introduction to criminal law

Question 1

elements of a crime

Answer 1

*actus reas- the physical act/ guilty act
*mens rea- the mental element/ mental element
actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea- the act has to be done with a guilty mind

Question 2

Woolmington -v- DPP (1935)

Answer 2

Woolmington married violet and she gave birth to his child, shortly after the couple fell out and violet left their home to live with her mother.
Regineld stole a double barreled gun and cartridges from his employer and sawed off the barrel, he then cycled to their house where he shot and killed Violet, he was arrested and charged with murder.
Woolmingtons defence was that he did not intend to kill and thus lacked the necessary mens rea, specifically, he had wanted to win her back and planned to scare her and threaten to kill himself. he had attempted to show the gun and killed her accidentally.

Question 3

Consequence crimes

Answer 3

The crime must also result in a consequence as well as the defendant doing or failing to do so, the actus reas is not complete without this consequence

Question 4

A state of affairs

Answer 4

the actus reas can be a state of affairs rather than an action, eg, having a knife is enough to have a charge carried

Question 5

A voluntary act

Answer 5

the defendant must have committed the act or omission voluntarily, if the act is done involuntarily the defendant will not be guilty. R v Mitchell

Question 6

R v Mitchell (1983)

Answer 6

The appellant tried to jump the queue at a Post Office. An elderly man took issue with the appellant’s behaviour and challenged him. The appellant hit the old man and pushed him. The man fell back onto others in the queue including an elderly lady who fell and broke her leg. She later died. The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and appealed contending that the unlawful act was not directed at the woman.

Held:

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld. There was no requirement that the unlawful act be directed at the victim.

Question 7

involuntariness

Answer 7

The defendant has not acted voluntarily but has nontheless been convicted of a crime, R v Larsonneur

Question 8

R v Larsonneur (1933)

Answer 8

The defendant, a French woman, was deported against her will, from Ireland to England, by the Irish authorities. Upon her arrival she was immediately charged with the offence of ‘being’ an illegal alien. Her conviction was upheld despite the fact that she had not voluntarily come to England.

Question 9

An omission

Answer 9

a failure to act does not usually result in someone being found criminally liable in english law
they will be held criminally liable in the exceptions of:
1. duty created by statute
2.contractual duty to act
3. imposed by official position
4. voluntarily accepted responsibility for another
5. created a dangerous situation
6. special relationship

Question 10

Duty created by statute:

Answer 10

Road act 1988, Domestic violence, crime and victims

Question 11

Contractual Duty to act:

Answer 11

this may be contained in the persons contract e.g. a lifeguard, has a duty to act
Pittwood

Question 12

Pittwood:

Answer 12

Contractual duty to act

The defendant was employed by a railway company to man the gate at a level crossing. The defendant lifted the gate to allow a cart to pass and then went off to lunch failing to put it back down. A train later collided with a horse and cart killing the train driver. The defendant was liable for the death of the train driver as it was his contractual duty to close the gate.

Question 13

Special relationship:

Answer 13

This is usually created in a parent-child relationship as they had a duty to care for their children
Khan

Question 14

Khan (1988)

Answer 14

Drug dealer was found not to have a duty of care to his clients and a manslaughter conviction was quashed
- special relationship

Question 15

Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

Answer 15

special relationship

The 7 year old daughter was kept separate from the other children and starved to death, the court held that the father had a duty to care for his child and Proctor also took that responsibility

Question 16

Voluntary acceptance of responsibility for another

Answer 16

This duty is often linked with the duty that can be imposed by a special relationship

• Stone and Dobinson

Question 17

Stone and Dobinson (1977)

Answer 17

Ted Stone was 67, totally blind, partially deaf had no appreciable sense of smell and was of low intelligence. He lived with his housekeeper and mistress of 8 years, Gwendolyn Dobinson aged 43 who was described as ineffectual and inadequate. Ted’s sister Fanny came to live with them. She had previously lived with another sister but had fallen out with her. She had mental problems and was suffering from anorexia nervosa. Ted and Gwendolyn took her in and agreed to look after her. However, Fanny’s condition deteriorated and she was found dead in her bed in appalling conditions.

Stone and Dobinson were found liable for her death as they had assumed a responsibility to her by taking her in. They failed to look after her and ensure she got the medical help she needed.

Question 18

R v Evans (2009)

Answer 18

The appellant was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter along with her mother in relation to the death of her 17 year old sister, Carly Townsend who died of a heroin overdose. The appellant was 8 years older than her sister. The appellant, her mother and Carly all had a history of heroin addiction. Carly had just been released on licence from a detention and treatment order and a condition of the licence was that she resided at her mother’s house. The appellant moved in with her mother after her boyfriend was sent to prison. The appellant bought some heroin and gave it to Carly. Carly self injected the heroin and then developed symptoms which the appellant, from her own experience, recognised as being consistent with an overdose. The appellant and her mother decided not to seek medical assistance for fear of getting into trouble. Carly died. The appellant appealed against her conviction for gross negligence manslaughter on the grounds that the judge had left it to the jury to decide whether the appellant owed a duty of care and that it was wrong to leave this to the jury where this would involve an extension of principles relating to duty of care.

Held:

The judge was wrong to leave the jury to decide the issue of duty of care. The existence, or otherwise, of a duty of care or a duty to act, is a question of law for the judge: the question whether the facts establish the existence of the duty is for the jury. However, the mis-direction did not render the conviction unsafe. The appellant’s duty of care arose not out of her familial relationship, nor from her actions in seeking to care for Carly, but from her supplying the heroin. She had in effect created a dangerous situation and failed to take action to reduce the risk by summoning medical assistance which would have saved her.

Question 19

Duty imposed by official position

Answer 19

this can be imposed where a person is guilty of misconduct
Dytham

Question 20

Dytham (1979)

Answer 20

The defendant was a police officer. He stood by whilst a bouncer kicked a man to death. He was charged with the offence of misconduct in a public officer. He argued that the offence could not be committed by an omission as it specifically requires misconduct.

Held:

The offence of misconduct in a public offence can be committed by an omission. The defendant’s conviction was upheld.

Question 21

Miller (1983)

Answer 21

Creation of a dangerous situation:

The defendant had been out drinking for the evening. He went back to the house he had been staying in and fell asleep on a mattress with a lighted cigarette in his hand. He awoke and saw that the cigarette had started a small fire. Upon seeing the fire, he then got up and went to another room and went back to sleep. At his trial, the prosecution did not rely on the acts of the defendant in falling asleep with a lighted cigarette as being reckless, but relied solely on the grounds that upon becoming aware of the fire he failed to take steps to put the fire out or call the fire brigade.

Held:

The defendant had created a dangerous situation and owed a duty to call the fire brigade upon becoming aware of the fire. He was therefore liable for his omission to do so.

Question 22

Santana-Bermudez (2003)

Answer 22

creation of a dangerous situation:

During a search, the defendant failed to inform a police officer of a needle in his pocket. The needle injured the officer, who was not warned of its presence.

Held: The court ruled that the defendant’s failure to inform the officer constituted an omission that resulted in assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). The omission created a foreseeable risk of harm that materialized.

Key Quote: LJ Pill: “Where someone… creates a danger and thereby exposes another to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury which materializes, there is an evidential basis for the actus reus of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm.”

Question 23

Duty of doctors

Answer 23

Treatment that is in the patients best interests is not considered to be an omission so is therefore not the actus reas

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

Question 24

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

Answer 24

Tony Bland was a young supporter of Liverpool F.C. who was caught in the Hillsborough crush which reduced him to a persistent vegetative state. He had been in this state for three years and was being kept alive on life support machines. His brain stem was still functioning, which controlled his heartbeat, breathing and digestion, so technically he was still alive. However, he was not conscious and had no hope of recovery. The hospital with the consent of his parents applied for a declaration that it might lawfully discontinue all life-sustaining treatment and medical support measures designed to keep him alive in that state, including the termination of ventilation, nutrition and hydration by artificial means.

Held:

The declaration was granted.

The court recognised there was the intention was to cause death. Lord goff stated to actively to bring a patient’s life to an end is:-
“to cross the Rubicon which runs between on the one hand the care of the living patient and on the other hand euthanasia - actively causing his death to avoid or to end his suffering. Euthanasia is not lawful at common law”: per Lord Goff at p. 865 F.

Withdrawal of treatment was, however, properly to be characterised as an omission. An omission to act would nonetheless be culpable if there was a duty to act. There was no duty to treat if treatment was not in the best interests of the patient. Since there was no prospect of the treatment improving his condition the treatment was futile and there was no interest for Tony Bland in continuing the process of artificially feeding him upon which the prolongation of his life depends.

Question 25

Involuntary manslaughter and omission

Answer 25

IVM can be committed by either an unlawful act and dangerous act or by gross negligence
Lowe

Question 26

Lowe (1973)

Answer 26

The appellant’s child died from neglect. The trial judge directed the jury that if they found him guilty of the offence of neglect they must also find him guilty of manslaughter on the grounds that neglect was an unlawful act. The jury convicted him of both neglect and manslaughter.

Held:

Appeal allowed. For constructive manslaughter there must be an unlawful ‘act’. The offence could not be committed by an omission.