Criminal Law
Introduction to Criminal Law
Criminal Law is the study of the legal rules which determine criminal liability - looks at the
laws which determine if someone is legally culpable for a criminal offence, study of the
law which we use to construct and define criminal liability.
● Who can take a case to court?
○ The state NOT the victim
○ Usually CPS on the advice of Police
● What happens in a criminal court?
○ Jury v judge
○ Burden of proof: beyond reasonable doubt
● Punishment
○ Punishment NOT compensation
○ Criminal record
What is a crime?
There are 3 main elements of a crime:
● Actus Reus - the act (includes result)
● Mens Rea - mental state of defendant
● Defence (or lack of)
Principles of Criminal Law
We need principles in law as you cannot rely on intuition and instinct, and it ensures that
like cases are treated alike.
Principles are aspirational, they are the ideal way in which the law should be structured.
Principles can be used as a way of testing coherence of the criminal law and to criticise it.
● Principle of autonomy
○ Suggests that humans are rational and know how to act
○ Explains why the law is so interested in Mens Rea, as autonomy says can
only be guilty if you intend or are reckless as to the outcome of that crime
(if you kill someone you can only be liable if you intended to kill them)
■ If accidents could be criminalised, we would all be criminals, have to
find another way of determining who are criminals
○ Difficulties come when it concerns young children, the insane and those
under the influence of drink or drugs, as they do not always understand
what they’re doing
■ Some things which cannot be helped (gender, socio-economic
background) can increase your risk of committing a crime
● Principle of welfare
○ The purpose of criminal law is to protect society from harmful behaviour
and dangerous people
○ The insane can be kept in a secure hospital etc in order to protect others
from them if they are a violent criminal
● Correspondence Principle
○ Mens Rea and Actus Reus should correspond
○ Suggests that only where you intended something should you be held
responsible
,Criminal Law
● Constructive Crime
○ When you are held liable for a crime even if you do not intend or forsee
the outcome
■ To be charged with murder it is sufficient to only intend to cause
grevious bodily harm (can be held liable even if you didnt choose to
bring about the death)
○ Result caused is far greater than what was intended or foreseen by the
perpetrator, where the actus reus goes beyond the mens rea
Penal code is effectively another word for the criminal law, most countries have a
particular statute which will contain virtually all criminal laws in one place (UK does not),
a lot of our criminal law is common law (eg. murder).
Actus Reus
Structure of a crime:
● Actus Reus (action element)
○ Required for every crime
○ Cannot punish people just for their thoughts
● Mens Rea (mental element)
However, in some circumstances, ‘action element’ can be misleading:
● Larry picks up a gun, aims it at Harry and shoots him in the chest. Harry dies.
● The action element could be said to be any of the following:
○ Picking up the gun
○ Aiming it at Harry
○ Shooting Harry
● But Harry could survive all these actions
● So actus reus element of murder must also include death
● Crimes such as this where actus reus simply being defined as the action element
are called result crimes
● Therefore actus reus = anything that doesn’t refer to the mental element of the
offence
Exceptions to the general principle: Omissions Liability
General principle is that the law requires action for criminal liability
● Larry hates Harry and whilst they’re out on their usual Sunday walk, Larry pushes
Harry onto a railway track intending him to be hit by the next train, which is due
any minute. Larry runs away. Harry is injured by the fall and cannot get up. He
calls for help.
○ Gary, who is employed to operate the level-crossing, hears Harry calling
for help, but as he’s in the middle of Sunday lunch, he decides not to get
up and investigate
○ Jerry, the local police officer is also in the vicinity doing his rounds. He also
hears Harry’s cries but doesn’t want to get involved as its 10 minutes till
the end of his shift, and he doesn't want a crisis to delay him getting home
for the football
,Criminal Law
○ Meanwhile, Harry’s mum, Sally, is walking by the railway track with her
new boyfriend, Barry, when they hear Harry calling for help. Sally realises
Harry’s in trouble but decides not to go and help because she thinks Harry
is old enough to stand on his own two feet
○ Barry, who has never met Harry before, considers running to get help but
decides he doesn't want to ruin his new shoes by getting them muddy
○ Freddy, a stranger, hears Harry’s cries and goes to investigate. He tries to
lift Harry off the tracks, but finds that Harry is too heavy. Freddy decides
it's all too much bother and walks away. Shortly after, a train comes by
and kills Harry.
● Larry is the only one who has committed a positive act, the others have simply
omitted to act. Can they be liable?
○ General principle suggests not, however morally reprehensible their
omission might be
○ But there are exceptions to this rule
■ Breach of statutory or common law duty to act
● Legislative or common law duty to act
● Dytham [1979] - police officer outside a nightclub, man
kicked out of club and subsequently kicked to death by
bouncer in full view of police officer. PO told someone he
was off duty and going home, and left. Charged with
misconduct whilst acting as an officer of justice. (common
law example)
● S.6 Road Traffic Act 1988 - failure to give police a specimen
of breath is an offence (statutory example)
■ Breach of contractual duty to act - usually in employment context
● No need to endanger life, but must do whatever is in your
power
● Pittwood [1902] - defendant employed by railway company
to ensure gates are shut when a train was due to pass,
however one day defendant was not at his post and had
failed to shut the gate, resulting in someone being hit by a
train in their car on the level crossing. As it was a direct
result of his negligence, he was convicted of gross
negligence manslaughter
■ Duty to act arising out of a relationship
● Parents to children, spouses to each other
● Gibbins & Proctor [1918] - a man and woman were living
together, convicted of killing the man's child by allowing
them to starve to death. Did not actively kill the child. Man
was found liable on the basis that as the father of the child
he should have been taking care of them.
● There are lots of grey areas with this, where does the duty
of care end?
○ Could parents of a 25 year old who was anorexic be
held liable for not forcing them to see a doctor?
○ Does it extend to step-parents?
,Criminal Law
○ What if parents and child are estranged?
■ Duty arising out of an assumption of responsibility
● Someone has opted to care for someone, they have
assumed responsibility
● Nicholls [1874] - grandmother took grandchild into her home
to care for her, explicit assumption of responsibility. Did not
look after child properly and child died as a result of neglect.
Didn't do anything to kill child, however neglect is enough to
result in her being liable for grandchild's death, as she had
explicitly taken over care
● Istan [1893] - defendant was living with her aunt, during this
time the aunt became ill, for 12 days before aunt died she
became incapable of looking after herself, but also of asking
anyone else to help her. Niece saw what was happening but
did nothing to help the aunt (didn't try to give her food etc,
or even call for medical assistance). No explicit assumption
of responsibility, however, the court found there was an
implicit assumption as she had continued to live in her aunt’s
house and eat her food, as a result she could be guilty of
manslaughter
● Stone and Dobinson [1977] - elderly lady (late 60s) had gone
to live with her brother who was of ‘low intelligence’ and
described as being ‘inadequate and ineffectual’, his mistress
who lived with him also had learning difficulties. Victim
became quite ill while living with her brother, developed
anorexia, as well as being partially deaf and blind, as well as
being described as being of ‘low intelligence’. Was able to
take care of herself to begin with, however as the anorexia
got worse she got to the point where she could not get out
of bed. As she got more ill the brother and his mistress did
make attempts to help to begin with, by bringing her food,
which she did not eat, they didn’t know how to use a phone
and so did not call anyone for help. Neighbour tried to help
the mistress give the sister a bed bath, another tried to call
for medical help but nothing came of this. Eventually the
lady died. Victim's brother and partner were charged with
manslaughter on the basis that the victim had died as a
result of their negligence. They were convicted, tried to
appeal and lost the appeal.
○ This case is more controversial than Instan as the
judgement never makes it clear on what basis the
brother was found to have a duty of care towards the
sister, some went on the fact they were blood
relatives, some said he assumed a duty by trying to
give her albeit inadequate assistance
,Criminal Law
○ Assumption of responsibility - what action of
defendants gave rise to this assumption of
responsibility, why were the neighbours not included?
○ Would they have been better off doing nothing at all?
If not, then how does this duty arise?
○ Problem of defendants’ inability to help as a result of
their low intelligence. Comparison with more capable
neighbour.
■ Duty arising out of the creation of a dangerous situation
● Upon realising that you’ve created a dangerous situation,
you must do something about it
● Miller [1983] - a tramp was squatting in a house, laying on a
mattress and lit a cigarette, fell asleep and woke up slightly
later to find his mattress on fire. Realising he caused the fire,
he got up to sleep in another room, made no attempt to
extinguish the fire and soon the whole house set alight. He
was charged with criminal damage, appealed to CoA and
eventually HoL, HoL upheld liability and came out with a rule
stating ‘once you are aware you have caused a dangerous
situation, you must do everything in your power to rectify
this situation’. Law does not require that he himself should
put out the fire, but he should have alerted authorities.
○ Positive act
○ Recognising dangerous situation, not doing anything
○ = Liability
● Evans [2009] - defendant was a young woman who supplied
her younger half sister with drugs, which she took herself,
later on she collapsed in the presence of the defendant
(overdosed). Defendant didn’t want to call an ambulance for
fear of her being done for supplying drugs, and put her to
bed hoping she’d wake up, younger sister then died of
overdose.
○ Applying Miller, the defendant has created a
dangerous situation by supplying the drugs, she
recognises the danger but does nothing
○ Court went further than this and said the defendant
could have been liable not just when she recognised
her sister was in a coma, but if she ought to have
recognised the danger (even if she hadn’t recognised
the coma she still would’ve been liable)
○ Evans went beyond Miller, in that it allows for liability
even if you simply should’ve recognised a dangerous
situation
, Criminal Law
What is required of a defendant when a duty to act is established?
Requirements of a Duty to Act:
● Harry’s mum Sally would owe a duty of care arising out of a relationship, but what
does that mean she has to do?
○ She must do what is reasonable in the circumstances, but does not need to
put her own life in danger
■ Singh (Gurphal) [1999] - defendants were a landlord and his agent,
tenant had complained that the gas fires were not working properly
in the flat he was renting. However, landlord and agent did nothing
about this and eventually the tenant died from carbon monoxide
poisoning. Court found a duty of care existed as there was a
contract between defendants and victim, all that would’ve been
expected of them would be to call for help to fix the issue, not fix it
themselves.
○ What if Harry refuses help?
■ Law accepts victims refusing help, if help is refused your duty is
discharged
■ R (Jenkins) v HM Coroner for Portsmouth and South East Hampshire
and Cameron and Finn [2009] - man stepped on electrical appliance
at home, causing injury, this became infected and eventually
gangrenous. He was urged at various points to see a doctor by
partner and friends but refused. He eventually died having received
no medical treatment. Prosecution tried to argue that family and
friends had a duty to act, and by failing to summon help they had
breached their duty. Court disagreed and said while it was true they
had a duty of care, they had discharged their duty by urging him to
see a doctor, they were under no obligation to force him to go, and
it was acceptable that they respected his decision.
● Decision would probably have been different had victim
been a child or not sound of mind
○ Omission must be shown to have caused the harm
■ What if it can be shown that at the time when Sally heard Harry’s
cry, it was already too late for Sally to help him? Is she still liable?
● Dalloway - defendant driving a horse & cart, not holding
reins properly. Young child ran in front of cart, was hit and
died. Was said that the defendant's liability lay in the fact he
had omitted to drive the cart properly but was not holding
the reins firmly enough. Court found he could only be held
liable for her death if it could be shown she would not have
died had he been driving the cart properly.
● If when she heard Harry’s cries she omitted to go and help
him, but it was already too late to help him, then her
decision to ignore his cries had nothing to do with the death,
so while there is a duty on her to act, her omission to act is
not the cause of death and therefore she is not liable.
