Criminal Law Revision Summary

General Principles of Criminal Law 2

Causation 5

Mens Rea Fault 10

Intention 10

Recklessness 11

Negligence 12

Strict Liability Offences 13

Murder 15

The Sanctity of Life 15

Murder 15

Voluntary Manslaughter 17

Loss of Control (Provocation) 17

Diminished Responsibility 20

Involuntary Manslaughter 24

Unlawful Act Manslaughter 24

Gross Negligence Manslaughter 26

Reckless Manslaughter 27

Offences Against the Person 29

Assault and Battery 29

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm 31

Unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm 31

Wounding with Intend to do GBH 32

Secondary Liability 33

Joint Principals 33

Accomplice Liability (aid, abet, counsel or procure) 33

Joint enterprise 36

Withdrawal 39

Inchoate Offences 40

Attempt 40

Conspiracy 41

Incitement 44

General Defences 45

Consent 45

Self-Defence 46

Duress by Threat 48

Necessity 50

Duress of Circumstances 51

Automatism 51

Intoxication 54

Sexual Offences (In Summary) 55

Property Crimes (In Summary) 56

General Principles of Criminal Law

• Mens Rea – guilty mind (MR)

• Actus Rea – guilty act (AR)

• Burden of Proof: Woolmington v DPP (1935)

  • Set out the golden thread of the burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

  • Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that defendant committed the actus reus and mens rea.

• Conduct and Fault must come together: R v Deller (1952)

  • Cannot be prosecuted own a guilty mind alone if there is no actus rea.

• Unknown justification: R v Dadson (1850)

  • Police officer fired a shot at a trespasser, was charged with GBH. But Larceny Act (1827) stated it was justifiable to fire on an escaping felon. PO did not know that victim was a felon. Police officer was convicted.

    • G Williams argues that this was decided wrongly, as the was lawful justification even if the police officer did not know of it.

    • Smith and Hogan disagree arguing that we cannot rely on such an unknown justification – view upheld in the law

  • Lanham argues we ought to break down crime into three elements: fault, mens rea, and the defence itself.

• Comission vs Omission

  • R v Smith (1826) – Railway watchman took a break during which a man was hit by train. Held: Generally no liability for omission

    • Williams, G: We punish misfeasance, we don’t punish non-feasance

  • Ashworth argues that society demands more: in different areas we have and should develop areas of societal responsibility

    • That reasonable steps should be taken to prevent harm

  • Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]

    • ‘Pulling the plug’ on Hillsborough victim in PVS

    • Obiter Lord Bland:

      • if an interloper got into the hospital and pulled out the tubes then that would be murder as an act of commission.

      • It is different when done by a Dr, as this should be viewed as an omission to continue the treatment.

      • Distinguishes ending life, and not continuing life.

• Six Exceptions including Liability for Commission

  • 1) Statutory Liabilities, e.g. failing to provide a breathalyser.

  • 2) Contractual Liabilities

    • R v Pittwood (1902) 19 T.L.R. 37

      • A crossing keeper left the gate open when off for lunch – someone was hit crossing tracks in their cart. Was liable to everyone who used the crossing.

  • 3) Parental and Familial Liabilities

    • A grey area as to when they begin and end, and how far they extend.

    • Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

      • Gibbon’s daughter who was starved to death in the household. Gibbons as father had an obligation to his daughter. Proctor was also liable as she lived under the same roof

    • But only applies in cases of a special relationship. Not brother and sister.

  • 4) Assumption of a Duty of Care

    • R v Stone and Dobinson (1997) Q.B. 354

      • This precedent has not been followed in 43 years.

      • S and D took in S’s sister and agreed to care for her. She was mentally ill and vulnerable. Found dead in dreadful conditions.

      • This was a voluntary assumption and a preclusion of others which led to liability for omission.

      • The high water mark of liability.

    • R v Ruffell (2003)

      • Appelant court found one friend liable for gross negligence manslaughter for not looking after friend while high

  • 5) Creation of a Dangerous Situation (supervening fault)

    • Where you created the harm you have a duty to counteract it to protect life limb or property, hence supervening fault.

    • Fagan v MPC (1968)

      • D accidentally drove onto policeman’s foot. Refused to move off. Argued he had no coincidence of actus and mens. As a continuing act held laible.

    • R v Miller (1983)

      • Squatter fell asleep with lit cigarette, awoke to see smouldering mattress, got up and went to another room and went back to sleep.

      • Lord Diplock established principle of supervening fault.

    • DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2004]

      • The defendant, Santa-Bermudez, had lied about the presence of sharp objects in his pocket when being searched by a female police constable and the constable was injured.

      • His failure to warn her of the danger constituted the actus reus of the crime.

    • R v Evans (2009)

      • Generally, no murder liability for heroin dealers as break in causation.

      • Evans accused of supplying a syringe to her half-sister as she came out of rehab. Did not phone for help as they were worried they would get into trouble with the authorities.

  • 6) Public Office

    • R v Dytham (1979)

      • The defendant was a police officer. He stood by whilst a bouncer kicked a man to death.

      • He was charged with the offence of misconduct in a public officer.

• The Doctrine of Transferred Malice.

  • When the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible.

  • D’s MR against third party is ‘transferred’ to join with the AR committed against third party.

  • R v Latimer (1886)

    • A aims belt at B, hits person C. Liability transferred from B to C

  • R v Pembliton [1874]

    • The AR and transferred MR must be for the same offence.

    • A threw stone to harm person B, hit and shattered a window. This was not within the same crime, so the malice could not be transferred from the...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Criminal Law Notes.