CRIMINAL

Question 1

Three Types of Offences

Answer 1

3 types of offence:
Summary
Indictable-only
Either-way

Question 2

How do you establish criminal liability?

Answer 2

IDENTIFY:
– D
– D’s acts or omission
– offence
DEFINE the law - the AR and MR of the offence
EXPLAIN the law with help of statute and/or case law
APPLY the law to the facts of the case

Question 3

Basic three components of criminal liability?

Answer 3

Criminal Liability = Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Absence of a Valid Defence

Question 4

FOUR types of ACTUS REUS

Answer 4

4 Types of AR:

1. Conduct - here action is all that is required e.g. fraud by false representation under s2 Fraud Act 2006 does not require victim deceived by representation, just that D makes false representation.
2. Result - here action not enough, must lead to specific consequences - so much be shown action leads to result e.g. murder - D must cause death of C.
3. Circumstances - e.g. s1(1) Theft Acrt 1968 requires appropriate of property ‘belonging to another’
4. Omission - e.g. on duty lifeguard would be liable for gross negligence manslaughter.

Question 5

What do result crimes require in terms of AR?

Answer 5

Result crimes require that D’s actions CAUSED particular result e.g. murder, manslaughter, criminal damage and Assault occasioning ABH.

Question 6

What are the TWO aspects of criminal causation?

Answer 6

(1) Factual causation and (2) Legal causation.

Question 7

Test for FACTUAL causation

Answer 7

Factual causation - it must be proved that ‘but for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, the relevant consequences would not have occurred in the way that it did

= but-for test 💼R v White: but for acts/omissions of accused, relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did.

💼R v White: W puts poison ☠️in drink intending to kill mother. She was later found dead. Not clear whether she drank any of the liquid from class. Medical evidence showed she had died from heart failure, not from poisoning. W acquitted of murder, no causal link between consequence and his act. Was guilty of attempted murder though.

💼R v Dyson: Child with meningitis at time before this was curable - D threw child down stairs and she died. Argued child was going to die in any event, and actions of D had not caused death. Any action which accelerates death is a cause.

Question 8

THREE requirements for Legal Causation

Answer 8

Legal causation

D must be the OPERATING AND SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE of the prohibited consequence (R v Pagett)

Meaning of ‘substantial’ ⭐ 💼R v Hughes: important where there are multiple legally effective causes – ‘it NEED NOT BE THE ONLY OR THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE. IT MUST, HOWEVER, BE A CAUSE WHICH IS MORE THAN DE MINIMIS, MORE THAN MINIMAL’.

What does ‘operating’ mean: there is no NAI or intervening act which breaks the chain of causation. Apply any rules on medical negligence, acts of TPs, acts of Vs and thin skull rule etc.

More case law re legal causation:

⭐D must be CAUSED BY D’S CULPABLE ACT ⭐- 💼R v Dalloway: D driving horse and cart without reins - child ran in front of cart and killed. Even if D was holding reins, he could not have stopped the cart in time. Held: If D had not been driving the cart, V could not have died, but the court said needed to go further, actually needed to link D’s negligent driving to V’s death. Given could have died even if holding the reins, D’s conduct not to blame for killing and he was acquitted of manslaughter.

⭐D’s act NEED NOT BE THE ONLY CAUSE of prohibited consequence ⭐- 💼R v Benge: Bence was foreman of some railway track layers. He thought the next train not due for several hours, ordered tracks to be taken up. Send a man with a red flag down the track to stop any trains. Signalman did not go the correct distance, the driver not keeping a good lookout. Train crashed, killed several people, and D tried for manslaughter. IF D’S NEGLIGENCE MAINLY/SUBSTANTIALLY CAUSED ACCIDENT, IRRELEVANT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF OTHER PERSON WAS NOT NEGLIGENT. D CAN STILL BE LIABLE EVEN WHEN OTHER CAUSES WERE RELEVANT.

Question 9

What are Novus Actus Interveniens?

Answer 9

Intervening Acts (Novus Actus Interveniens)
= subsequent event or act of either victim or TP which renders D’s part in consequence v small, breaking chain of causation and meaning D not criminally liable

Question 10

NAI in Medical Negligence cases?

Answer 10

Medical Negligence:
💼R v Smith: Smith stabbed V during fight at barracks and pierced his lung. Soldier tried to carry him to the medical station, dropped him twice. Not realised how serious his injuries were and so V received inappropriate treatment that was harmful to him, and he died. D convicted of murder, as his acts remained substantial, operating cause. Medical negligence while a cause, was not sufficient cause to sever chain of causation. “Only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that death does not follow from the wound”.

💼R v Chesire: C shot V x2. Following extensive surgery V required tracheotomy, scar tissue formed around the tracheotomy hole, doctor’s dismissed V’s difficulty to breathe as anxiety. He died. At time of death, V’s original wounds had healed. Held: Poor medical treatment did not break the chain.

⭐overall, courts reluctant to allow medical malpractice to break the chain of causation.

Question 11

NAI in Acts of TP cases?

Answer 11

Acts of TPs
💼R v Pagett: D used pregnant girlfriend as human shield while shooting at police, who were attempting to arrest him. Police returned fire and killed girl. Judge stated had to be sure that D fired first at officers and that that act caused officers to fire back, with result girl was killed. Jury also had to be satisfied that in firing back, police were acting reasonably - either by self-defence, or performance of police duties. Jury convicted D. D appealed. Held: appeal rejected. Break in chain of causation only possible if actions of TP were ‘free, deliberate and informed’. Police actions here were neither free nor deliberate. Instead, was a reasonable act performed for the purpose of self-preservation.

Question 12

NAI in Acts of Victim cases - fright of flight?

Answer 12

‘Fright or flight’ cases - C may attempt to escape attack - could this amount to NAI. big Q = was escape FORESEEABLE?

💼R v Roberts: V was passenger in Roberts’ care. V was terrified of R’s unwanted sexual advances, jumped out moving car, suffered injuries. Held: D convicted of assault occasioning ABH. To consider whether D caused her injuries , V’s reaction would only break chain of causation if it were actthat was ‘so daft’ that no reasonable person could have foreseen it. Question to ask was this something that could reasonably have been foreseen as the consequence of what he was saying or doing?

💼R v Williams & Davis: As gave lift to hitchhiker, tried to rob hitchhiker, who jumped from car and died from head injuries 🚗🪦Held: Convicted of manslaughter. As appealed.
Q1: reasonably foreseeable that some harm, albeit not serious harm, was likely to result from the threat itself;
Q2: was D’s reaction in jumping from a car within range of responses which might be expected from a V placed in a situation which he was in.

Important to bear in mind that the victim may in agony of the moment do the wrong thing. Jury should have in mind any particular characteristics of the V and the fact that in agony of the moment he may act without thought and deliberation.

Judge said failure of judge to give any direction on causation was misdirection and conviction on this count must be quashed.

Court approved 💼Roberts case - so generally thought ‘characteristics’ referred to were those which would be visible to reasonable man present at time fo D’s act i.e. jury have same knowledge as D had at time D committed act.

Question 13

NAI in Acts of Victim cases - Refusing Medical Treatment?

Answer 13

💼R v Blaue - D stabbed women, pierced lung, V refused blood transfusion as contrary to her religious beliefs. ✝️She died. D convicted of manslaughter. D appealed conviction arguing V’s refusal was NAI. Held: Argument rejected ❌- Ds must take their Vs as they find them - both mind and body.

💼R v Holland - V attached by D, suffered wounds including finger cut. 🩸 Surgeon advised finger amputation to avoid infection. V ignored the surgeon’s advice. Wound became infected, and C died. D argued the cause of death was refusal to accept treatment. Held: No defence. Doesn’t matter that wound became cause of death due to V rejecting treatment.

💼R v Dear - A’s 12yr old daughter told him V had sexually assaulted her. A slashed V with knife 🔪. V received treatment, but wounds later opened up, V died. D claimed chain of causation broken as V had died by suicide either by reopening wounds or, wounds having opened naturally, by failing to take steps to staunch consequent blood flow. D convicted of murder. Held: CA rejected D’s appeal. Q: were injuries by D OPERATING AND SIGNIFICANT CAUSE OF DEATH? In present case, cause of death was bleeding from artery which D had severed. Whether or not resumption/continuation of bleeding was caused by V, jury entitled to find D’s conduct made operative and significant contribution.

Question 14

NAI in Acts of Victim - Suicide?

Answer 14

Suicide
⛔V’s suicide may not break chain of causation if:
V dies from original wound (R v Dear)
Act reasonably foreseeable (e.g. D causing brilliant pianist to lose fingers, or keen sportsman to be paralysed - rule in R v Roberts and R v Williams and Davies).
D’s unlawful act = significant + operating cause of death and at time of attack it was reasonably foreseeable that V would die by suicide as result of V’s injuries (R v Wallace).

✅V’s suicide may breach chain of causation if:
Injuries inflicted by D have healed, but V goes on to die by suicide (distinguishing R v Dear)
Voluntary and informed decision of V to act (R v Kennedy) – here Kennedy supplied heroin in syringe, handed to V, V injected himself, suffered reaction. V died. HL said person who supplies drugs to another has no cause drug to be administered.

Question 15

What is the Thin Skull Rule?

Answer 15

⚡💀Person who inflicts harm on another cannot escape liability if V, owing to some pre-existing infirmity or peculiarity, suffers greater harm than would have been expected as result of what the accused has done.W

Question 16

When will natural events break the chain of causation?

Answer 16

Will only break the chain of causation if:
‘extraordinary’
and
not reasonably foreseeable.

Question 17

General rule re omission?

Answer 17

No general duty to act to prevent harm - R v Smith (William).

Question 18

To secure prosecution based on failure to act, the prosecution must prove any of what FIVE situations?

Answer 18

Crime one that is capable of being committed by omission (R v Lowe).
Accused under legal duty to act
Accused breached duty
Accused caused AR of offence to occur; and
Should offence so require, accused had required MR.

Question 19

Example - Statutory Duty?

Answer 19

e.g 📖s6(4) Road Traffic Act 1988 = an offence to fail to provide breath specimin

Question 20

Example - Special Relationship?

Answer 20

Special Relationship - e.g. doctor-patient, parent-child, spouse-spouse
💼R v Hood - D held liable for manslaughter of wife who died from broken bones from fall 3 weeks before. D failed to summon medical help for wife. His relationship of marriage was basis of duty.
💼R v Gibbons and Proctor - G lived with his girlfriend, P, together with his child, N, and P’s other children from previous relationship. G gave P money for food for family. P deliberately starved N. Held: G living in same house as N. Must have been aware of daughter’s condition. G convicted of murder based on breach of duty as father not to neglect her.
Re A (Children (Conjoined Twins)) - both children certain to die in absence of surgical procedure to separate them. Operation would save one twin, parents did not give consent. Held: parents had legal duty to twin who could be saved. By denying that twin a chance to live, they might be guilty of killing her under the principle in Gibbons and Proctor.

Question 21

Example - Voluntary Assumption?

Answer 21

Voluntary Assumption
💼R v Nicholls - If person chooses to undertake care of person who is helpless either from infancy, mental illness of other infirmity, he is bound to execute responsibility.
💼R v Gibbons and Proctor - P also convicted of N’s murder, o basis P was living in same household, in role G’s de facto wife. She was looking after ‘the family’ while G went out to work, and received money for housekeeping and food from Gibbons.

💼R v Instan - I lived with elderly aunt. Aunt gave I money to provide food for both of them. Aunt became bedridden as ill. I used money to buy food for herself but not aund, not did she seek medical attention for aunt. Aunt died, I convicted of manslaughter due to voluntary assumption of care.

💼R v Stone and Dobinson- Stone lived with mistress Dobinson. Both low IQ. accepted S’s elderly, anorexic sister in to home (F). Tried to make her eat but gave up. F confined to bed, S and D failed to get medical help. F died. Held: S and D convicted of her manslaughter, and their convictions upheld, on basis that, although neither under duty imposed by law to care for an ailing relative, they had voluntarily assumed this duty upon themselves.

💼R v Ruffell - V was at R’s house, taking drugs together. V passed out, R tried to revive. R phoned V’s mother next day. R said V was ill and sitting on R’s doorstep. Mother told R to take V inside and keep warm. R agreed but didn’t. V found by passer-by, latre died in hospital. Trial judge found DOC could be assumed. Jury convicted R. Held: CA followed approach in Stone and Dobinson and upheld conviction.

Question 22

Example - Contractual?

Answer 22

Contractual
💼R v Pittwood - employed as level-crossing gatekeeper. Failed to close gate when train coming, man killed by train. Held: failed to close gate = AR of manslaughter by omission, as under contractual duty to do so when train approaching.

Question 23

Example - Creating a dangerous situation?

Answer 23

Creating a dangerous situation: in such sitch, person must take reasonable steps to counteract dangerous situation created. Steps need only be reasonable, person not expected to risk own life to save lives of others, but would be expected to e.g. summon help, warn any occupants in house etc.
💼R v Miller - Squatter fell asleep in bed holding lit cigarette, Found mattress smouldering. Didn’t put it out, moved to different room, feel asleep. House was damaged. Miller convicted of arson (s1(1) and 1(3) of Criminal Damage Act 1971. Held that if person inadvertently sets in motion chain of events that causes risk of damage, becomes aware of this and can prevent further damage through action, his omission can become AR of criminal damage.
💼R v Evans - Evans (24yr F), purchased heroin supplied to sister C. C self-injected but then complains of symptoms of overdose. E decided not to seek medical assistance as fear they or C would get in trouble. C died. E chased with gross negligence manslaughter. E appealed on grounds no DOC to C. Held: E was older half-sister, so court said - unlike C’s mother who did - E did not come without familial duty doctrine. However, E had DOC as created dangerous situation and failed to do anything to remedy it. However, didn’t C create a dangerous situation for herself by self-injecting - E effectively convicted on grounds that helped sister create a dangerous situation for herself.

Question 24

Example - Public Office Holder?

Answer 24

💼R v Dytham: D = police, in uniform, early in morning saw man being evicted from club who had been beaten so badly that later died. D didn’t interview and when the incident ceased, he drove off. Held he was guilty of wilfully neglecting to perform his duty.

Question 25

Can omission cause consequence of D’s offence?

Answer 25

No - D cannot cause by omission - instead D can fail to uncause when D has a duty to uncause.

Question 26

MR of INTENTION?

Answer 26

Crimes that require intention of a specific result e.g. murder. 💼R v Vickers - D must intend to kill victim or intend to cause victim serious harm.
DIRECT: aim/purpose of D’s act - 💼R v Moloney
INDIRECT/OBLIQUE - Where D does something manifestly dangerous & someone dies or is seriously injured but that was not D’s primary aim.

Question 27

MR of Recklessness?

Answer 27

where somebody takes an unjustified risk, aware danger that prohibited harm may occur upon taking that risk. Some crimes can be committed either intentionally or recklessly e.g. criminal damage. Note that ‘maliciously’ has been held to allow for AR to be committed intentionally or in alternative recklessly such as 📖s20 OAPA 1861

Question 28

MR of knowledge and belief

Answer 28

e.g. 📖s22 Theft Act 1968, person guilty of handling stolen goods if ‘knowing or believing them to be stolen’ that person receives the goods. Has been held to extend to where D absolutely certain as to the existence of a particular circ, or where at least possibly aware that the particular circumstance exists.

Question 29

MR of Negligence?

Answer 29

When D’s actions fall below the standard of a reasonable person. Number of statutory offences where negligence is basis of liability, and perhaps best known of these is careless driving. Some have negligence as part of MR e.g. gross negligence manslaughter.

💼R v Bateman: gross negligence vs civil negli - “to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that…negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment’

💼R v Sheppard - some pushback against using negligence at all - ‘concept of the reasonable man as providing the standard by which the liability of real persons for their conduct is determined is a concept of civil law, particularly in relation to tort of negligence; the obtrusion into criminal law of conformity with the notional conduct of the reasonable man as relevant to criminal liability, though not unknown, is exceptional, and should not be lightly extended.

Question 30

MR of Dishonesty

Answer 30

most offences under the Theft Act 1968 require dishonesty when handling goods. This word not defined in act. UKSC in 💼Ivey v Genting Casinos set out a workable test.

Question 31

DIRECT intention meaning?

Answer 31

DIRECT - where D’s aim was for consequent to occur i.e. purpose/objective of D’s act. Wholly subjective test. Doesn’t matter is changes of doing it are slim, just matters that consequence is D’s purpose.
💼R v Moloney: ‘intention’ should be given ordinary meaning - it differs from ‘motive’ and ‘desire’. Said court shouldn’t elaborate on meaning but leave to the jury’s good sense to determine if necessary intent was present. This is application generally, not just to murder cases.
Question for jury should be was the D’s aim or purpose to commit the AR of the crime

Question 32

OBLIQUE INTENT intention meaning?

Answer 32

OBLIQUE INTENTION: Such cases where need to elaborate on intention = ‘rare’. Oblique intent = where consequence is not D’s purpose but rather a side effect that D accepts as inevitable or certain accompaniment to D’s direct intention. D may even regret incidental consequences, and does not need to have it as their desire.

💼R v Woollin: Test for oblique intent adopted by HL. Essentially - jury not entitled to find necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen event), as result of D’s action and that D appreciated that such was the case. Decision = one for jury to be reached upon consideration of all the evidence.
Some debate over whether oblique intention is:
a definition of intention, or
merely evidence of intention.
Cases like R v Moloney and R v Woolin suggest that is only evidence of intention.

R v Matthew and Alleyne - jury directed to find that intention to kill was provide if they were satisfied that D had appreciated that there was a virtual certainty of death. C.A. did not consider that L Steyn had changed the law and said foresight of virtual certainty was still only evidence of intention.

Oblique intent only used in rare circumstances when facts require it, and when intention is the only form of MR for offence e.g. murder, causing GBH with intent contrary to s18 OAPA 1861. 🧠WHERE OFFENCE ALLOWS MR IN FORM OF INTENTION OR RECKLESSNESS, THEN YOU MUST NOT REFER TO OBLIGQUE INTENT. E.g. if D is charged with criminal damage and D does not directly intend to destroy/damage property, then you must consider whether D was reckless.

Question 33

Is intention the same as MOTIVE or DESIRE?

Answer 33

NO. Law is very clear that intention is not motive or desire. However, important point that an individual can be taken to intend both their ends and the means through which they will achieve them:

💼e.g. R v Moloney - D puts bomb 💣in plance which he has insured and bomb is timed to go off mid-flight. Motive is to claim for aircraft on insurance. However, destruction of the plane is meant to achieve his aim, so destroying the aeroplane is also his direct intention. Death of a pilot is an inevitable side effect of what he has done, but was not necessary for him to achieve his name, so this is his oblique intention.

💼Chandler v DPP - As wishes to demonstrate oposition to nuclear weapons. Planned non-violent action to immobilise aircraft at RAF station. Convicted of conspiracy to commi a breach of s1 Official Secrets Act, On appeal from conviction, Court said As had made their entry for two separate purposes: ‘an immediate purpose of obstructing the airfield, and a further or long-term purpose of inducing or compelling the government to abandon nuclear weapons in the true interests of the state. When jury satisfied A’s immediate purpose was proven, they were right to find As guilty, regardless of whether they thought that long-term purpose in itself beneficial. Their motive behind immediate action was irrelevant, they still intended the method of achieving it.

💼R v Hill - motive can be used as evidence of intention - example of poisoning offences - accused may, in one case, administer noxious thing with intent that it would itself injure the person in question; but in another case he may have an ulterior motive, as for example when he administers a sleeping pill to a woman with an intent to rape her when she is comatose. In either case he will, in our judgement, have an intent to injure the person in question, within the words in the section.

Question 34

Summary of Oblique Intention?

Answer 34

Summary of Oblique Intention:

Juries not entitled to find Oblique Intent unless they feel sure:
Death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of D’s action (objective element)
D appreciated that (subjective element) 💼R v Woollin.

Oblique intention is not intention but evidence of it 💼R v Matthews and Alleyne

Motive not same as intention (💼 DPP v Chandler) but can be used as evidence of intention (💼R v Hill).

Question 35

Recklessness explained?

Answer 35

⭐when a person does not intend to cause a harmful result but sees a risk of harm and goes ahead anyway. In order to be criminally liable for reckless behaviour, the risk taking must be unjustifiable. If the risk taking is justifiable, there is social utility or value to the activity, against the likelihood and the amount of harm that might happen.

Current Definition:

💼R v G and another….
A person acts recklessly within meaning of s1 of Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to:
(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;
(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;
And it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take that risk.
🧠Must have been objectively unreasonable, but clear risk under consideration is risk as seen by D. Jury must consider the social utility of what D is doing.
Also important for jury to NOT take into consideration circumstances not known to accused at time D committed the offence e.g. if D threw lighted into trash can not knowing flammable liquid in bin put there by someone else, jury must ignore presence of this flammable fluid when answering the second question.

In A-G’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) held test in R v G should be of general application

Question 36

What does coincidence of AR and MR mean?

Answer 36

⭐General rule that D must have relevant MR at precise moment that D commits AR = requirement for coincidence of AR and MR.

Question 37

What is the CONTINUING ACT theory?

Answer 37

♻️Continuing Act Theory ♻️

💼Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - Drove onto foot of policeman, policeman asked F to move off, F put on handbrake and refused. Charged with assault. At the time of driving on foot (AR), he did not have MR. Assault involved a battery, this battery continued after the car came to rest. AR was a continuing act, and was enough that F had mens rea at some time during its continuance.

⚡Just need to form MR for offence at some point during the AR continuing ⚡

Question 38

What is the ONE TRANSACTION principle?

Answer 38

💸One Transaction Principle 💸
Series of acts making up one transaction - here enough for D to have MR at some time during the transaction

💼Thabo Meli - As hit V over head w intent to kill him. Thinking they had killed him, rolled body over a cliff to make death appear accidental. Later discovered V died from exposure at the foot of a cliff. As had MR for murder when hit V, but not when did act that caused his death, as they thought he was already dead at this point. BUT As act were performed in pursuance of antecedent plan to kill v, the series of acts therefore could not be divided. Formed one transaction and enough that MR existed at some point during the transaction.

Question 39

What type of cases has one transaction principle been extended to?

Answer 39

Extension of one transaction principle: Causation

Extended to cases where no prior planning

💼Le Brun recognised can view act done with MR (the first act) as causing subsequent acts. D’s act of knowing his wife unconscious caused him to draft her home and drop her on the pavement.
She fractured skull as result of him dropping her and died as a result of the fracture. D convicted of manslaughter and conviction upheld. Unlawful act and act causing death were all part of ‘same transaction. Did not matter that no preconceived plan and that D knew wife was still alive. Transaction continued as long as D was trying to cover up the crime he believed he had committed.

Question 40

What happens where isn’t clear which of D’s acts was the AR?

Answer 40

💼AG’s Ref [No 4 of 1980] - D pushed V down stairs. He then pulled V back up stairs using rope tied around her neck. He also cut her throat. Unclear if she died from strangulation or stabbing. Court said unnecessary to prove which act caused the death. If D killed V by one or other of one or more different acts each of which, if it cause the death, is sufficient act to establish manslaughter, is it necessary in order to found conviction to prove which act caused the death? No, it is not necessary to found a conviction to prove which act caused the death.
^^^In such cases, D must have MR for relevant crime when D does each of the acts which could constitute AR.

Question 41

What is transferred malice?

Answer 41

Transferred Malice: when D’s MR is transferred from intended harm to the actual harm - basically doesn’t make a difference if A intended to kill X and ends up killing Y.

💼R v Latimer - L aimed blow at C with belt, striking C slightly. Belt recoiled, hitting V in face and wounding her severely. Held: L’s appeal against conviction dismissed. Intention to injure C could be transferred to V.

💼R v Mitchell - Transferred malice applied to manslaughter. D assaulted A, aged 72, causing him to fall on B, aged 89, ultimately causing her death.

Question 42

What is the limit of transferred malice principle though?

Answer 42

💼R v Pembliton - Accused threw stone at crowd. Missed them, but broke the glass window behind them. Found he intended to hit people but not the window. Had he injured someone, he could have been convicted under s20 OAPA 1861. Held: Court quashed conviction for criminal damage since that was an offence with different MR. Intention to injure a person was insufficient. D must have MR for a crime charged. Not possible to mix and match MR of different crimes.

Question 43

What is significant/meaning of mistake?

Answer 43

Ignorance of the Law - no help to avoiding liability. Even if D’s ignorance is quite reasonable and even if impossible for D to know of prohibition in question. E.g. 💼R v Bailey: D convicted of offence created by statute when on high seas. Committed it before the end of his voyage when he could not possibly have known the statute.

Question 44

What types of mistake can negate MR?

Answer 44

Could be mistake of fact e.g. D takes the wrong umbrella away from the restaurant, mistakenly believing his - no liability for theft and D will not be dishonest. Mistake could be one of civil law though e.g. R v Smith
If MR required for relevant elements of AR is intention or recklessness, there is no need for mistake to be reasonable.
If MR requirement is negligence, then mistake must be reasonable.

💼R v Smith - Smith = tenant of flat. Installed stereo system and, with consent of landlady, added some roof and wall panels to hide wiring. These, being affixed to building, became property of landlady. Not knowing about law, and believing them to be his own property, Smith damaged panels when he removed his stereo system. Held: C.A quashed his conviction as he did not intentionally or recklessly damage property belonging to another as required by Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Question 45

What are FOUR key defences?

Answer 45

1. Intoxication
   D more likely to be successful is involuntarily intoxicated, rather than voluntarily
   If involuntary (i.e. being drugged), court will ask if D can form MR despite intoxication
   If voluntary (getting drunk/on drugs), rules more complex - essentially where simple form of MR available (i.e. recklessness) D will be deemed reckless if they would have foreseen the risk of harm if sober.
2. Consent:
   If offence = assault or battery, consent is available if V consented or D honestly believed V was consenting
   If D intended to cause offence of ABH or above, consent is not available, unless some public interest exceptions apply e.g. medical treatment, sport, horse play, tattooing/personal adornment and sexual gratification/accidental infliction of harm
3. Self-Defence
   Can be used in protect on self, another or property
   If successful - D will be acquitted
   Defence found in common law and statute
   D entitled to rely on defence if:
   D honestly believed that use of force was necessary; and
   Level of force D used in response was objectively reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be.
4. Mistake
   D may make a mistake of fact or civil law which can mean MR of offence is not fulfilled and will escape criminal liability as result e.g. if D takes the wrong umbrella away from the restaurant, mistakenly believing its his, he will not be liable for theft as not dishonest.