4-Rules and theory in criminal law

Question 1

What case is an example of the practice of legal moralism and what are the brief facts?

Answer 1

R v Hinks (2000)
Facts: D was V’s (who had limited intelligence) carer and convinced him to transfer her money ‘as gifts’-found guilty of Theft.

Question 2

What is the case of R v Hinks (2000) an example of and what are the brief facts?

Answer 2

Example: Legal moralism
Facts: D was V’s (who had limited intelligence) carer and convinced him to transfer her money ‘as gifts’-found guilty of Theft.

Question 3

What case is an example of legal moralism and even created a new offence and what are the brief facts?

What was the common law offence?

Answer 3

Shaw v DPP (1961)
Facts: D published book of local prostitutes
Offence: D was charged with ‘conspiracy to corrupt public morals’

Question 4

Name 4 situations where there would be no fault.

Answer 4

1) Children under the age of 10
2) Lack of mens rea
3) Legally recognised defence
4) Involuntary acts (R v Mitchell 1983)

Question 5

What case is an example of strict liability and what are the brief facts?

Also what is the legislation that supported the judgement?

Answer 5

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)
Facts: Shop assistant sold lottery tickets to minor-shopkeepers guilty of providing a lottery ticket to a minor. S13 National Lottery Act (1993)

Question 6

What fault was found in the case of Harrow LBC v Shah (1999) and what are the brief facts?

Also what is the legislation D was charged under?

Answer 6

Fault: strict liability offence
Facts:Shop assistant sold lottery tickets to minor-shopkeepers guilty of providing a lottery ticket to a minor.

Legislation: S13 National Lottery Act (1993)

Question 7

What 4 principles should be followed when a new criminal offence is drafted?

Answer 7

A) Fair-labelling
B) Correspondence of actus reus and mens rea
C) Elements of offence are clear and give maximum certainty
D) offence should not create retrospective liability

Question 8

What is the principle of ‘fair labelling’? (regarding the principles in formulating rules of criminal law)

Give one example.

Answer 8

Definition: that the offence a person has committed must correctly describe the kind of crime committed.

Example: the difference between s47 OAPA 1861 causing ABH and s20 and s18 OAPA-causing GBH

Question 9

What is the principle of ‘correspondence’? (regarding the principles in formulating rules of criminal law)

• Give an example of cases/legislation in accordance with this principle
• Give examples of cases/ legislation in contradiction of this principle

Answer 9

Where the ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’ correspond with the outcome.

In accordance: Theft-actus reus and mens rea match as the D has to intend the outcome.

In contradiction: Murder-actus reus doesn’t necessarily match mens rea which can be intent to commit GBH not just murder.

Question 10

Name legislation in contradiction of the principle of ‘correspondence’. (Regarding principles in formulating rules of criminal law)

Answer 10

S47 and S20 OAPA 1861-because harm intended or foreseen by defendant does not have to equal ‘actus reus’

Question 11

Name a case in contradiction of the principle of ‘correspondence’. (Regarding principles in formulating rules of criminal law)

Give brief facts.

Answer 11

DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976)

Brief facts: D were 2 teenage boys who pushed brick onto railway line as train passed. Guard died-D convicted of unlawful act manslaughter yet D did not foresee outcome.

Question 12

What principle does the case of DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976) contradict?

Answer 12

The principle of ‘correspondence’ (regarding principles in formulating rules of criminal law)

Question 13

What is the principle of ‘maximum certainty’? (regarding the principles in formulating rules of criminal law)

Answer 13

That the law should be clear.

Question 14

With regards to the principle of ‘maximum certainty’, give one case example where a defence on these grounds was tried.

Give brief facts

Answer 14

R v Misra (2004)

Facts: D charged with ‘gross negligence manslaughter’-attempted an appeal on ‘uncertainty around law’

Appeal dismissed due to findings in Adomako (1995)

Question 15

What principle does the case of R v Misra (2004) support? (regarding the principles in formulating rules of criminal law)

Answer 15

Principle: maximum certainty

Facts: D charged with ‘gross negligence manslaughter’-attempted an appeal on ‘uncertainty around law’

Appeal dismissed due to findings in Adomako (1995)

Question 16

With regards ‘maximum certainty’, how does the case of DPP v Shaw (1961) demonstrate this requirement?

Answer 16

The words used were ‘conspiracy to corrupt public morals’ which isn’t necessarily ‘certain’ wording.

Question 17

What is the principle of ‘no retrospective liability’? (regarding the principles in formulating rules of criminal law)

Answer 17

That crimes cannot be criminalised after they have been committed.

Question 18

Where does the idea of not being liable retrospectively come from?

Answer 18

European Convention of Human Rights

Article 7

Question 19

Name a law that did have ‘retrospective liability’ when it was enacted.

Answer 19

War Crimes Act (1991)

Question 20

What principle did the War Crimes Act (1991) contradict (with regards the principles in formulating rules of criminal law)

Answer 20

No retrospective liability

Question 21

What case contradicts the principle of ‘retrospective liability’?

Give brief facts

Answer 21

R v R (1991)

D raped wife-tried to appeal saying old law meant this was allowed-appeal dismissed

Question 22

What principle did the case of R v R (1991) contradict? (with regards to principles in formulating rules of criminal law)

Answer 22

‘retrospective liability’