Criminal law overview
Topics:
General elements of criminal liability
Murder
Voluntary manslaughter
Loss of control
Diminished responsibility
Involuntary manslaughter
Unlawful act
Gross negligence
Non-fatal offences
Theft
Robbery
Preliminary offences
Capacity defences
Insanity
Automatism
Intoxication
General defences
Self-defence
Duress (threat, circumstances and necessity)
General elements of criminal liability
Omissions
Failure to act.
Types:
Statutory duties (Road Traffic Act 1988)
Voluntary duties (R v Evans)
Special relationship/familial duties (R v Gibbins and Proctor)
Contractual duties (R v Pittwood)
Dangerous situation duties (R v Miller)
Public duties (R v Dytham)
Causation
Factual
But for test - R v White / R v Pagett
Legal
Whether there is a chain of causation:
Operating and substantial cause (R v Smith), there must be de minimis (R v Kimsey)
Intervening act:
Victim's own act (R v Roberts)
Medical intervention (‘palpably wrong’) (R v Cheshire / R v Jordan)
Third party act (R v Pagett)
Thin skull rule (R v Blaue)
Recklessness
For basic intent offences, eg assault/battery.
Where action is an unjustified risk that D would have known/a reasonable person would have known (Cunningham).
Intention
Direct intent
Where the consequence is D's main aim and purpose (Mohan). This is not the same as motive.
Indirect/Oblique intent
Where the consequence is a virtual certainty seen by D (Woollin).
Contemporaneity rule
AR and MR must coincide in a series of acts (Thabo Meli / Church) or a continuing act (Fagan).
Strict liability
Where MR is not required (eg PSGB v Storkwain).
Transferred malice
Where the intended and actual crimes are the same, but the intended victim and actual victim are different (Latimer / Gnango / Pembliton).
Murder
AR
The unlawful killing of a human being under the King's peace.
Human being = can live independently. Therefore raises questions over foetuses.
Cannot be an omission.
MR
Intention to kill (direct (Mohan) or indirect (Woollin))
Implied malice (intention to cause GBH) (Vickers)
Causation
Factual - but for (White, Pagett)
Legal - chain of causation
operating and substantial cause (Smith).
Intervening act - breaks chain - medical (Jordan, Cheshire), victim's act (Roberts), third party act (Pagett).
Thin skull rule - leave victim as found (Blaue)
Voluntary Manslaughter
Loss of control
S54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
S54(1) states LoC is:
D's acts causing the killing of a recognised person as a result of the LoC.
LoC has a qualifying trigger.
person of D's same sex/age/tolerance/self-restraint in all circumstances may have reacted similarly (objective test).
Loss of control rules:
S54(2) no need to be sudden, can be a slow burn process (Ahluwalia).
S54(4) no considered desire for revenge.
Qualifying triggers:
S55(3) - fear trigger
for serious violence - the fear need not be reasonable, and can be for another person (Ward).
S55(4) - anger trigger
for circumstances of an extremely grave character which causes D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
S55(6)
the qualifying trigger cannot be used as an excuse for violence.
sexual infidelity is not a standalone factor (Clinton).
Objective test: jury must decide this (Asmelash).
Burden of proof (the prosecution must disprove the defence beyond all reasonable doubt).
Diminished responsibility
S52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
S52(1) D is suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which:
arose from a recognised medical condition.
substantially impaired D's ability to (s1A): understand the conduct/be rational/exercise self-control.
provides an explanation for D's acts causing the killing (significant contributory factor - s1B).
Medical conditions:
depressive illness/paranoia (Martin).
epilepsy (Campbell).
long-term alcoholism (Tandy).
Battered Woman's Syndrome (Ahluwalia).
ADHD can be a factor if significant (Osbourne).
Substantial impairment:
substantial means 'distinctly more than just past the trivial' / more than trivial/small (Golds).
impairment means D has difficulty in controlling impulses greater than normal (Byrne).
Significant contributory factor:
the abnormality must be a substantial cause, need not be the sole cause (Dietschmann).
Burden of proof: the defence must prove the defence on a balance of probabilities.
Involuntary Manslaughter
Unlawful act manslaughter
Definition
killing by doing an act that is both unlawful and dangerous.
AR
Unlawful
a crime/illegal (Franklin / Lamb).
an act, not an omission (Lowe).
Dangerous
dangerous if all sober and reasonable people would recognise the risk of some harm (Church).
no need to foresee a specific type of harm (Newberry / JM&SM).
Causation
factual
but for (Pagett / White).
legal
Chain of causation - D's act is an operating and substantial cause (Smith / Kennedy), must be de minimis (Shohid).
Intervening acts
Medical treatment (Jordan)
Act of third party (Pagett)
Act of victim (Williams / Roberts)
Thin skull rule (Blaue).
MR
the MR of the offence that caused the death (Lamb).
Gross negligence manslaughter
Give the definition of gross negligence manslaughter – 'serious carelessness' - Adomako
AR
Duty of Care
Statutory (Road Traffic Act 1988)
Special relationship (Gibbins and Proctor)
Voluntary (Evans)
Public (Dytham)
Contractual (Pittwood)
Dangerous situation (Miller)
Breach of duty
Reasonable test - would a reasonable man have done what D did? Must be an obvious risk of death (Misra).
MR
Shows 'such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime' (Lord Hewart CJ).
Causation
Factual causation - 'but for' (White)
Legal causation
operating and substantial cause (Kennedy)
more than minimal cause (Shohid)
NAIs - victim's acts (Roberts), medical intervention (Cheshire), third party's acts (Pagett)
thin skull rule (Blaue).
To note: jury must decide whether there gross negligence (Litchfield).
Non-fatal offences
Battery/Assault
s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Assault
AR - an act that causes apprehension of immediate unlawful force.
cannot be an omission, can be words (Constanza) or actions or silence (Ireland).
words can negate an assault also (Tuberville v Savage).
Immediate means imminent (Smith v CS Woking Police Station).
MR
intention or recklessness to cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful force (Logdon).
Battery
AR - an application of unlawful force.
everyday activities/necessities cannot be force (exigencies) (Collins v Wilcock) but force can be the slightest touch (Faulkner v Talbot). Omissions cannot be force (Fagan).
direct - on the person/clothes (Thomas) or indirect - not so personally (DPP v Khan).
MR
intention or recklessness to apply the force (Mohan).
Actual bodily harm
s47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
AR
Actual - not so trivial as to be insignificant / more than trivial (Chan-Fook). Examples: fainting/temporary unconsciousness (T v DPP); damage without pain (DPP v Smith); psychiatric injury (Constanza / Ireland); minor cuts/bruising.
A s39 offence causes ABH.
MR
intention or recklessness for the s39 offence. Roberts / Savage - doesn't need to be for ABH.
Inflicting grievous bodily harm
s20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
AR - inflicting a wound/GBH.
Wound/GBH: Serious harm (Saunders). Examples: breaking skin (Eisenhower); psychiatric harm (Burstow); broken bones/dislocations/lengthy injuries/permanent disabilities; biological harm (Dica); collection of injuries (Brown).
Can inflict directly, indirectly (Martin), or with no force (Burstow).
MR
intention or recklessness to inflict some injury (Mowatt) maliciously (Cunningham).
Causing grievous bodily harm with intent
s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
AR - the same rules as s20 but 'causing' instead of 'inflicting.'
MR - specific intention to cause serious injury/GBH. Can be rare to prove (Belfon / Taylor).
Sentences
s39 - max 6 months imprisonment / fine.
s 47 and s20 - max 5 years imprisonment.
s 18 - life imprisonment.
Theft
Definition: s1 Theft Act 1968. Dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
AR
S3 - Appropriation.
when an interference with someone's rights (R v Morris, Anderton and Burnside)
S4 - Property.
real property, things in action and intangible goods (trade marks), physical things.
cannot be: knowledge (Oxford v Moss); wild creatures and nature; corpses.
S5 - Belonging to another.
when defendant takes it, it doesn't need to be total proprietary interest (the defendant could take possession or control of the item, but not ownership) (R v Turner (No 2)).
MR
S2 - Dishonesty.
Statute law: under s2(1) Theft Act 1968 defendant is honest if:
defendant has a legal right to deprive.
the owner would have consented.
reasonable steps were taken to discover the owner.
Common law: Ivey v Genting - overruled Ghosh Test, now:
(1) ascertain actual state of defendant’s knowledge/belief of facts (subjective);
(2) determine whether conduct was honest by standard of ordinary, decent people (objective).
Barton and Booth supports Ivey v Genting.
S6 - Intention to permanently deprive.
Lavender - treating property as one's own regardless of the other's rights.
Lloyd - when all 'goodness and virtue' is gone from the property.
Robbery
S8 Theft Act 1968.
AR
must be a theft (Zerei)
s3 appropriation
s4 property
s5 belonging to another
must have use of force (Hale) or threat of using force (B and R v DPP).
timing: for sole purpose of robbery and immediately before/during (Hale).
MR
must be a theft
...