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...

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