Lambert [2002] 2 AC 545 D - ANS-appealed against his conviction for possession of a
class A drug with intent to supply. He had been found in possession of a bag containing
a drug but said he neither knew, nor suspected, nor had reason to suspect the nature of
the contents of the bag. The question on appeal was whether he had to prove his lack
of knowledge of the contents, or if the prosecution had to prove he did know. The
section in issue was s 28 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Section 28, insofar as it contained
an express reverse proof burden, should be 'read down' as imposing an evidential
burden only on the accused (note: this is in fact obiter as the majority of the House held
that Human Rights Act 1998 did not have retrospective application).
Sheldrake v DPP - ANS-D was convicted of drink-driving. He appealed on the ground
that the defence, which cast upon the defendant the burden of proving that there was no
likelihood of his driving the vehicle while over the limit, violated his right to a fair trial
under Article 6. House of Lords held that the allocation of a proof burden to the accused
did not violate Article 6. It was directed to a legitimate objective (the prevention of death,
injury, and damage caused by unfit drivers); and the likelihood of the defendant driving
was a matter so closely conditioned by his own knowledge as to make it much more
appropriate for him to prove on a balance of probabilities that he would not have been
likely to drive.
Woolmington [1935] AC 462 - ANS-D was charged with murder. The trial judge directed
the jury that once the prosecution had proved a person had died at D's hands; it was for
D to prove it was not murder. Viscount Sankey held that the burden of proof lies on the
prosecution, and that includes proof of each element of the crime, and the elements of
any defence, other than the defence of insanity and other 'statutory provisions'. "Golden
thread" case.
Definitional elements of gross negligence manslaughter - ANS-In Adomako [1994], Lord
Mackay, the then Lord Chancellor, stated we can therefore conclude that the elements
,of the offence are: 1.a duty of care exists between D and V; 2. which is breached; 3.
breach involves a risk of death; 4. which caused V to die; and 5. the jury finds the
breach serious enough to be a crime.
Definitional elements of criminal damage - ANS-s 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971: without
lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending or
being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged.
Actus nonfacit reum nisi mens sit rea - - ANS-'the act is not guilty unless the mind is
guilty'.
Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37 - ANS-D worked as a level crossing operator. He forgot to
close the gate and V was killed by a train. D's contractual duties were used to find a
duty because his breach of contract endangered the public. Liability for failing to act
under the common law, Duties may arise in situations of Contract, but rarely in criminal
law.
Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134 - ANS-Acts and omissions D (V's father)
and D2 (V's stepmother) deliberately failed to feed V, who died. D and D2 were both
convicted of murder. D owed V a duty as parent, but D2 also owed a duty as she had
assumed de facto (meaning in reality or as good as) parental responsibility. If D is under
a legal responsibility to care for V, and D deliberately fails to feed V, and V dies, that is
murder by omission
Khan and Khan [1998] Crim LR 830 - ANS-The Court of Appeal allowed Ds' appeals
against convictions for manslaughter. They were drug dealers and had not summoned
assistance for V, a drug user, when she had fallen into a coma. The Court of Appeal
said that to impose a duty in such circumstances would add to the categories of
recognised duties of care.
Ruffell [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 53 - ANS-D and V had each self-injected with drugs.
When V showed signs of overdose, D first tried to revive him and then left V outside his
house. D telephoned V's mother asking her to collect her son. V later died of
hypothermia and opiate intoxication. D owed V a duty of care; he had assumed the duty
when he tried to revive him, and breached it when he left him outside in the cold.
Evans [2009] 1 WLR 1999 - ANS-D gave her sister heroin. The sister self-administered
it. The Court of Appeal held that a duty arose when D realised her sister had overdosed
and did not summon medical help. Lord Judge CJ held: when a person has created or
contributed to the creation of a state of affairs which he knows, or ought reasonably to
know, has become life threatening, a consequent duty on him to act by taking
reasonable steps to save the other's life will normally arise.
Miller [1983] 1 All ER 978 - ANS-D, a squatter, fell asleep smoking a cigarette. When he
woke up, he realised a fire had started, but did not extinguish it or summon help. The
House of Lords held that even where the original conduct was inadvertent, when D
, subsequently became aware of the danger he had caused, he was under a duty to
prevent or reduce the risk by his own efforts, or if necessary by summoning the fire
brigade.
DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2004] Crim LR 471 - ANS-Battery by omission This case
extended the Miller principle to include the situation where the original conduct was
advertent and there was a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury to another. D failed to
inform a uniformed officer searching D's pockets that there were exposed hypodermic
syringes in those pockets.
Dytham (1979) 69 Cr App R 387 - ANS-Public office A uniformed police officer stood
and watched a man being beaten and kicked to death in the gutter from only 30 yards
away. The officer made no move to intervene or summon assistance. He was convicted
of the common law offence of misconduct of an officer.
Causation steps - ANS-1. chain of causation between act and result; 2. factual chain
must also exist in law; 3.not broken by an intervention.
White [1910] 2 KB 124 - ANS-D had put cyanide in his mother's drink, but she died of
unrelated heart failure and no cyanide was found in her body. D had not caused her
death, so he could not be convicted of murder. Fails "but for" test
Kimsey [1996] Crim LR 35 - ANS-D was charged with causing death by dangerous
driving. He and V had been racing each other in their cars at very high speed. Their
cars collided and V's car spun out of control and was hit by an oncoming car. The Court
of Appeal upheld the judge's direction that the jury could find D had caused V's death
even if they were not sure that D's driving 'was the principal, or a substantial, cause of
the death, as long as you are sure that it was a cause and that there was something
more than a slight or a trifling link'.
Breaking the chain of causation - ANS-Intervention (novus actus interveniens, or new
intervening act). Natural event not reasonably forseeable breaks chain; Victim's acts
unreasonable or unforseeable breaks chain; Third party acts that is free and deliberate
breaks the chain
Kennedy [2008] 1 AC 269 - ANS-At the victim's request, D prepared a syringe of heroin
and gave it to V. V self-injected. V died. The House of Lords allowed D's appeal, holding
that where a defendant has been involved in the sup ply of a class A drug, which is then
freely and voluntarily self-administered by the person to whom it was supplied, and the
administration of the drug then causes his death, D has not caused the death where V
is a fully-informed and responsible adult.
Smith [1959] - ANS-Although V's death only occurred after he had suffered a series of
unfortunate events (including being dropped and being given the wrong medical
treatment), the stabbing by D was an 'operating and substantial cause' of V's death.
Solutions
Reverse proof burden: - ANS-Only for insanity and diminished responsibility
How is guilt proved? - ANS-Mens rea can be proved because the fact-finder (usually the
jury for our purposes) infers it from what D did or did not do. Section 8 Criminal Justice
Act 1967 - A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence
shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the
evidence, draw ing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the
circumstances.
Lambert [2002] 2 AC 545 D - ANS-appealed against his conviction for possession of a
class A drug with intent to supply. He had been found in possession of a bag containing
a drug but said he neither knew, nor suspected, nor had reason to suspect the nature of
the contents of the bag. The question on appeal was whether he had to prove his lack
of knowledge of the contents, or if the prosecution had to prove he did know. The
section in issue was s 28 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Section 28, insofar as it contained
an express reverse proof burden, should be 'read down' as imposing an evidential
burden only on the accused (note: this is in fact obiter as the majority of the House held
that Human Rights Act 1998 did not have retrospective application).
Sheldrake v DPP - ANS-D was convicted of drink-driving. He appealed on the ground
that the defence, which cast upon the defendant the burden of proving that there was no
likelihood of his driving the vehicle while over the limit, violated his right to a fair trial
under Article 6. House of Lords held that the allocation of a proof burden to the accused
did not violate Article 6. It was directed to a legitimate objective (the prevention of death,
injury, and damage caused by unfit drivers); and the likelihood of the defendant driving
was a matter so closely conditioned by his own knowledge as to make it much more
appropriate for him to prove on a balance of probabilities that he would not have been
likely to drive.
Woolmington [1935] AC 462 - ANS-D was charged with murder. The trial judge directed
the jury that once the prosecution had proved a person had died at D's hands; it was for
D to prove it was not murder. Viscount Sankey held that the burden of proof lies on the
prosecution, and that includes proof of each element of the crime, and the elements of
any defence, other than the defence of insanity and other 'statutory provisions'. "Golden
thread" case.
Definitional elements of gross negligence manslaughter - ANS-In Adomako [1994], Lord
Mackay, the then Lord Chancellor, stated we can therefore conclude that the elements
,of the offence are: 1.a duty of care exists between D and V; 2. which is breached; 3.
breach involves a risk of death; 4. which caused V to die; and 5. the jury finds the
breach serious enough to be a crime.
Definitional elements of criminal damage - ANS-s 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971: without
lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending or
being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged.
Actus nonfacit reum nisi mens sit rea - - ANS-'the act is not guilty unless the mind is
guilty'.
Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37 - ANS-D worked as a level crossing operator. He forgot to
close the gate and V was killed by a train. D's contractual duties were used to find a
duty because his breach of contract endangered the public. Liability for failing to act
under the common law, Duties may arise in situations of Contract, but rarely in criminal
law.
Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134 - ANS-Acts and omissions D (V's father)
and D2 (V's stepmother) deliberately failed to feed V, who died. D and D2 were both
convicted of murder. D owed V a duty as parent, but D2 also owed a duty as she had
assumed de facto (meaning in reality or as good as) parental responsibility. If D is under
a legal responsibility to care for V, and D deliberately fails to feed V, and V dies, that is
murder by omission
Khan and Khan [1998] Crim LR 830 - ANS-The Court of Appeal allowed Ds' appeals
against convictions for manslaughter. They were drug dealers and had not summoned
assistance for V, a drug user, when she had fallen into a coma. The Court of Appeal
said that to impose a duty in such circumstances would add to the categories of
recognised duties of care.
Ruffell [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 53 - ANS-D and V had each self-injected with drugs.
When V showed signs of overdose, D first tried to revive him and then left V outside his
house. D telephoned V's mother asking her to collect her son. V later died of
hypothermia and opiate intoxication. D owed V a duty of care; he had assumed the duty
when he tried to revive him, and breached it when he left him outside in the cold.
Evans [2009] 1 WLR 1999 - ANS-D gave her sister heroin. The sister self-administered
it. The Court of Appeal held that a duty arose when D realised her sister had overdosed
and did not summon medical help. Lord Judge CJ held: when a person has created or
contributed to the creation of a state of affairs which he knows, or ought reasonably to
know, has become life threatening, a consequent duty on him to act by taking
reasonable steps to save the other's life will normally arise.
Miller [1983] 1 All ER 978 - ANS-D, a squatter, fell asleep smoking a cigarette. When he
woke up, he realised a fire had started, but did not extinguish it or summon help. The
House of Lords held that even where the original conduct was inadvertent, when D
, subsequently became aware of the danger he had caused, he was under a duty to
prevent or reduce the risk by his own efforts, or if necessary by summoning the fire
brigade.
DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2004] Crim LR 471 - ANS-Battery by omission This case
extended the Miller principle to include the situation where the original conduct was
advertent and there was a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury to another. D failed to
inform a uniformed officer searching D's pockets that there were exposed hypodermic
syringes in those pockets.
Dytham (1979) 69 Cr App R 387 - ANS-Public office A uniformed police officer stood
and watched a man being beaten and kicked to death in the gutter from only 30 yards
away. The officer made no move to intervene or summon assistance. He was convicted
of the common law offence of misconduct of an officer.
Causation steps - ANS-1. chain of causation between act and result; 2. factual chain
must also exist in law; 3.not broken by an intervention.
White [1910] 2 KB 124 - ANS-D had put cyanide in his mother's drink, but she died of
unrelated heart failure and no cyanide was found in her body. D had not caused her
death, so he could not be convicted of murder. Fails "but for" test
Kimsey [1996] Crim LR 35 - ANS-D was charged with causing death by dangerous
driving. He and V had been racing each other in their cars at very high speed. Their
cars collided and V's car spun out of control and was hit by an oncoming car. The Court
of Appeal upheld the judge's direction that the jury could find D had caused V's death
even if they were not sure that D's driving 'was the principal, or a substantial, cause of
the death, as long as you are sure that it was a cause and that there was something
more than a slight or a trifling link'.
Breaking the chain of causation - ANS-Intervention (novus actus interveniens, or new
intervening act). Natural event not reasonably forseeable breaks chain; Victim's acts
unreasonable or unforseeable breaks chain; Third party acts that is free and deliberate
breaks the chain
Kennedy [2008] 1 AC 269 - ANS-At the victim's request, D prepared a syringe of heroin
and gave it to V. V self-injected. V died. The House of Lords allowed D's appeal, holding
that where a defendant has been involved in the sup ply of a class A drug, which is then
freely and voluntarily self-administered by the person to whom it was supplied, and the
administration of the drug then causes his death, D has not caused the death where V
is a fully-informed and responsible adult.
Smith [1959] - ANS-Although V's death only occurred after he had suffered a series of
unfortunate events (including being dropped and being given the wrong medical
treatment), the stabbing by D was an 'operating and substantial cause' of V's death.
