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 ...
[Meer zien]
Laatste update van het document: 11 maanden geleden
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?
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
√ Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper lawconversionlifeline. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €19,28. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
