Criminal Law

Conduct Offences- A crime where only the conduct needs to be proved, eg dangerous driving

Result Offences- The defendant's conduct causes a particular result eg murder 

Factual Causation ('but for' R v White) + Legal Causation (defendants act is operating and substantial cause R v Pagett)

Omission- failure to act when you have a legal duty, General rule that a defendant cannot be  liable for a failure to act as there is no general duty to act. Will be liable under below exceptions

a. Statutory duty

b. Special relationship

c. Voluntary assumption

d, Contractual 

e. Creating a dangerous situation

Medical Negligence- Only an intervening act if the second cause is 'so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of history', so rare that there hasnt been a case successfully relying on this. Very rare for the courts to let medical professionals take blame and defendant walk free.

Cases include- R v Smith and R v Cheshire.

Acts of third parties- 'free, deliberate and informed' R v Pagett

Acts of the Victim- Victim themselves try to escape away from the defendant. Itwill only break the chain if it was not a reasonably foreseeable response. 

Refusal of treatment- defendant mus take the victim as they find them to mean body & mind.

Suicide- Case by case basis, has the victim made things worse.

The 'Thin Skull' Rule- Victim has an underlying conditon which is then made worse by the defendant's offence. Defendant must take the victim as they find them (R v Hayward)

Mens Rea- 'Guilty Mind', refers to the defendants mental state in relation to the criminal offence.

• General rule, the defendant must have the relevant mens rea for the offence at the precise moment when D commits the actus reus- 'coincidence of actus reus and mens rea'. 
• Courts have developed flexibility to this- continuing act theory 
• Transferred malice- When D's mens rea is transferred from the intended harm to actual harm

Types of Mens Rea

• Intention- Direct (What the defendant aims to happen, subjective) or indirect(not defendant's purpose but a side effect, outcome was virtually certain and defendant appreciated this, rare)
• Recklessness- Taking an unjustifable risk that leads to unlawful harm or damage.
• Knowledge and belief
• Dishonesty-  Defendants state of mind, knowledge and belief to which standards of the ordinary person is applied.
• Negligence- Occurs when someone acts in a way that is gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do and puts others at risk. 

Actus Reus- Unlawful killing of a human being under the King's peace.

• 'Unlawful'- not a time of war, under the death penalty (does not apply now) or self defence. 
• 'Killing'- defendant factually and legally caused the death. Look at Causation. 
• 'Human Being'- Have to be capable of indepedent life, cannot be a foetus or already be dead.
• 'Kings Peace'- Kings jurisdiction.

Mens Rea- Malice aforethought (outdated). Intention to kill or intention to cause GBH.

Full defence- Self defence is a complete defence to murder, defendant can 'walk free'.

Partial defences- Loss of control or Dimished Responsibility = Voluntary Manslaughter

• Loss of control, qualifying trigger (fear of violence or anger), normal person test (person of D's sex, age, normal degree of tolerence and self restraint might have acted in the same way)
• Diminshed Responsibility- Abnormality of mental functioning, recognised medical condition, substantial impairment of D's ability to do something, provides explanation for the act.

Defendant did kill the victim but the defendant lacks the mens rea- e.g accidental. Two types of Involuntary Manslaughter- Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

• Intentional/Voluntary Act
• Unlawful Act- has to be a criminal act, intrisically unlawful and cannot be an omission.
• Dangerous Act- 'a sober and reasonable person would see the risk of some harm resulting'
• Caused the death of the victim.

Gross Negligence Manslaughter- R v Adomako

• Duty of care- was there a legal duty of care?
• Breach of duty of care- did the defendant fall below the standard expected of them.
• Breach causes death
• Risk of death- 'must be obvious and serious risk not merely of injury or even serious injury'
• Gross neglgience- not defined, question of fact, R v Bateman, R v Litchfield, R v Singh

Criminal Damage Act 1871

Actus Reus

• Destroy or damage- question of fact and degree
• Property- S 10 (1) property of a tangible nature whether real, personal including money and wild creatures which have been tamed or kept in capitivty. 
• Belonging to another- S 10 (2) someone has custody/control, proprietary right or charge
• Without Lawful excuse- general defences can apply to any offence of criminal damage/arson

Mens Rea

Intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property belonging to another.

• Intention- Ordinary meaning- was it the defendant's aim or purpose
• Recklessness- R v G- when committing the act, accused was subjectively aware of risk and  it was objectively unreasonable for the accused to take that risk. 

Basic Arson- same but destroy or damage by the property by FIRE.

Actus Reus

• Destroy or damage (with fire for Aggravated Arson)
• Property
• Belonging to another or himself
• Without Lawful Excuse- general defences do not apply to any aggravated offence.

• Intention or Recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property belonging to another (by fire for aggravated arson)
• Intending by the destruction or damage (caused by fire if Arson) to endager life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endagered. 

Aggravated Criminal damage is only triable on indictment which means it must be heard in the Crown Court.

Maximum penalty for aggravated criminal damage is life imprisonment. 

Actus reus

• Appropriation (s3)- assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation. 
• Property (s4)- includes money and all other real or personal property inlucding things in action and other intangible property, Exceptions for land, things growing in the wild, wild creatures.
• Belonging to Another (s5) person has possession,control or proprietary right. Can be difficult if the land has been 'abandoned'. Property can belong to more than 1 person (R v Turner).

Mens Rea

• Dishonestly (s2)- statute does not define dishonesty. What was the defendant's knowledge and belief, given that knowledge was the defendant dishonest by the standards of ordinary people. Can still be dishonest if you have a willingness to pay (Ivey v Genting Casinos)
• With the intention to permenantly deprive- Ordinary meaning provided or if you have an intention to treat the thing as your own (borrowing, ransome etc)

Theft Act 1968 Section 8

Actus Reus

• Actus reus for theft.
• Force (in one of 3 ways; uses force, puts any person in fear or seeks to put any person in fear of being subjected to force)
• On any person
• Use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing

R v Hale- Can use the act of 'force' after the event if the defendant is still in the act of theft.

Mens Rea

• Mens rea of theft
• Intent to use force in order to steal

Theft Act 1968 Section 9 

Section 9(1)(a) Burglary

• The defendant must enter as a trespasser
• Have the intention to steal, inflict GBH or unlawfully damage property ('ulterior offence')

The burglary is committed at the point of entry, it doesn't matter if the defendant goes on to commit the ulterior offence. 

Section 9(1)(b) Burglary

• The defendant must enter as a trespasser with knowledge or being reckless as to trespass
• The defendant goes on to commit theft, attempted theft, GBH or attempted GBH.

Would need the full Actus Reus and Mens Rea for a Section 9(1)(b)

• Exception for GBH (R v Jenkins)

Actus Reus- Section 10 TA 1968

• The Defendant commits a burglary- Either 9 (1)(a) or 9 (1)(b)
• The Defendant has with him at that time
• A firearm, weapon of offence or explosive

'explosive'- any article manufactured for the purpose of producing a practical effect by explosion

'firearm'- includes an airgun or air pistol 

'imitation firearm'- anything which has the appearance of being a firearm whether capable of being discharged or not

'weapon of offence'- any article made or adapted for use of causing injury to or incapacitating a person or intended by the person having it with him for such use.

The Fraud Act 2006- abolished old offences related to deception, now 3 ways to commit fraud;

• Section 2- Fraud by false representation

Actus Reus- Express or implied representation, representation as to fact, law or state of mind and the representation is untrue or misleading.

Mens Rea- Dishonesty, intention to make a gain or cause a loss.

• Section 3- Fraud by failure to disclose

Actus Reus- Existence of a legal duty & a failure to disclose

Mens Rea- Dishonesty and an intention to make a gain or cause a loss.

• Section 4- Fraud by abuse of position

Actus Reus- Occupy a position (Law Commission not statute) go on to abuse the position.

Mens Rea- Dishonesty and an intention to make a gain or cause a loss.

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Assault- the least severe OAPA, the defendant does not have to touch the victim to constitute an assault, the victim has to 'apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence'

Actus Reus

• Apprehension- do not have to fear the defendant's actions but do have to expect something, words/silence can be an assault, words can negate an assault also 
• Immediate- Broad interpretation, can be within the 'near future'
• Unlawful- has to be no lawful defence such as consent
• Personal Violence- contact/touch

Mens Rea

• Intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Battery is a contact offence.

Actus Reus

• Application- direct, indirect or an omission
• Unlawful- no defences apply (implied consent may cancel out the offence)
• Force- any sort of contact, 'merest of contact', does not have to be hostile or aggressive and does not need to cause an injury

Mens Rea

• Intention or Recklessness as to applying unlawful force

If an injury has been sustained it is likely to warrant a more serious offence than battery.

Battery generally attracts sentences of up to 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000

Offences Against the Person Act- Section 47

Actus Reus

• Assault- Need an assault or Battery (DPP v Little) need full Actus Reus & Mens Rea for that smaller offence.
• Occasioning- Causation, factual and legal.
• ABH- 'Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim', the 'injury (doesnt need to be permament) but should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant'.

Mens Rea

• The MR of assault or battery. No need to intend to apply ABH.

Actus Reus and Mens Rea of this offence do not match up- can come up in MCQs.

ABH is a triable either-way offence, the maximum sentence for ABH is 5 years imprisonment. 

Offences Agaisnt the Person Act- Section 20 (lesser offence for GBH)

'Whosoever shal unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any gbh on any other person either with or without a weapon or instrument shall be guilty of a misdeamenour'.

Actus Reus

• Wound - both layers of the skin have been broken.
• Inflict GBH- 'serious harm', look at the victim involved, serious harm to a minor or an elderly person may differ.

Can be either a Wound or inflicitng GBH doesnt need to be both.

Mens Rea

• Intention or recklessness as to the causing of some harm.

Maximum imprisonment- 5 years.

Offences Agaisnt the Person Act Section 18 (most serious non-fatal)

'Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means wound or cause any GBH to any person, with intent, to do some GBH to any person or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person shall be guilty of a felony'.

Actus Reus

• Wound 
• Inflict GBH

Mens Rea

• Intention to cause GBH (cannot be recklessness)

Can commit a S.18 to yourself.

Can face life imprisonment for S.18 GBH with intent.

Intoxication can in some cases can negate the Mens Rea, if it can- no offence.

Step 1- What type of intoxication

• Was it voluntary or involuntary? (R v Coley or R v Kingston)

Step 2- if it was voluntary

• Was it a dangerous drug/alcohol or non-dangerous?

Step 3- Type of crime

• Was it a basic intent offence or specific intent (specific intent is not recklessness)
• If someone chooses to take alcohol and commits a basic intent offence they could rely on intoxication if they could prove if sober, they wouldnt have formed MR i.e accidental. 

R v Kingston- See if D has formed the MR in his intoxicated state.

If intoxication is used successfully- acquitted, but may be committed of a lesser offence.

Express Consent- Normally just applies to Non fatal offences.

Step 1

• Did the Victim consent or was there a belief in consent?- A drunken mistake can suffice

Step 2

• Is this an offence a victim can consent to?- Victims can consent to assault or battery but cannot consent to offences of ABH or more.

A vicitm cannot consent to harm, unless an exception applies such as medical treatment, lawful chastisement, sport, horseplay, tattooing, body piercing.

Sexual gratification used to be an exception but is no longer excepted under the Domestic Violence Act 2021.

'Self-defence' can be taken to cover a number of defences where a person acts to

• Protect themselves or someone else
• Protect property
• Prevent a crime or assist in the arrest of an offender

Self defence is a complete defence (R v Clegg) so the defendant would be acquitted. 

1. Trigger

• Defendant honestly believed that they needed to use force, and was it necessary- it is subjective, does not matter if D makes an honest mistake (depending on  intoxication) has to be in response to an imminent threat or anticipated imminent attack.

2. Response

• Level of force used was objectively reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be (depends on householder or non-householder cases)

Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (CAA 1981)

Actus Reus

• Doing an act that is 'more than merely preparatory'- it is a question of fact for jury to decide. 

Mens Rea

• D must intend to bring about the consequences required for the full offence.
• R v Toole- If mens rea is intention or recklessness- intention MUST be proved.

The mens rea for an attempted offence Intention as to damaging property by fire and an intention or recklessness as to endangering life by the fire damage

For attempted version of aggravated offence- endangering of life can be intention or recklessness. 

Impossibility- Non-existent crime (will be a defence) through inadequacy (not a defence) or in fact (not a defence)  

Two defendants who are equally as involved & liable= co-defendants.

Prinicpal + Secondary Party (accessory/accomplice)

Innocent agents- someone under 10 years old, or where the principal is using someone who is unaware of whats happening and do not have the MR will be an innocent agent. 

5 ways someone could be a secondary party-

• Aid- requires accessory to help or support the principal offender, causation is not required. Takes place before or during D has committed the offence.
• Abet- 'incite, instigate or encourage' offence. No need for causal link must be communication
• Counsel- giving advice before commission of the offnece, no causal link must be contact.
• Procure- To procure means to produce by endeavour- MUST be a causal link. 
• Be a party to a joint enterprise- 2 or more parties, committing together. 
  

Withdrawal- secondary party can change their mind and withdraw- something must be done, withdrawal must be communicated to principal or law enforcement agent.