100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Summary Criminal Law Notes (DISTINCTION) for University of Law Post Graduate Diploma in Law (PGdL) course CA$28.77   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. University Of Law (ULaw)
  4.  
  5. Criminal Law (PGDL)

Summary

Summary Criminal Law Notes (DISTINCTION) for University of Law Post Graduate Diploma in Law (PGdL) course

1 review
 82 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Criminal Law (PGDL)
  • Institution
  • University Of Law (ULaw)

Distinction level Criminal Law notes (average of 82 in this module) Crafted by a recent graduate who received a distinction in the very same course, these notes are tailored to your PGDL program, ensuring they cover the crucial Criminal Law concepts you need to master. Aligned with the PGDL ...

[Show more]
Last document update: 11 months ago

Preview 10 out of 82  pages

Document information

  • August 20, 2023
  • November 18, 2023
  • 82
  • 2023/2024
  • Summary

Subjects

  • criminal
  • criminal law
  • mens rea
  • actus reus
  • assault
  • offences
  • murder
  • pgdl criminal notes
  • law conversion
  • simple assault
  • criminal damage
  • theft
  • fraud
  • robbery
  • burglary

Written for

  • University of Law (ULaw)
  • Unknown
  • Criminal Law (PGDL)
All documents for this subject (28)

1  review

review-writer-avatar

By: akatiesutton • 10 months ago

Seller

avatar-seller
lawconversionlifeline

Reviews received

Content preview

, Criminal Law:

Unit 1 - Actus Reus and Mens Rea:
In order to secure a conviction, the prosecution must establish:

1) Guilty conduct by the defendant (actus reus)
2) Guilty state of mind by the defendant (mens rea)
3) Absence of any valid defence




Actus Reus:
A defendant will not be liable for a criminal offence unless the actus reus of the offence is proved
(Deller [1952])

● Criminal liability usually requires a positive act by the defendant → must have done
something


The actus reus consists of one or more of:
a) An act (or sometimes failure to act) by the defendant
b) The existence of certain circumstances or ‘state of affairs’ at the time of the defendant’s
conduct
c) Certain circumstances flowing from the defendant’s conduct




Factual Causation


Factual causation = the ‘but for’ test

→ But for the defendant’s actions, the result would not have occurred

Case Law Examples:

, ○ R v White [1910]: defendant laced his mother’s drink with potassium cyanide, intending
to kill her. She drank some of it and was found dead the next morning. BUT → medically
had died from heart attack
- Defendant acquitted of murder as it could not be shown that he was the factual
cause of his mothers death


○ Mitchell [1983]: while in a queue, defendant pushed the person in front of him who fell
into an 89 year old women → she fell, broke her hip and developed a blood clot and died
- Defendant was guilty → factual causation was established




Legal Causation


Legal causation = the ‘chain of causation’

→ prosecution must prove that there was no novus actus interveniens (new intervening act) which

broke the chain of causation


1) The consequence (e.g. death) must be due to a culpable act, including a failure to act
where the defendant is under a duty (R v Dalloway)


2) The culpable act must be more than a minimal cause of the consequence (R v Pagett)

● ‘In law, the defendant’s act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause, of
the victim’s death, it being enough that his act (or omission) contributed
significantly to that result’ (R v Pagett (1983))
● Usually if his conduct was the ‘operating and substantial cause’ of that result →
i.e. more than minimal (Smith [1959] and Malcherek; Steel [1981])


3) But does not need to be the sole cause (R v Benge)


4) The chain of causation must not be broken:

, Intervening Acts:


The link between the defendant’s act and the end result can’t be broken by an intervening act (a
novus actus interveniens)


The argument will not succeed if:
a) Despite there being an intervening event, the injuries inflicted by the defendant were
still an operating and substantial cause of death
b) If there was an intervening act, this was foreseen or foreseeable




The ‘thin skull rule’

A victim’s particular susceptibility to an injury due to a pre-existing condition does not break the
chain of causation

Case Law Example:
○ Blaue [1975]: defendant stabbed a women, piercing her lung. Taken to hospital where she
was told to get a blood transfusion → refused due to her religious beliefs
- Died from blood loss & defendant convicted
- Thin skull rule also applies to religious beliefs → extends to the ‘whole man’



Escapes

For an escape to break the chain of causation, it must be:
1) Unforeseen and voluntary
2) A foreseeable consequence of the unlawful act (must be proportionate to the threat posed)

Case Law Example:
○ Roberts (1971): defendant made sexual advances to a women in a car. Told her he had
previously beaten women who refused him. She jumped out of the moving car and was
injured
- Defendant found guilty → caused her escape

, Victim's self-neglect

Self-neglect by the victim does not release the defendant from liability:
● Can include refusing medical treatment / committing suicide
● As long as the defendant’s act was a cause of the victim’s death, it does not matter that it
was not the sole cause (Dear [1996])

Case Law Example:
○ R v Wallace [2018]: defendant threw a glass of sulphuric acid into victim’s face →
permanent and life-changing injuries.
- 15 months later, went to Belgium to request voluntary euthanasia
- Defendant charged with murder → initially, acquitted on the basis that the act of
euthanasia was voluntary and broke the chain of causation
- Court of Appeal found that the request for euthanasia was a ‘direct response to the
inflicted injuries and to the circumstances created by them for which the
defendant was responsible’



Third Party:

An act by a third party might break the chain of causation if that act is a voluntary one which
contributes to the result

Case Law Example:
○ Pagett (1983): defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield whilst shooting at the
police. Police shot back and killed the girlfriend
- Defendant convicted of manslaughter of his girlfriend
- The police shooting was an involuntary act, caused by the conduct of the defendant
and did not release the defendant from liability



Negligent Medical Treatment:

Generally, the conduct of a doctor, even if negligent, does not release the defendant from liability
(Smith [1959])

, Case Law Example:
○ Cheshire (1991): defendant shot victim in leg & stomach → treated in hospital but died of
blocked windpipe 2 months later
- Whilst medical staff were negligent, original attacker was convicted
- ‘Unless the negligent treatment was so independent of his act, and it itself so
potent in causing death, that they regard the contribution made by his acts as
insignificant’ - Beldam LJ



Natural Events:

A natural event which was not reasonably foreseeable will break the chain of causation
● The foreseeability of the subsequent event is the determining factor for liability




Must be a voluntary act

The conduct of the defendant must be voluntary
● In order for the defence of automatism to be successful, the defendant must suffer a total loss of
voluntary control (Broome v Perkins (1987))
- Where a defendant has some voluntary control over his actions, defence will fail (Attorney
General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1992) [1994])

Case Law Example:
○ Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland [1963]: automatism is an act which is done by the
muscles without any control by the mind; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what
he is doing
○ Hill v Baxter [1958]: court gave example of a person being attacked by bees whilst driving →
couldn’t commit the actus reus of the offence of careless driving as actions were not voluntary

, Omissions?


In most cases, a defendant would have taken positive steps in relation to a particular crime (have
actually done something)


Whilst the general principle is that there can be no criminal liability for failing to act,
exceptions:


Special Relationship

Where there is a special relationship between the defendant and victim (e.g. family / duty) the defendant
could incur criminal liability for failing to act
● A special relationship is formed if one assumes a duty to care for the victim

Case Law Example:
○ R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918): the defendants were convicted of murdering a 7 year old child who
died of starvation → first defendant was the father, second his partner
- As a parent, had a duty of care for his child


○ R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] the 2 defendants took in Stone’s sister, Fanny to live with them →
she suffered with anorexia and was bed-ridden
- Defendants did not properly assist her → she died of blood poisoning
- Charged with a duty of care (sister & had taken limited steps to care)


○ R v Ruffell [2003]: a defendant assumed a duty of trying to revive a friend who had taken drugs →
convicted of manslaughter when he failed to care for him properly (left him outside the house and
he died of hypothermia)




Terminally ill:

, Duty also remains if you follow the wishes of a terminally ill family member (and they are deemed
unable to have made rational decisions at the time)
○ R v Smith [1979]: defendant was charged with manslaughter of his wife who died after
still-birth → wife had instructed not to seek medical attention
BUT: duty can be released in some medical situations:
○ Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]: Bland was a victim of the Hillsborough disaster → left
in a persistent vegetative state
- Doctors applied to the courts for permission to discontinue medical treatment
(must first seek permission)




Contractual Duty to Act:

If a contract of employment specifies certain obligations to act, a failure to comply can lead to criminal
liability (e.g. doctors, emergency services, lifeguards)

Case Law Example:
○ R v Pittwood (1902): was a railway crossing gate-keeper → failed to close the gate and a person was
killed by a train
- Liable in criminal court for the consequences of his failure to act




Public Duty to Act:

A defendant may be under a public duty to act if they hold a position of public authority or responsibility

Case Law Example:
○ Dytham [1979]: police officer, while on duty, saw a man being beaten to death by a club bouncer.
Did not intervene → convicted




Statutory Duty to Act:

,Where a legislative provision has imposed a duty on individuals to act in a certain way, given a set of
circumstances
● E.g. car drivers stopping at traffic lights
● Usually results in prosecution for the omission itself (e.g. failing to stop at a red light), rather than
for the consequences of that omission (e.g. if you crashed and someone died)
● Penalties usually result in a fine




Defendant who creates a dangerous situation:

Can be criminal liability if you fail to take action to remove a danger you created
● The duty is established on the subjective realisation of the danger created → when they ought to have
realised the danger
● Necessary to invoke the Miller principle only in the case of a result crime
○ R v Miller [1983]: a squatter lit a cigarette and fell asleep. Cigarette fell on the mattress
causing it to smoulder.
- Instead of taking steps to stop the smouldering he moved rooms
- Charged with causing criminal damage to the property after it caught fire




Mens Rea:
In most criminal offences, the defendant must have a guilty mind at the time of their guilty
conduct
● In most offences, the defendant must have shown either to have intended something to
happen or to have been reckless as to whether certain circumstances would exist



Intention:


Direct Indirect?

, In most cases, if the defendant intended something to happen (it was their aim, purpose, goal or desire) →
they have direct intent


If not:

→ Indirect / Oblique Intent?

Where the defendant argues that the outcome was not their main aim, but an unfortunate by-product
of what they set out to achieve, jury are asked to consider the virtual certainty test


Guidance was established by the Court of Appeal in R v Nedrick [1986]:

a) Was the consequence virtually certain to occur as a consequence of the defendant’s actions?
b) If so, did the defendant foresee this consequence as a virtual certainty? → subjective


→ If the Jury answers yet to both, indirect intention can be inferred



Also: ulterior intent?

Ulterior Intent = The prosecution must prove an ‘extra’ element of mens rea against the defendant, before
they can secure a conviction
● Must prove that the defendant intended to produce some consequences which went beyond the
actus reus of the crime




Recklessness:

Recklessness = foreseeing a consequence as possible or probable yet going ahead and taking that
risk, where the risk was unjustifiable or unreasonable (R v G [2004])



Was the risk unjustified?

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

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

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

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 lawconversionlifeline. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for CA$28.77. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

83637 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
CA$28.77
  • (1)
  Add to cart