General Principles Flashcards
Burden of proof on prosecution to prove defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Woolmington v DPP
Direct intent (R v Moloney)
Defendants primary purpose was to bring about consequences
Indirect intent
Not defendant’s main aim, but consequences were a by-product
Ulterior intent
Defendant intends to produce consequence that goes beyond AR
Authority for direct intent
R v Moloney
Basic intent
Either intention OR recklessness will suffice for MR
Specific intent
Intent ALONE can make up MR
Test for indirect intent
R v Woolin
was consequence virtually certain to occur from Ds act?
if so, did D foresee consequence as virtually certain to occur?
^ Both need to be satisfied
Test for recklessness
Cunningham (since R v G)
Did D foresee a risk and then go on to take it? (subjective test)
Liability for omissions (failure to act)
General rule is that no liability for failing to act, but there are exceptions
Exceptions for no liability for omissions
Special relationship
Contractual duty
Statutory duty
D has created dangerous situation
Possible liability for failing to act where D has assumed a responsibility/duty to victim (special relationship)
R v Stone and Doblinson
Possible liability for failing to act where D owes contractual duty to act but fails to do so
R v Pittwood
Possible liability for failing to act where D has created a dangerous situation and has not removed danger created
R v Miller
Defendant cannot rely on defence of voluntary intoxication if he had MR of crime before starting (Dutch Courage)
Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
Negligence
Accuses person of failing to measure up to standards of reasonable person in that given situation
(most issues of negligence are civil unless it leads to criminal consequences, like death, or breaks a criminal law)
Strict liability
D may be convicted of criminal offence without having MR
ie. s5 Road Traffic Act 1988
If statute clearly states it is strict liability, or conversely, states MR is required, then that is that.
If not, presumption is that MR is required (may need to assess intent of Parl)
Sweet v Parsley 1970
Different classification of offences
Summary only (less serious, tried in magistrates (6mth max sentence) either-way - ie. theft, dangerous driving, burglary (magistrates decides if it can handle case) indictable only - only very serious (must be tried at crown court before judge and jury)
Conduct crimes
D has to behave in certain way and certain circumstances to exist before AR established (ie rape)
Result crimes
Not enough to act in a certain way; certain circumstances must follow behaviour before AR (ie murder, D must have caused death)
Absolute liability
When D fulfils AR of defence in circumstances of which they have no control
R v Larsonneur
Ignorance
Never a defence in criminal law
Mistake of fact
Not a defence but makes it harder for prosecution to prove MR
(how reasonable the mistake is is irrelevant)
Coincidence of AR & MR
AR & MR must coincide in time for D to be criminally liable (unless committing a serious of criminal acts
(Le Bren)
Doctrine of transferred malice
If D has malice to commit a crime against an individual/property, MR can be transferred to AR committed against another unintended victim/property
Authority for doctrine of transferred malice
R v Latimer
Doctrine of transferred malice limited to crimes of same type
R v Pembliton
