In-depth and comprehensive Criminal law notes covering the first term module's workshops, lectures and i-tutorials (ULaw). Enabled me to achieve a distinction for the module (76%) and a distinction overall (75%).
Please note that as statute and regulation is updated, these notes may need updatin...
Civil Matters: Court proceedings brought by the victim (‘claimant’), who can discontinue
matters at any time. Financial sanctions usually imposed to compensate the victim.
Criminal Matters: Court proceedings brought by a public official. Cases can proceed to trial
even if the victim does not want to take it any further. Criminal sanctions are designed to
punish, reduce crime, protect the public etc.
Two Principles – The Rule of Law:
- Conduct specifically prescribed by law
- Must be a proper trial
Criminalising Behaviour:
- Moralist Approach: Seeks to criminalise conduct which is regarded as morally
blameworthy, even if no harm is caused.
- Utilitarian Approach: Seeks to criminalise conduct which, in addition to being
blameworthy, also causes identifiable harm.
AMBIGUITY SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT
Classification of Offences:
- Summary Only Offences: Regarded as ‘less serious’ crimes and have to be tried in
Magistrates’ court.
- Either-Way Offences: Middle of the range offences, which could be tried in
Magistrates Court, or the Crown Court (includes theft, dangerous driving, certain
types of assault). Depends on whether Magistrates’ Court is prepared to deal with
the case. Maximum sentence from Magistrates is 6 months.
- Indictable Only Offences: Most serious crimes (e.g. murder, rape and robbery).
Crown Court only.
The burden of proof in a criminal case lies with the prosecution (some situations, the
defence has to prove a defence).
Standard of Proof: Beyond reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty.
Defendant has evidential burden – Defence must raise some evidence of a fact in issue to
convince the court that the matter deserves consideration (prosecution must then
disprove).
,Crown cannot appeal against a jury’s verdict of not guilty, but the Attorney General can
make a reference to the Court of Appeal to settle a point of law for the future. High court
can reverse magistrates’ decision if appealed by prosecution on a point of law.
Criminal Cases Review Commission: Enquire into, and refer cases to Court of Appeal, when
defendants normal avenues of appeal have been exhausted.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ACTUS REUS:
3 components for securing criminal conviction:
- Guilty conduct by defendant (ACTUS REUS)
- Guilty state of mind by defendant (MENS REA)
- Absence of any valid evidence
Components of ACTUS REUS (one or more):
- An act (sometimes failure to act) by the defendant
- Existence of certain circumstances at time of defendant’s conduct
- Certain consequences flowing from defendant’s conduct
Conduct Crime: Defendant has to behave in a certain way, and certain circumstances need
to exist before actus reus is established.
Result Crime: Not enough that the defendant acts in a particular way; certain consequences
must follow from that behaviour before actus reus established.
Liability for Omissions: Liability due to failing to act (e.g. not stopping at a red light). In
England and Wales there is no general duty recognised by criminal law to intervene and help
someone in trouble. Exceptions to general principle of no liability for failure to act:
- Special Relationships: Family ties, or defendant has assumed duty towards victim.
R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134: Defendants charged with murder of 7 year
old child. Child had died of starvation. First defendant (Gibbins), child’s father guilty of
murder. Second defendant (Proctor), not mother, guilty of murder for lack of a duty of care
– woman lived with the father and received house-keeping money from him.
R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354: Defendants guilty of murder of anorexic child after
agreeing to look after Mr. Stones’ sister and she died. Court ruled guilty of manslaughter,
due to failure to act, with reasoning of special relationship of ‘blood relative,’ and ineffectual
steps to aid her.
Law is still not clear as to the exact nature of ‘special relationship’ except where that
relationship is that of a parent.
- A Contractual Duty to Act (Pittwood)
- A Statutory Duty to Act
- Creating a Dangerous Situation e.g. R v Miller [1983] 1 All ER 978, squatter dropped
cigarette on mattress and ignored. House caught fire – guilty of criminal damage.
, Voluntary Acts: Act must be voluntary for actus reus to apply.
MENS REA:
Guilty mind – Mental element that has to be established to secure criminal conviction. Most
cases need to show intention or recklessness, but sometimes not what the mindset was but
what it should have been.
Mens Rea is often gleaned from the formal definition of the offence.
Intention:
- Direct Intent – Having an aim.
- Indirect/Oblique Intent – Not the main aim but an unfortunate by-product of aim.
If indirect intent can be relevant, the jury must consider;
- Was the consequence virtually certain to occur from defendant’s act?
- If so, did the defendant foresee the consequences of virtually certain to occur?
Leading Authority: Lord Steyn in R v Woollin [1999] – Use of the Nedrick Test
R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025 (CA): Court of Appeal suggested the following should be
posed to the jury;
- Did the jury consider that death or serious injury was virtually certain to occur as a
consequence of the defendant’s action?
- If so, did the jury believe that the defendant foresaw death or serious injury as a
virtual certainty?
MOTIVE IS IRRELEVANT TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967;
Provides that where what the defendant foresaw has to be proved:
(a) The test is what he himself foresaw, not what a reasonable person would have
foreseen; but
(b) What a reasonable person would have foreseen is a good indication in deciding what
the defendant did foresee.
- Ulterior Intent – Prosecution has to prove an extra element of mens rea.
- Specific Intent – Only mens rea that will suffice is mens rea of intention.
- Basic Intent – Intention or recklessness will suffice as the required mens rea.
Recklessness:
Requirement for recklessness is that the defendant took an unjustified risk.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lpcexamnotes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $20.01. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
