Chapter 1 - Introduction to Criminal Law & the Criminal Justice System

Question 1

What is a crime?

Answer 1

A crime is committed against society: a public wrong deserving of punishment rather than an act which could be compensated with money under the civil law.

Question 2

Explain how there could be an overlap between criminal and civil offences?

Answer 2

A person could face
criminal prosecution for assault, but the victim could also bring a civil claim for compensation for
the injuries suffered and an order that the defendant keeps away in the future.

Question 3

Who are criminal proceedings brought by, and then once charges have been laid does the case proceed to trial?

Answer 3

Criminal procedings are brought by a public official (Crown Prosecution Service). Once charges have been laid, the case proeeds to trial even if the victim doesn’t want the matter to be taken any further.

Question 4

What are the 4 requirements (functions) of criminal sanctions?

Answer 4

1. Punish offenders
2. Reduce crime (including by deterrence)
3. Reform & rehabilitate
4. Protect the public & enable offenders to make reparation to persons affected by their offence

Question 5

What is the main ‘goal’ of criminalisation?

Answer 5

The protection of society - People will be deterred from behaving in a way that is unacceptable or dangerous if they know they’ll be punished for it.

Question 6

What is the other important reason for criminlisation?

Answer 6

To punish those who have caused harm or loss to people or property.

Question 7

In what 2 ways is the law influenced by the public?

Answer 7

1. Reaction to public opinion – many criminal offences have created as reactions to public opinion such as possession of knives & strengthening corporate manslaughter.
2. **Enlightened attitudes **– lowering the age of consent for homosexual persons is example of the law being decriminalised due to increasingly liberal attitudes within society.

Question 8

What is the moralist approach? and give an example

Answer 8

• This approach criminalises conduct that is morally blameworthy even if no harm has been caused.
• E.g. approves of criminal liability attached to the offence contrary to s9 of Sexual Offences Act 2003 committed when a boy (aged just 18) as sexual intercourse with his consenting girlfriend aged 15 years 11 months. No harm has been committed but it is ‘immoral’ on principle.

Question 9

What leading report on criminalisation criticised the ‘moralist approach’ and what did they say?

Answer 9

The Wolfenden Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution of 1957 criticised it as an invasion of privacy, saying: It is not … the function of the law to intervene in the private lives of citizens… further than is necessary”.

Question 10

What is the utilitarian approach? and give an example

Answer 10

• This approach criminalises conduct that, in addition to being blameworthy, also causes identifiable harm.
• E.g. rape, murder, assault, theft, all involve harm inflicted against person or property.

Question 11

What did the Wolfenden Committee also highlight what the purpose of the criminal law is?

Answer 11

“… to preserve public order and decency, to protect the citizen from what is offensive or injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others”.

Question 12

What are the 3 principles of the Rule of law?

Answer 12

1. There should be no criminal liability except for conduct specifically prescribed by law; and the law should be clear, with any ambiguity being interpreted in favour of the defendant
2. Defendant mustn’t be punished for acting wickedly unless their behaviour falls within the definition of a criminal offence.
3. No retrospective offence – offences should not be created to have a retrospective effect; if you smoke a cig today and this becomes a crime tomorrow, you shouldn’t be guilty of that offence on the basis of today’s smoking.
4. There can be no criminal liability unless the defendant is convicted following a proper trial according to the law, and the penalty on conviction must be within the limits prescribed by law

Question 13

Where do all criminal cases begin? And what determines the final trial venue?

Answer 13

1. All criminal cases begin in the magistrates’ court
2. The final trial venue depends on the type of crime the defendant is charged with

Question 14

What are summary only offences, what court are they tried in, and what are some examples of summary only offences?

Answer 14

1. These are less serious crimes
2. Tried in magistrates’ court, not crown court.
3. Motoring offences (driving without due care); threatening to inflict violence on another (assault); as is causing criminal damage to property where cost of damage is no higher than £5,000.

Question 15

Who hears cases in the magistrates’ court?

Answer 15

• Usually heard by 3 lay magistrates (no legal qualifications).
• They rely on their legal adviser to advise them on points of law.
• Or district judge hears cases who is a qualified solicitor or barrister

Question 16

What are either-way offences, what court are they tried in, and what are some examples?

Answer 16

• Middle of the range offences
• Could be tried in magistrates’ court or in Crown court
• E.g. Theft (other than low-value shoplifting), dangerous driving, burglary and certain types of assault

Question 17

When a defendant pleads not guilty to an either-way offence, what does the magistrates’ court first consider when determining venue?

Answer 17

Whether they can cope with the legal and factual complexities of the case and whether their sentencing powers are adequate if the defendant is found guilty.

Question 18

What happens if magistrates decide they are not able to deal with an either-way offence?

Answer 18

They send it to the Crown Court for trial, typically if they believe a higher sentence than they can impose is needed.

Question 19

What is the maximum sentence a magistrate can impose for any one offence?

Answer 19

6 months’ imprisonment for any one offence

Question 20

Why might magistrates send a burglary case to the Crown Court?

Answer 20

If the magistrates believe the offence merits a sentence longer than six months, such as 12 months, they must send the case to the Crown Court.

Question 21

If the magistrates decide they can handle the case, who makes the final decision about where the trial will be held?

Answer 21

The final decision rests with the defendant, who can choose to be tried in either the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court.

Question 22

What is the Judge’s and Jury’s role in Crown Court?

Answer 22

1. Judge - decides all issues of law, such as whether certain evidence is admissible in court.
2. Jury - decides the facts of the case and whether the defendant should be found guilty or acquitted.

Question 23

How is the magistrates’ court different from the Crown Court in terms of decision-making?

Answer 23

In the magistrates’ court, the magistrates decide both the issues of law and the facts of the case.

Question 24

What are indictable-only offences, and where and how are they tried?

Answer 24

The most serious crimes, such as murder, rape, and robbery. They must be tried in the Crown Court before a judge and a jury.

Question 25

What must the prosecution prove to secure a conviction?

Answer 25

Both the defendant’s guilty conduct (actus reus) and the required guilty state of mind (mens rea), as well as disprove any defences available to the defendant.

Question 26

What is the key case authority on the prosecution’s burden of proof?

Answer 26

• Woolmington v DPP [1935], defendant charged with murdering wife by shooting her, HOL stated the prosecution must prove the defendant had intended to kill his wife, NOT for the defendant to prove it had been an accident.
• It was established that the prosecution must prove the defendant’s intent to commit the offence, such as intent to kill or cause serious harm.

Question 27

Are there exceptions where the defendant must prove a defence?

Answer 27

At common law, the defendant must prove the defence of insanity if they wish to rely upon this defence to evade criminal liability.

Question 28

What standard of proof must the prosecution meet in a criminal case?

Answer 28

• The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard.
• The defendant must be acquitted if the court has any reasonable doubt, as the prosecution has not discharged its burden.

Question 29

What is the standard of proof if the defendant has a burden of proof to discharge?

Answer 29

If the defendant must prove a defence, they only need to do so on a balance of probabilities, meaning it must be more likely than not that the defence exists.

Question 30

What is the evidential burden?

Answer 30

• The defence must raise some
  evidence of a fact in issue (usually by the defendant and/or someone else giving evidence in the witness box) so as to convince the court that the matter deserves consideration.
  Thereafter,
  the prosecution must disprove the issue beyond reasonable doubt

Question 31

What must the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt in a case of assault under s 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?

Answer 31

The prosecution must prove:
1. That the defendant (Ellen) hit the victim (Oksana).
2. That the victim suffered an injury (in this case, a black eye).
3. That the defendant had the necessary state of mind to be guilty of the offence, either by intending to hit the victim or being reckless in hitting her.

Question 32

How does the burden of proof shift when the defendant raises a self-defence argument?

Answer 32

When a defendant, like Ellen, raises a self-defence claim (e.g., stating she only hit Oksana because Oksana threatened to slap her), the evidential burden shifts. By mentioning this, Ellen meets her obligation to raise the issue. Now, the prosecution must disprove self-defence beyond reasonable doubt to continue proving guilt.

Question 33

What happens if the Court of Appeal finds an error of law in the judge’s direction in a jury trial?

Answer 33

The appeal must normally be allowed, and the conviction quashed. However, the conviction can still be upheld if the court is certain the only possible verdict a properly directed reasonable jury could have reached would have been guilty. This is known as applying the proviso.