Criminal Law: Unit 1
AR
Outcomes
Key Components of a criminal offence
Actus1)reusDemonstrate a systematic
+ mens rea + absence of anyunderstanding
valid defence of how the concept of actus reus, including the rules of legal and factual
causation, and the different types of mens rea impact on criminal liability.
AR:
2) Use a structured approach to identify the relevant actus reus and mens rea of various offences in a factual scenario
The actus and
reus apply these concepts
of an offence will consisttoofthe
oneevidence
or more oftothe
tackle and solve
following problem questions.
components:
3) Critically evaluate the current position of the law in relation to criminal liability for omissions by reference to
1. An act (oracademic
current sometimes a failure to act) by the defendant;
research.
2. The existence of certain circumstances at the time of the defendant’s conduct;
3. Certain consequences flowing from the defendant’s conduct.
The rule of law
Conduct crimes and result crimes
Any ambiguity should
…impracticable. be interpreted
If a patient in favour
has refused of the
live-saving defendant.
treatment (e.g. for religious reasons), a doctor is released from his duty to act. If he did
‘Conduct
act, crimes’:
he would The D has to
be committing behave in
a criminal a certain
offence way andItcertain
of assault. is clearcircumstances
from Bland that need
theto existwas
court before
onlythe AR of thewith
concerned offence is established.
omissions to act:
There should be no criminal liability except for conduct specifically prescribed by law.
E.g. rape.
there is still no legal right for a doctor to take positive steps for the purpose of ending a patient’s life.
Offences should not be created to have retrospective effects.
‘Result crimes’: It is not enough that the D acts in a particular way; certain consequences must follow from that behaviour before the actus
A contractual duty toAact statutory duty to act
reus
Thereofcan thebeoffence is established.
no criminal liability unless the D is convicted following a proper trial according to the law and the penalty on conviction must
be within the limits prescribed by law. If one’s contract of employment E.g. specifies certain obligations to act, a
States of affairs
failure to comply with those obligations can lead to criminal liability (R v
Pittwood) - failing to stop at a red traffic light
Classification
There of offences
are some offences (s17can
which Magistrates’
be established Courts Classification
if a certain state of affairs of offences
exists (e.g. (s17R Magistrates’
v Larsonneur).Courts Act 1980
Such crimes are) known as offences
Act 1980 )
of absolute liability. - failingof toemergency
stop after being involved in an accident (Road
E.g. medical
Either-way staff, members
Offences services, lifeguards
Traffic Act 1988, s170)
Summary Only Offences
Liability for omissions R v Pittwood
Either-way - Theare
offences railway crossing
the middle gate-keeper
range of offences waswhichcontractually
could beobliged
tried in the
to act to protect members- Failing ofto theprovide
publicE.g. aand
police
wasofficer
therefore withliable
a specimen
for his of
Summary only offences are less serious crimes magistrates’ court or in the Crown Court. theft (other than low-value
The general principle is that there can be no criminal liability for failing to act. breath when asked to do so.
which have to be tried in the magistrates’ court and failure to close
shoplifting), the gate
dangerous on one
driving, occasion.
burglary etc.
cannot beThere
Exceptions: tried are
in thefourCrown Court. types of situations where a person can commit the actus reus of a crime by failing to act.
recognised
TheThe final venue
D who for thea Voluntary
creates trial of either
dangerous acts way offences is laid down by sections 18-22
situation
Cases
1) are usually
Special heard by 3 lay magistrates who
relationships of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
usually
2) A have no legal qualifications.
contractual duty to act They rely on The law imposes a duty Theuponconduct of the Dtomust
individuals takebe stepsvoluntary
to remove (Hillthe
v Baxter)
their The final
danger venue
they for
createdthe trial
(R v will
Miller) depend initially on whether the magistrates’ court
3) legal adviser to
A statutory advise
duty them on points of law.
to act
is prepared to deal withWhere the case theand D alleges
whether that his conduct
their sentencing waspowers
involuntary,
wouldhe be
4) The D who creates a dangerous situation may be advised
Alternatively, the matter could be dealt with by a Miller - The
adequate if theDDhad wascreated
found a dangerous
guilty. Theto plead thesentence
situation
maximum defence
by smoking of in
thatautomatism.
abed and, can
magistrate
district judge (magistrates’ havingisrealised thatimprisonment
he had createdfor such aon situation, he wasmagistrates
then under feel a that
Special relationships - Wherecourt)
there who is a qualified
is a special relationshipimpose
between six
themonths’
D and the victim either byany reasonoffence.of familyIftiesthe or because the D
duty to take steps reasonably available to him to prevent further damage.
hassolicitor
assumed or abarrister.
duty towards the victim (R v Gibbins and Proctor; the offence
R v Stone wouldandmerit a higher
Dobinson), thesentence
D could than incurthey couldliability
criminal impose, forthen
failingthey
to will
act. decline jurisdiction and send the case to be dealt with in the Crown Court. If the
Quicker and less expensive than a Crown Court magistrates are prepared to deal with the matter, the D can decide whether he
trial. has a duty to act to protect his or her child (s1(2)(a)
A parent Children
wants to beand triedYoung
by the Persons Act 1933;
magistrates R v Gibbins
or whether and Proctor).
he wants to go to the Crown
The D must be shown either to have intended something to happen, or to have been reckless as to whether certain circumstances would
Court for trial.
R vExamples
exist or whether
Gibbins +- Proctor
Driving -aGibbins,
certain motor vehicle
as the whilst
consequences would
child’s unfit
followhad
father, from his ortoher
a duty careconduct.
for his child. He committed the AR of murder by his omission to feed
through drink or drugs or Threatening to
his child. Proctor, though not the child’s mother, had assumedinflict TheaDduty maytowards
opt for athe CrownchildCourt
by choosing
trial, asto live withof
members the father
a jury willandbe bymorereceiving
violence on another individual (assault) Direct Intent Indirect/oblique intent
house-keeping money from him. There was a close relationship with theto
sympathetic child
a D’swhich
case placed
than the a duty on her to
magistrates act to
would becare for the child. Her
failure to do so established
Indictable Only Offences the AR of murder. Direct intent: Whether itIndirect was X’sor aim,oblique
purpose intent:
In the Crown Court, the judge will decide all issues of law, but a jury will decide
or desire
Somethingto do wasso. not his main
aim but an unfortunate by-product of what he did set
R vIndictable
Stone + Dobinson - Stone arewas
theunder a duty because
crimes Fanny was
factshis
theMotive of sister.
a case;
behind Dobinson
a whereas
defendant’s was
in the liable because
magistrates’ she had
court, to theassumed
magistratesa dutydecide
towards all
only offences most serious out toactions
achieve. is irrelevant criminal liability. E.g. the
Fanny by allowing her to live with them. The judgement of Lane
issues
mercy LJofsuggests
law
killer. and that
fact. the Ds in Stone and Dobinson might have escaped liability
that have to be tried in the Crown Court before a
if they
judgehadanddonejury.nothing at all rape,
to help Fanny. It seems to suggest that there is no general When liability towards
indirect intentone’s relatives
is relevant, theorjury
towards
will be told to
E.g. murder, robbery
persons staying at your home: it would seem that it was the assumption of a duty
Ulterior intent, basic intent towards
consider Fanny by both
2 issuesintent
and specific Ds by
(R v Woollin):their ineffectual attempts
to care for her that led to
Burden of proof and standard of proofcriminal liability when they failed to give her adequate assistance.
‘Ulterior intent’: The prosecution 1) has Wastothe consequence
prove virtually certain
an ‘extra’ element of MR to
R
Thev Ruffell
burden- AofDproving
who assumed
that a Daisduty
guiltyof of
trying to revive
a criminal a friend
offence who took
normally
against therests drugs,
D. with wasprosecution
the
E.g. burglary correctly convicted
and serious (Woolmington
occur from of the
assaults manslaughter
v DPP).
D’s
under act
s18 (or ofthe
The that friend
prosecution
ofomission)?
Offences
when he failed to care for him properly.
has to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt. Against the Person Act 1861. 2) If so, did the D himself foresee the
consequences as virtually certain to occur?
Release
The D has from dutiesthe
to prove to actdefence on which he seeks to rely. He Specific need only do so ‘Specific
intent’: on a balance intent’ of crimes
probabilities.
are those An where
evidential the burden
only MRisthat will
imposed on the D. Section 8crime
of theisCriminal Justice Act 1967 provides that
R v Smith - The wife instructed her husband not to seek medical attention and he had respected her wishes. By the time the E.g.
suffice to convict a person of the the MR of intention. wifemurder,
changed
offences under s18 of thewhere
Offences whatAgainst
the D foresaw
the Personhas Act
to be proved:
1861, theft.
her
Any legal burden on proof placed on the defence could be challenged under the Human Rights Act 1998 on the basis that such a or her
mind and the D called the doctor, it was too late to save her life. This case suggests that if the victim is capable of deciding his
own fate, theisDcontrary
requirement should be toable to be
Article 6(1) released from any Convention
of the European duty to act established
‘Basic of Human
intent’: by intent’
Rights,
‘Basic the which
common law.
(a)guarantees
crime the
is Note:
test
defined the The
is as apparent
right
whatone he tohimself
wherea fair acceptance
trial. thatwhat
This not
foresaw,
either intention or
there is a special relationship
argument has succeeded in R v Lambert. between husband and wife. Note: Smith is only a first-instance
recklessness will suffice as the required decision and
a reasonable the
MR. E.g.personhigher
criminal courts
would
damage, have
havemost not ruled
foreseen;
on this issue. assaults. but
(b) what a reasonable person would have
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland - Doctors and medical staff are under a duty to care for their patients (under the special relationship
foreseen is a good indication (which a jury can 1
criteria/contractual duty), but the doctors argued that this duty should cease if it was felt not to be in the best interests of the patient.
take into account) in deciding what the
Doctors should seek court permission before withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (e.g. artificial feeding), although in Frenchay
defendant did foresee
Healthcare NHS Trust v S, the Court of Appeal accepted that there may be emergency situations where prior approval may be…
