2 - Actus Reus & Mens Rea

Question 1

What are the three components required to establish criminal liability?

Answer 1

(a) Guilty conduct by the defendant (actus reus);
(b) Guilty state of mind of the defendant (mens rea); and
(c) Absence of any valid defence.

For example, for the crime of murder, the defendant must kill the victim (the actus reus) and do so with
an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (the mens rea). However, the accused will not be liable for murder if they have a valid defence, such as self- defence

Question 2

Who is the burden and standard of proof generally on during criminal proceedings?

Answer 2

• The legal burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove all the elements of the offence, including (in most cases) disproving the defence.
• The evidential burden is also on the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence for each element of the offence. This may take the form of police interviews, witness or expert
  evidence and forensic evidence such as fingerprints or DNA.
• The standard of proof, where the prosecution has the burden, is beyond reasonable doubt. This is a very high standard, so that the jury or magistrates should convict only if they are sure of the defendant’s guilt.

Question 3

When might the defendant have the burden of proving the offence?

Answer 3

Rare instances, for example the partial defence to murder of diminished responsibility.
When such a burden does fall on the defendant, the standard of proof
is lower than for the prosecution, being only on the balance of probabilities; in other words, it is more likely than not that the defence exists.

Proving a defence - There are also occasions when the evidential burden falls on the defence. In such cases the defendant must show sufficient evidence to enable them to rely on a defence, which the prosecution must then disprove. This simply means that the defence must raise some evidence to make the issue ‘live’ and this will usually be done by the defendant and/ or someone else giving evidence in court or by cross- examining a prosecution witness.

Question 4

Where is the actus reus of an offence found at law?

Answer 4

The actus reus of every offence is different and may be found either:
- In statute, for example criminal damage and theft; or
- In the common law, with murder being the most serious example.

The actus reus elements of an offence are all those that do not relate to the state of mind of the defendant.

Question 5

What is the actus reus of an offence?

Answer 5

In most instances, the defendant must do something before they can be said to have committed a criminal offence. However, the actus reus may be established by proving that the defendant failed to take action,
or even just by proving that a situation exists.

It may consist of:
- A voluntary act (or sometimes a failure to act) by the defendant (‘conduct’ crimes);
- Certain consequences flowing from the defendant’s conduct (‘result’ crimes), otherwise known as proving causation; and/ or
- The existence of certain circumstances at the time of the defendant’s conduct (‘circumstances / state of affairs’ crimes)

Question 6

What is the significance of conduct in determining the actus reus of an offence?

Answer 6

For most offences, the actus reus requires specific conduct by the accused.

The definition of the offence often focuses on the defendant’s behavior. For example:
Perjury: This is a “pure” conduct crime where the act of willfully making a false statement under oath is criminalised, regardless of whether it affects the outcome of the trial.

Some offences, like assault occasioning actual bodily harm, require both conduct (such as a punch) and a result (some harm to the victim).

Question 7

What is a result crime?

Answer 7

• A result crime requires not only that the defendant acts in a particular way but that certain consequences follow from their actions to satisfy the actus reus.
• Examples include murder, where the result is the death of a human being, and criminal damage, where property must be destroyed or damaged.

Question 8

What is a state of affair crime?

Answer 8

A state of affairs crime does not require any conduct; the actus reus is the existence of a particular set of circumstances. The defendant can be held liable even if they had no control over the situation.

Example: Under s 4(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, simply being in charge of a vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs is an offence, if one unknowingly consumed alcohol and was found unfit to drive, even though he hadn’t attempted to drive.

These offences are justified by public policy to prevent risks like drunken driving.

Question 9

What are omissions in criminal law?

Answer 9

• Omissions refer to cases where a defendant can be convicted for failing to act, rather than for taking a positive action.
• Though most crimes involve active steps, some offences can result from doing nothing. Even serious crimes like murder can be committed through omissions if a particular result, such as death, is produced.

Example: A doctor refusing to administer an antidote, leading to a patient’s death, would be liable for failing to act.

Question 10

What is the general rule for criminal liability regarding omissions?

Answer 10

• The general rule is that there is no criminal liability for omissions; a person is not legally obligated to act.
• However, there are exceptions to this general rule.

Example: If Beatrice saw a man in danger but chose not to help, despite moral duty, she wouldn’t be criminally liable for his death under the law.

Question 11

Summary of omissions

Answer 11

The general rule is that there is no liability for omissions.

There are exceptions to this rule where the defendant is under a positive duty to act, namely, where there is:
- A statutory duty to act;
- A contractual duty to act;
- A special relationship between the victim and the defendant;
- A duty based on a voluntary assumption of care; and
- A duty that arises because the defendant, having created and become aware of a dangerous situation, fails to take reasonable steps to avert it

Question 12

What are statutory offences regarding omissions?

Answer 12

• Certain statutes impose a legal duty to act, making omissions criminally liable.

Example: Failing to provide a breath specimen when requested by the police or failing to stop after a traffic collision are statutory offences where failure to act can lead to prosecution.

Question 13

What is criminal liability for omissions under common law?

Answer 13

Under common law, liability arises when the defendant has a recognised duty to act and fails to do so.

Question 14

What duty arises out of contract leading to liability for omissions under common law?

Answer 14

• Contractual obligations may impose a duty to act, and failing to meet those obligations can lead to criminal liability.

Example: In R v Pittwood (1902), a railway worker failed to close a gate, leading to a fatal accident, and was convicted of manslaughter due to his contractual duty to protect the public.

• Care workers also have a contractual duty to look after patients and could be liable for any harm that results from their failure to act.

Example:A care worker, failed to visit her patient, leading to the patient’s death from dehydration, making the care worker criminally liable due to her contractual duty to care for the patient.

Question 15

What is the duty to act based on a special relationship?

Answer 15

• A defendant may incur criminal liability for omissions when there is a special relationship with the victim, such as family ties or assumed responsibility.
  Example: In R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918), a father and his partner were convicted of murder when the father failed to feed his daughter.
• This duty can extend beyond close family relationships to situations where a person voluntarily undertakes care for someone who cannot care for themselves.

Question 16

What is the duty arising from creating a dangerous situation?

Answer 16

• A person who creates a dangerous situation has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm from occurring.
• Example: In R v Miller (1983), the defendant was guilty not for starting a fire but for failing to take steps to prevent the fire from spreading after realising the danger.
• Criminal liability is imposed only on those who create the danger and, having become aware of it, fail to take reasonable measures to counteract it.

Question 17

What is causation and who must prove it?

Answer 17

• For criminal offences, as part of establishing the actus reus, the prosecution must also demonstrate that
  the accused’s act or omission actually caused the prohibited consequence.
• Causation is an element of the actus reus and should be dealt with as such, rather than as a separate
  entity or as part of the mens rea.
• This is known as proving causation

Examples - Daria stabbed Vera (conduct) leading to Vera’s death (result). Deshi failed to seek medical help for his daughter (omission) so that the child died (result).

Question 18

What two types of causation must be present in order for causation to be established?

Answer 18

• There are two types of causation – factual and legal causation. Both must be present in order for causation to be established as part of the actus reus.
• The general rule is that a defendant is criminally liable only if they can be shown to have caused, both in fact and law, harm to the victim

Question 19

What is factual causation?

Answer 19

Factual causation means the defendant cannot be responsible for an event if the event would have occurred in the same way without the defendant’s actions.

This is assessed using the “but for” test: But for the defendant’s conduct, would the result have occurred?
- Yes – If the result would have happened regardless, factual causation is not established.
- No – If the defendant’s actions directly caused the result, factual causation is established.

Question 20

How does the “but for” test apply in factual causation?

Answer 20

The test shows that factual causation requires the defendant’s conduct to have accelerated or caused the result that wouldn’t have otherwise happened at that time.

Example: In R v White (1910), the defendant poisoned his mother’s drink, but she died of a heart attack before the poison took effect. The court ruled that he was not factually responsible for her death since she would have died anyway, so factual causation wasn’t established. He was only guilty of attempted murder.

Question 21

What is legal causation?

Answer 21

Legal causation requires that the defendant’s conduct be a substantial and operating cause of the consequence, meaning their actions must significantly contribute to the result.

Legal causation is only assessed if factual causation is proven, using the “but for” test: but for the defendant’s conduct, the result would not have occurred.

Question 22

What role does a culpable act or omission play in legal causation?

Answer 22

Legal causation is only established if the result is due to the defendant’s culpable act or omission.

Example: In R v Dalloway (1847), a child ran in front of the defendant’s cart and was killed. The court ruled that even though the defendant was negligent in not holding the reins, his failure didn’t cause the death, as holding the reins wouldn’t have saved the child.

Question 23

Can legal causation be established when multiple causes contribute to the outcome?

Answer 23

Yes, the defendant’s act must be a more than minimal cause of the result, even if other causes are also involved.

Example: In R v Benge (1865), the defendant misread a timetable, leading to a collision that caused deaths. Despite other parties being at fault, the defendant was liable since his actions significantly contributed to the outcome.

Question 24

What is the “eggshell skull rule” in legal causation?

Answer 24

The eggshell skull rule means the defendant must take the victim as they find them, including any pre-existing conditions ot circumstances.

Example: In R v Blaue (1975), the victim died after refusing a life-saving blood transfusion due to religious beliefs. The defendant was still held responsible, as the stab wound caused the death, regardless of the victim’s refusal of treatment.

Question 25

What is the chain of causation, and why is it important in criminal law?

Answer 25

• The chain of causation refers to the direct link between a defendant’s actions and the resulting consequence, typically death.
• It is crucial because it establishes whether the defendant’s conduct directly caused the consequence. If the chain is broken by an intervening act, the defendant may be absolved of liability.

Question 26

How can the chain of causation be broken in a criminal case?

Answer 26

The chain of causation can be broken in three ways:
1. When the victim acts in a particular way that contributes to their own harm.
2. Through an intervening act by another person that occurs between the defendant’s conduct and the result.
3. By external events that happen after the defendant’s actions and influence the outcome.

Question 27

When considering intervening acts regarding causation, what will the court take into account?

Answer 27

When determining the issue of causation, the court will take into account:
- Whether the escape is within the range of reasonable responses to be expected of a victim in that situation;
- Whether the victim’s response is proportionate to the threat; or
- Whether it is so ‘daft’ as to be a voluntary act; and
- The fact that the victim is acting in ‘the agony of the moment’ without time for thought or deliberation.
- Third party intervention if free, deliberate, and informed OR not reasonably foreseeable.
- Unforeseeable events.

Question 28

How does voluntary euthanasia relate to the chain of causation in criminal law?

Answer 28

In the case of R v Wallace, the Court of Appeal held that voluntary euthanasia does not automatically break the chain of causation.

It is necessary to consider whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the victim would choose euthanasia due to their injuries. All circumstances must be examined to determine if such a response was within the range of reasonable actions for the victim.

Question 29

What are the conditions under which a third party’s actions can break the chain of causation?

Answer 29

A defendant will not be liable if a third party’s intervening act is:

1. Free, deliberate, and informed, or
2. Not reasonably foreseeable.
   For example, in R v Pagett, the police officer’s instinctive response during a shooting incident did not break the chain of causation because it was a foreseeable reaction to the defendant’s actions.

Question 30

What is mens rea?

Answer 30

• Mens rea is the technical term for the mental state required for a particular offence.
  If the prosecution cannot achieve this, the accused will not be convicted.
• For some crimes such as murder, the mens rea will only be satisfied by intention but, for the vast majority of offences, it is enough that the defendant was reckless as to the consequences.
• However, for others, mere negligence will be sufficient or even no mens rea at all and these are known as strict liability offences.
• Such a defendant is the most blameworthy as they act deliberately with a criminal aim in mind. At the lower end are strict liability offences where the defendant may not even know they have done anything wrong. In between are
  recklessness and negligence.

Question 31

What is intention in criminal law?

Answer 31

• Intention is the most culpable type of mens rea, indicating the defendant’s purpose to bring about the actus reus.
• It should not be confused with motive; motive refers to the reason behind the act.

Example: Arthur kills his terminally ill wife, intending to end her suffering (intention to kill) while his motive is to end her suffering.

Question 32

What constitutes direct intention?

Answer 32

Direct intention refers to the situation where the defendant actively seeks to achieve a specific outcome, or has in mind a particular purpose.

A defendant has direct intent if causing a consequence, such as death, criminal damage, or assault, is their aim or purpose.

Question 33

What is indirect (oblique) intention?

Answer 33

Indirect intention occurs when the consequences that the defendant achieves by committing the actus reus are a by-product, not the principal purpose of their actions.

Example: Mario tampers with the helicopter’s engine management system to kill his business partner, Giuseppe, knowing it will cause the engine to stall and crash, leading to the unintended death of pilot Sarah.

Indirect intent often arises in murder cases where the defendant argues against intending to kill the victim.

Question 34

What is the legal test for indirect intention?

Answer 34

The concept of indirect intent was established to handle cases where the defendant claims that the outcome was not their main aim.

The legal test, clarified in R v Woollin (1999), involves two questions:
1. Was the consequence virtually certain to occur from the defendant’s act (or omission)?
2. Did the defendant appreciate that the consequence was virtually certain to occur?

If both questions are answered ‘yes,’ the jury may find intent, regardless of the defendant’s claims.

Question 35

How do jurors assess indirect intent for mens rea?

Answer 35

Jurors will consider:
- What the defendant themselves foresaw or perceived as a consequence of their actions, which is a subjective test.
- Additionally, the reasonable person’s foresight is a good indication that the jury can take into account.

Example: Barry sets fire to his council property intending to force the local authority to rehouse his family. Despite loving his children, the jury will assess both direct and indirect intent based on the circumstances of the fire and the awareness of risks involved.

Question 36

Summary of intent

Answer 36

Most crimes may be committed either intentionally or recklessly; however, some crimes, such as murder, require proof that the defendant intended the result.

If the defendant’s primary purpose was to bring about a particular consequence, they intended that consequence, regardless of the likelihood of success, which is termed direct intent.

In cases requiring more guidance, the judge will instruct the jury to find intention if:
- The consequence was virtually certain to occur.
- The defendant foresaw that consequence as being virtually certain to occur.

When proof of intention is required, the motive of the defendant is usually irrelevant.

Question 37

Summary of recklessness

Answer 37

The law relating to recklessness may be summarised as follows:
- The risk that the defendant takes must be an unjustified one (objective).
- The test is whether this defendant foresees that risk (of whatever is required by the specific offence) and goes on to take it (subjective).
- The subjective test for recklessness applies to any criminal offence in which recklessness forms part of the necessary mens rea.

Question 38

What constitutes recklessness in criminal law?

Answer 38

• Recklessness is established when the defendant takes an unjustified risk.
• It is a less culpable form of mens rea compared to intention, as it involves foresight of possible or probable consequences instead of recognising virtually certain outcomes.

Question 39

What are the two essential elements that must be present for recklessness?

Answer 39

1. Unjustified Risk: The risk taken by the defendant must be unreasonable and unjustified.
2. Awareness: The defendant must be aware of the risk yet choose to proceed with that risk.

Question 40

How does the court assess whether a risk is justified?

Answer 40

The justification of a risk involves considering several factors, including:
- The reasons behind the defendant’s actions.
- The nature of the risk and the anticipated consequences.

The court weighs the social utility of the action against the likelihood or severity of potential harm.

Example: Entering a burning building to save a child is a high-risk action with significant social utility, whereas jumping into stormy waters to save a dog presents high risk but low social benefit.

Question 41

What does subjective recklessness mean, and how is it determined?

Answer 41

Subjective recklessness refers to the defendant’s mental state at the time of taking an unjustified risk, necessitating a subjective test.

The prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant actually foresaw the risk before acting.

Question 42

Summary of negligence.

Answer 42

For crimes where the mens rea may be satisfied by negligence:
- A person is punished simply for failing to measure up to the standards of the
reasonable person.
- Whilst the defendant may have acted intentionally or recklessly, this is not required to establish criminal liability; it is what the defendant did that is relevant.
- Because the test is objective, individual considerations such as the defendant’s motive for acting as they did, or lack of experience, are not taken into account

Question 43

How can negligence be defined in the context of criminal law?

Answer 43

• Some offenses may occur without proof of intention or recklessness by the defendant.
• When mens rea requires only negligence, the defendant is judged on an objective standard that can be satisfied even if the defendant is unaware of the risk, provided it is an obvious one.
• This may operate harshly, as the accused might not understand or be capable of recognising the risk, resulting in punishment for failing to measure up to the standards of the reasonable person.

Question 44

What findings are associated with the objective negligence test?

Answer 44

• A defendant can be deemed negligent if they fail to foresee a risk that a reasonable person would have foreseen.
• If the defendant foresaw the risk but did not take steps to avoid it, they are also considered negligent.
• If the defendant foresaw the risk but took inadequate steps to avoid it, they will still be found negligent.

In all these instances, the defendant falls below the standard expected of a reasonable person.

Question 45

What is the key difference between recklessness and negligence?

Answer 45

Both forms of mens rea involve taking an unjustifiable risk, but the distinction lies in the defendant’s state of mind:

• Recklessness involves the conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk, where the defendant is aware of the risk but proceeds anyway.
• Negligence, on the other hand, involves the inadvertent taking of an unjustifiable risk, and it can be proven simply by showing that the defendant’s conduct fell short of an objective standard, typically characterised by carelessness.

Question 46

What is the relevance of statutory offenses to negligence?

Answer 46

Criminal liability can often be established simply by showing that the defendant has acted carelessly.

For instance, under Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a person is guilty of an offense if they drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place.

The test for negligence in this context is objective, meaning the defendant’s conduct is judged against what a competent and careful driver would do.

Question 47

Summary of strict liability.

Answer 47

• Offences of strict liability are exceptions to the general rule that mens rea is required for
  criminal offences.
• A person may be convicted of an offence even though they lack the mens rea for one or more elements of the actus reus.
• In some instances, the statute expressly states that the offence created is one of strict
• liability or uses words, such as ‘intentionally’, that make it clear it is not.
• In the absence of anything express, a rebuttable presumption applies that the offence is not strictly liable.
• Usually, the higher the social stigma and the greater the penalty on conviction, the more likely that mens rea will be required

Question 48

What are strict liability offenses in criminal law?

Answer 48

• In most crimes, an accused can only be convicted if they possess a ‘guilty mind’ (mens rea).
• However, strict liability offenses do not require proof of mens rea or negligence for at least one element of the actus reus.
• These offenses form a small but significant category of criminal law aimed at regulating certain behaviors, e.g., individuals engaged in specific conduct relating to food safety.

Question 49

What types of offences fall under strict liability?

Answer 49

Most strict liability offenses are statutory and regulatory in nature, aimed at discouraging incompetence and unsafe actions while promoting vigilance and safety.

Examples include offenses related to:
- Food safety
- Consumer protection
- Misuse of drugs
- Environmental regulations
- Road safety
- Health and safety

They primarily target individuals engaged in specific conduct rather than the general public.

Question 50

Why are strict liability offenses implemented?

Answer 50

Public policy reasons include simplifying criminal prosecutions from an evidential perspective, as they do not require proof of mens rea.
This leads to quicker, less costly trials and a generally higher conviction rate.

Question 51

What potential issues arise from strict liability offenses?

Answer 51

• The strict liability rule can sometimes lead to harsh outcomes and injustice, particularly when a defendant inadvertently commits the actus reus without any criminal intent.
• For example, a pharmacist convicted under strict liability for supplying drugs based on a fraudulent prescription, despite being completely blameless.

Question 52

How can one identify whether something is a strict liability offense?

Answer 52

• The legal definition typically clarifies whether mens rea is required. If not, it falls to the court to determine if the offense is one of strict liability.
• Statutory offenses often explicitly state whether strict liability applies. For example, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 outlines the strict liability rule regarding contempt, while the Theft Act 1968 uses terms that indicate mens rea is required.

Question 53

What is the presumption regarding mens rea in statutory offenses?

Answer 53

If a statute is silent on mens rea, there is a presumption in favour of requiring it. However, this presumption can be rebutted.

Courts consider several factors, including:
- The overall wording of the statute; if other sections imply mens rea, the omission suggests a strict liability offense was intended.
- The social context; offenses with greater social danger are more likely to be strict liability.
- The nature of the behavior; if it is deemed “truly criminal,” courts are less inclined to infer strict liability.

Question 54

Can you provide an example of a strict liability offense in the context of driving?

Answer 54

• Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 addresses driving with excess alcohol.
  The statute does not mention mens rea, leading to the presumption of strict liability.
• Individuals are guilty even if they are unaware of their alcohol level exceeding the prescribed limit, illustrating how strict liability can apply to situations with significant social dangers, such as driving.

Question 55

Summary of transferred malice.

Answer 55

• Under the doctrine of transferred malice, the defendant’s intention towards A may be
  transferred to B where they commit the actus reus of the same offence in relation to B.
• Malice may be transferred from person to person, or from object to object.
• There is a limit to the scope of this doctrine; where the actus reus and mens rea relate to different types of offences, transferred malice does not operate. E.g., an individual intended to hurt someone by throwing a vase but instead smashed a window.
• If the mens rea of the offence includes recklessness, it may not be necessary to consider the doctrine of transferred malice at all.

Question 56

Do the actus reus and mens rea of an offence need to coincide to find criminal liability?

Answer 56

The general rule is that the actus reus and mens rea of an offence must coincide in time in order for the defendant to be guilty of an offence.

There are two exceptions to this rule:
- The continuing act principle applies where the defendant’s act satisfies the actus reus of an offence and, at some point, they also have the necessary mens rea for that offence.
- The single transaction principle is relevant where there is a series of events and, from the outset, the defendant is involved in criminal activity. Provided the eventual act that
causes death or the offence is part of the same sequence of events as the initial act, it does not matter that there is a time lapse between the two

Question 57

How is ‘intent’ used in the context of classifying offenses in criminal law?

Answer 57

• In criminal law, the term ‘intent’ classifies offenses into categories such as basic intent, specific intent, and ulterior intent.
• Definition: The dedendant intends a result when it is the purpose of his act.
• Understanding these categories is crucial, especially regarding defenses like intoxication.

Question 58

What are offenses of basic intent?

Answer 58

• Basic intent offenses can be committed either intentionally or recklessly.
• An example is simple criminal damage, where the actus reus involves the destruction or damage of property belonging to another without lawful excuse.
• The mens rea for basic intent is that the defendant either intended or was reckless about the destruction or damage.

A key point is that defendants cannot use voluntary intoxication as a defense for basic intent crimes.

Question 59

What are offenses of specific intent?

Answer 59

Specific intent offenses can only be committed intentionally.

Examples include:
- Murder: The mens rea requires an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.
- Theft: The mens rea requires an intention to permanently deprive another of property.

In contrast to basic intent crimes, defendants may successfully plead intoxication as a defence for specific intent offenses in certain circumstances.

Question 60

What are offenses of ulterior intent?

Answer 60

• Ulterior intent offences require a mens rea that goes beyond the actus reus of the offense.
• The prosecution must establish an additional element of mens rea for conviction.

For example:
In burglary (TA 1968, s 9(1)(a)), the actus reus is entering a building as a trespasser, and the ulterior mens rea involves the intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm, or cause damage inside the building.

In aggravated criminal damage, the actus reus is destroying property belonging to another, but the ulterior mens rea involves intending to endanger life through that damage.

Question 61

What is significant about the prosecution’s burden in ulterior intent offenses?

Answer 61

• For ulterior intent offenses, the prosecution must prove not only the actus reus and the mens rea but also the additional mens rea that indicates an intent to bring about a consequence beyond the actus reus.
• It is irrelevant if the intended consequence actually occurs; for instance, in aggravated criminal damage, it does not matter if no one’s life was endangered.

Question 62

What is the summary classification of offences?

Answer 62

Basic Intent: Can be committed intentionally or recklessly; voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defence.

Specific Intent: Can only be committed intentionally; intoxication can be used as a defence.

Ulterior Intent: Requires a mens rea that goes beyond the actus reus of the offense.

Question 63

What must be established for a defendant to be criminally liable and what happens if a valid and complete defence exists?

Answer 63

A defendant must demonstrate the actus reus and mens rea of the relevant offense and the absence of a valid defense.
If a valid and complete defense exists, the defendant will not be criminally liable.

Question 64

What are general defenses in criminal law?

Answer 64

General defenses are available to almost any crime, including:
- Self-defence
- Intoxication

Some defences are specific to certain crimes, such as :
- Loss of control and diminished responsibility for murder.
- If a defendant kills with diminished responsibility, they will not be acquitted but convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder.

Question 65

What are some additional defences available in criminal law?

Answer 65

Other defences include:
- Insanity
- Automatism
- Duress
- Infancy
- Necessity

Question 66

How does intoxication affect criminal liability?

Answer 66

A defendant may avoid criminal liability if intoxicated, but the success of the defence varies:

• Involuntary intoxication (e.g., being drugged without consent): The court will assess if the defendant could form the mens rea despite being intoxicated (as in Kingston [1995] 2 AC 355).
• Voluntary intoxication: More complex rules apply. For basic intent crimes, a defendant will be deemed reckless if they would have foreseen the risk of harm if sober (Coley, McGhee and Harris [2013] EWCA Crim 233).

Question 67

What are the rules regarding consent in non-fatal offenses against the person?

Answer 67

The availability of consent depends on the seriousness of the offense:

For assault or battery, consent is valid if the victim consented or the defendant honestly believed the victim was consenting (AG Reference (No 6 of 1980) [1981] QB 715).

For offenses intending to cause actual bodily harm or higher, consent is not available (R v Brown [1994] AC 212) unless it falls under public interest exceptions such as:
- Medical treatment
- Sport
- Horseplay
- Tattooing/personal adornment
- Sexual gratification/accidental infliction of harm

Question 68

What is self-defence in criminal law?

Answer 68

Self-defence can be invoked for the protection of oneself, another person, or property.
If successful, the defendant will be acquitted.
It is recognised in both common law and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s.76 (as amended).

The defendant can rely on this defense if:
- They honestly believed the use of force was necessary.
- The level of force used was objectively reasonable based on the circumstances as the defendant perceived them.

Question 69

How does mistake affect criminal liability?

Answer 69

While ignorance of the law does not prevent liability, a mistake of fact can negate mens rea.

For example, if Ryan mistakenly takes the wrong umbrella from a restaurant, believing it to be his own, he would not be liable for theft due to a lack of dishonesty.