Criminal liability derives from principles governing criminalisation and punishment.
Criminalisation: the state needs the authority to criminalise our behaviour (paternalism). The
authority is limited to when the prohibited conduct is harmful/ threatens to harm others (the harm
principle). It should not criminalise just because the public disapprove of that conduct. – J.S. Mill
Criminalisation is a matter of last resort – we only criminalise if there is nothing else we can do; no
less harmful means of changing harmful behaviour (e.g. education).
if you’re doing something behind closed doors in a non-public area, e.g. smoking, the state cannot
intervene/ does not have anything to do with your acts.
Punishment and desert
The two ruling theories of punishment: utilitarianism/ reductionism and retributivism.
1. Reductionism: what is applied in situations like traffic accidents; more to do with paternalism.
2. Retribution: going beyond reductionism; you are harming others.
What makes punishment deserved? The defendant must be at fault; he must be wrongfully
harming/ threatening wrongful harm to, not only harming, others’ interests.
Wrongfully harming: there needs to be an element of intention to harm; otherwise, it would just be
an accident.
Criminal equation
The ‘criminal equation’ tells us when punishment can happen. Punishment can only happen when
we have a criminal act that coincides with a guilty mind – “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.”
Criminal liability requires both actus reus and mens rea, at the same time.
There is a third element in criminal liability, which is the absence of any defence.
The actus reus of any crime constitutes the package of behaviour which forms the substance of
a criminal prohibition.
, CRIMINAL LAW
REVISION NOTES
All crimes require proof of some prohibited voluntary conduct.
Robinson v California [1962] (USA): This was a case of drug addiction. The issue was the
question of whether the addiction itself could be a criminal offence. The court said no; it would be
unconstitutional to criminalise drug addiction. It can be seen as a disease or a condition, but it cannot
actually be seen as a criminal act. You’re not committing a drug addiction, but you are being a drug
addiction.
The actus reus itself comprises of three elements:
1. Conduct (always needed) – you need to do something, e.g. in regards to killing someone, the
conduct would be driving a knife into that person. Conduct is sometimes enough; no other
elements may be needed.
2. Circumstance – you need a particular situation/ way in which something is done.
3. Consequence
EXAMPLES:
what do we need in the actus reus for murder? We need the conduct/ act, e.g. driving a knife
into someone; the consequence, e.g. the death of the victim; we do not need a circumstance.
(conduct & consequence)
driving without a licence. We need the conduct, which is the act of driving; we need the
circumstance, which is not having a licence to drive; but we do not need a consequence,
because it is already dangerous enough. (conduct & circumstance)
criminal damage. We need the conduct, which is damaging property, e.g. throwing a football
into the house’s window; we need a circumstance, which would be that the property has to
belong to someone else (one is free to damage their own property); and we need a
consequence, which is damage (it does not have to be complete destruction/ loss of property).
(conduct, circumstance & consequence)
Usually, the prohibited conduct will involve an act. If there is no act, there will be no liability (the
exception to this: omissions, i.e. you may still be liable in the absence of an act – remember, you
cannot commit assault by omission, it was only accepted in Fagan because it was a continuing act).
Thus, it is key for the prosecution to identify a wrongful act.
Dunn (2015): This case concerned an indecent assault, where the defendant made a young girl
commit sexual acts. The court said the actus reus required assault and thus, an act. Here, the
defendant did not act; the girl did. This show us that we need to be careful when charging people – they
should have originally charged the defendant with the offence of causing a child to engage in sexual
activity.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sometimes, liability can occur without D having acted:
® Situational Liability
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 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 sirjacktan. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.