Law-Underlying Principles of Criminal Liability (AS)

Question 1

What is criminal law concerned with?

Answer 1

The liability of an individual for wrongdoing against another individual, society, and/or the state. Though not all wrongdoing is a crime, and some argue not all crimes involve wrongdoing

Question 2

What is the starting point for any criminal conviction?

Answer 2

The criminal law, defined by acts of parliament or by reference added to cases, requiring use of rules of statutory interpretation and the doctrine of precedent

Question 3

What are the two parts to defendant liability?

Answer 3

Actus reus and mens rea (guilty act and guilty mind)

Question 4

What is the function of the criminal process?

Answer 4

Decides whether the crime has been committed by the accused, and if so, what sentence should be imposed

Question 5

What is the basic process after arrest and being charged with a crime?

Answer 5

They go to court and are tried, then receive a sentence if found guilty, but the length and complexity of the process depends on the seriousness of the crime, whether the evidence is clear, and how the defendant pleads

Question 6

What happens when information about a case is received from the police?

Answer 6

A crown prosecutor reads the papers and decides whether there is enough criminal evidence against the defendant, and whether it is in the publics interest to bring them to court

Question 7

What do the rules of evidence set out?

Answer 7

How facts must be proved, and the degree of certainty required

Question 8

In criminal trials, what is the burden of proof?

Answer 8

The prosecution have to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt

Question 9

How are juries in crown court trials directed?

Answer 9

That, unless the evidence makes them satisfied so they are sure of guilt, their verdict must be one of not guilty, Magistrates decisions also work in the same way

Question 10

Where are more serious cases sentenced?

Answer 10

Crown court, and less serious in magistrates, as they both have different sentencing powers

Question 11

What happens when a defendant is convicted or pleads guilty?

Answer 11

The court has a range of sentencing options available (given guidelines), depending on the type, seriousness and circumstances of the crime, and also on the maximum penalty available by law

Question 12

When giving a sentence, what do judges or magistrates have to consider?

Answer 12

The aims of sentencing (punishment, reducing crime, rehabilitation, protection, reparation) and the sentence usually reflects a combination of these

Question 13

How do you answer a theory only question?

Answer 13

State the definition, give an example using a case of act of parliament, then explain how the case or act illustrates the definition

Question 14

How do you answer application questions?

Answer 14

State relevant offence or principle, explain key points of the offence using cases and acts to illustrate all relevant points, and then apply the law to the facts in the scenario and come to a conclusion

Question 15

What is actus reus?

Answer 15

Any act that is unlawful, and has the consequence of causing an injury to the victim that the law classifies as a wound or grievous bodily harm

Question 16

What is omission?

Answer 16

A failure to act. It isn’t an act and the law only makes a person liable for failure to act when there is a duty of care to act

Question 17

What are the different situations where there is a duty of care, that can make omission illegal?

Answer 17

Where a person’s contract requires them to act, where a person’s public position requires them to act, where an act of parliament requires a person to act, where a person fails to minimise the harmful consequences of their act, and where a person voluntarily takes on a duty

Question 18

What is an example of where a person’s contract requires them to act?

Answer 18

Pittwood 1902 where the defendant was a gatekeeper at a railway crossing and left the crossing open when he left for lunch, and as a result, a cart crossing the line was hit by a train and a man was killed. Defendant was convicted of manslaughter based on omission, as he had a duty, due to a work contract, to act to close the gate, so omission was the actus reus

Question 19

What is an example of where a person’s public position requires them to act?

Answer 19

Dytham 1979 where a uniformed police office saw a man who ended up being kicked to death, and took no steps to stop the attack but instead drove away when it was over. He was convicted of misconduct in a public office, as he omitted to act to protect the victim

Question 20

What is an example of where an act of parliament requires a person to act?

Answer 20

Many examples, ranging from requirement to where a seatbelt whilst driving, to neglect of a child under the children and young persons act 1933

Question 21

What is an example of where a person fails to minimise the harmful consequence of their act?

Answer 21

Miller 1983 where the defendant was squatting in a house and fell asleep on a mattress while smoking, then awoken by flames but just moved to another mattress in another room to sleep on instead of putting out the fire, and as a result the house was damaged and he was convicted of criminal damage as he had a duty to minimise the harmful effects of the fire, which he omitted to do

Question 22

What is an example of where a person voluntarily takes on a duty?

Answer 22

Stone and Dobinson 1977, where defendants living together with personal and intellectual difficulties, invited Stone’s anorexic sister to live with them, who later dies as she refused medical attention, and Stone and Dobinson made some effort to care for her, but didn’t call medical services. They were convicted of manslaughter as they took on a duty of care, but omitted to make arrangements for her while knowing she relied on them

Question 23

What is voluntary conduct?

Answer 23

The actus reus must be voluntary if the defendant is to be guilty

Question 24

What happened in Hill v Baxter 1958?

Answer 24

Driver of a car suffered a heart attack, the court then gave examples of situations where a driver of a car would not be driving voluntarily including being stung by a swarm of bees, and so actus reus can’t be formed and defendant isn’t guilty

Question 25

What is causation?

Answer 25

Part of the actus reus of the crime, and is the link between the defendant’s act and the criminal consequence

Question 26

How are the rules of causation applied?

Answer 26

To decide whether the defendant’s guilty act caused the required consequence in the definition of a particular crime, if not, or if the act isn’t unlawful, then there is no criminal liability

Question 27

How can crimes be categorised?

Answer 27

Conduct/action crimes, or result crimes

Question 28

What are conduct or action crimes?

Answer 28

Where the act is the actus reus and the consequences are immaterial

Question 29

What are result crimes?

Answer 29

Where the actus reus must produce a particular consequence such as death or a particular type of harm

Question 30

What are the two types of causation that have to be proved?

Answer 30

Factual causation and legal causation

Question 31

What is factual causation?

Answer 31

The ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s act, would the consequence would gave happened?

Question 32

What is a case example for factual causation?

Answer 32

the White 1910 case?

Question 33

What happened in the White 1910 case?

Answer 33

White put poison cyanide in his mothers drink, intending to kill her. She died shortly thereafter as a result of a heart attack. The poison had not taken effect at that time. Whilst he had intended to kill her and she had tied, he had not caused her death and therefore couldn’t be found guilty of murder

Question 34

What is a case where factual causation did exist?

Answer 34

Pagett 1983

Question 35

What happened in Pagett 1983?

Answer 35

The defendant used his girlfriend, Gail as a human shield while he shot at armed police. The police fired back and killed Gail. Pagett was convicted of Gail’s manslaughter, as she would not have died ‘but for’ his used of her as a human shiled

Question 36

What is legal causation?

Answer 36

The ‘operating and substantial cause’ test to find the link between the defendant’s act and the criminal consequence

Question 37

Why must legal causation be caused once factual causation has been proved?

Answer 37

So that there is little chance of the conviction of a truly innocent person

Question 38

What is chain of causation?

Answer 38

The link between the act and the consequence. It must remain unbroken if there is to be criminal liability

Question 39

What are cases for legal causation?

Answer 39

Jordan 1956, Smith 1959 and Cheshire 1991

Question 40

What happened in Jordan 1956?

Answer 40

The defendant had stabbed the victim, who was taken to hospital. A week later, the wound was almost healed, doctors gave him an incorrect injection and he died. As the medical treatment was ‘palpably wrong’, there was no legal causation and the defendant was acquitted. The original injury was not the operating and substantial cause of death, but defendant is still guilty of wounding

Question 41

What happened in Smith 1959?

Answer 41

Two soldiers involved in a fight and victim was stabbed, and lung was pierced. Taken to medical station and died there an hour later. Defendant was charged with murder but argued the chain of causation was broken by the way the victim had been treated as he was dropped twice on the way, the medical officer didn’t realise the extent of the injuries, and was then given bad treatment. Defendant was convicted and appealed unsuccessfully as there was operating and substantial cause, as the cause of death was blood loss, from the stab wounds

Question 42

What happened in Cheshire 1991?

Answer 42

Rare medical complication can break chain of causation, but only where original inquiry is no longer having any real effect. In this case the victim was shot in the thigh/stomach and died as a result of rare complications from a tracheotomy, which had not been spotted by doctors. Even though original wounds were no longer life threatening, tracheotomy given to help breathing problems and the rare complication were not seen as independent of gunshot wounds. In other words, they were still the main reason for the tracheotomy and so the chain of causation wasn’t broken

Question 43

What does Novus Actus Interveniens mean?

Answer 43

A ‘new act intervening’: this breaks the chain of causation

Question 44

What is an intervening act or event?

Answer 44

When the sole cause of death or injury seems to be a completely independent act

Question 45

What are examples of ways a new act can break the chain of causation?

Answer 45

An act of another person unconnected with the defendant’s act, as in Pagett, or medical intervention as in Jordan

Question 46

What does the general principle to take your victim as you find him mean?

Answer 46

The law doesn’t take into account any particular characteristics of the victim

Question 47

What happened in Watson 1989?

Answer 47

It didn’t matter that the victim was an old man, if he was therefore more likely to suffer a heart attack, then that was a risk the defendant must take

Question 48

What happened in Blaue 1975?

Answer 48

The defendant stabbed the victim, who was a Jehovah’s witness. The victim was rushed to hospital, where doctors told them that they would die without a blood transfusion, but they refused on religious grounds so they died from their wounds. Defendant argued that the victims refusal of treatment was unreasonable so broke chain of causation, however defendant had to take victim as he found her, so not just her physical condition, but her religious beliefs too. Stab wound caused death so victim caused death

Question 49

How does the victim’s own act affect the chain of causation?

Answer 49

If the defendant causes the victim to act in a foreseeable way, then the victim’s own act won’t break chain of causation, depending on whether the victim’s conduct is reasonable or unreasonable

Question 50

What are cases for the victims own act?

Answer 50

Robers 1971 and Williams 1992

Question 51

What happened in Robers 1971?

Answer 51

A girl who was passenger in the defendant’s car injured herself by jumping out the car while it was moving because the defendant made sexual advances to her and was trying to pull her coat off. He was convicted as it was held that the correct test for causation in law was to ask whether the result was the reasonably foreseeable consequence of what the defendant was saying or doing, but chain is broken if the victim is doing something unreasonable. Defendant was acquitted

Question 52

What happened in Williams 1992?

Answer 52

The defendants gave a life to a hitch hiker and allegedly tried to rob him. The victim jumped from the car and dies from head injuries caused by falling into the road. His act could be a novus actus interveniens and break the chain of causation.

Question 53

What is the conclusion for causation?

Answer 53

Once it has been established that the defendant performed the act, the actus reus, the prosecution the must prove that his or her act caused the criminal consequence. Causation has two parts, factual and legal

Question 54

What is mens rea?

Answer 54

The guilty mind, and is often the distinguishing factor between different crimes

Question 55

What is an example of how mens rea can change the crime?

Answer 55

The differences between s18 and s20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, is the mens rea (s18 is with intention and s20 is subjective recklessness)

Question 56

What types of intention can there be?

Answer 56

Direct intention or indirect (oblique) intention

Question 57

What is direct intent?

Answer 57

Occurs where the consequence is the defendants aim or purpose

Question 58

What is a case for direct intention?

Answer 58

Mohan 1976

Question 59

What happened in Mohan 1976?

Answer 59

It was said that direct intention is a decision to bring about, so far as it lies in the defendant’s powers, the criminal consequence of his act or not. It can be said to be the defendant’s aim, purpose or desire

Question 60

What is indirect/oblique intention?

Answer 60

Where the defendant intended the act but not the consequences. Difficulties arise when the defendant’s aim is something different to the actual consequence

Question 61

What happened in Woolin 1998?

Answer 61

Defendant was feeding his 3 month old baby, who then choked. Defendant lost his temper and threw the bay towards the pram, but the baby hit a wall and died from head injuries. Defendant didn’t have direct intention and court used a two part test to determine whether there was oblique intent

Question 62

What is the two part test?

Answer 62

Allows the court or jury to infer intention if, a) the consequence is a virtually certain result of the act, and b) the defendant knows that there is a virtually certain consequence

Question 63

What happened in Matthews and Alleyne 2003?

Answer 63

Court of appeal stressed the defendant appreciation of death or serious bodily harm as a virtual certainty doesn’t constitute necessary intention for murder, but is something from which intention can be inferred. The facts of he case were that the defendants pushed their victim from a bridge into a river, when they knew he couldn’t swim. They watched him swim towards the bank but didn’t know if he succeeded, but he drowned

Question 64

What is a lower level of mens rea?

Answer 64

Recklessness

Question 65

What is subjective recklessness?

Answer 65

This occurs where the defendant knows there is a risk of the criminal consequence, is willing to take it, and takes it deliberately

Question 66

Why is subjective recklessness hard to establish?

Answer 66

Because it requires looking at what was in the defendants mind

Question 67

What is a case for subjective recklessness?

Answer 67

Cunningham 1957

Question 68

What happened in Cunningham, 1957?

Answer 68

The defendant had broken a pre-pay gas meter to steal the money in it, with the result that has escaped into the next-door house, making the neighbour ill. Defendant charged for administering noxious substance to victim. Mens rea could be intention or recklessness, but was found not guilty as it couldn’t be shown that he knew there was a risk of harming anyone

Question 69

How was recklessness defined in Cunningham 1957?

Answer 69

‘Being recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (that is the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done, and yet has gone on to take the risk of it). It is neither limited to, nor does it indeed require, any ill towards the person injured’

Question 70

What is the conclusion for mens rea?

Answer 70

The mens rea of an offence is often quite difficult to prove. There have been many cases where the courts have struggled to find suitable words to direct the jury. The present rules on this are reasonably clear

Question 71

What is the contemporaneity rule?

Answer 71

The idea that a person can’t be guilty of a crime if he or she performs an act that causes a previously desired result. General principle that the actus reus and mens rea of a crime must occur at the same time

Question 72

What is a case example for the contemporaneity rule?

Answer 72

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (MPC) 1969

Question 73

What happened in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (MPC) 1969?

Answer 73

Defendant accidentally stopped his car on a policeman’s foot and swore and refused to move it when the policeman asked. He was guilty of causing injury to the policeman as leaving the car on his foot was seen as a continuing act. Even though mens rea wasn’t there when he stopped the car on his foot, but formed the mens rea when he refused to move the car, and the act of placing car on policeman’s foot continued

Question 74

What is a continuing act?

Answer 74

It can be one act which happens continuously, eg leaving a car on a policeman’s foot, or it can be a series of connected acts, which can be seen in a similar manner to chain of causation

Question 75

What is an example of this?

Answer 75

Thabo Meli 1954

Question 76

What happened in Thabo Meli 1954?

Answer 76

Defendant hit the victim over the head, intending to kill him. They believed he was dead and tried to make it look like an accident by throwing him over a cliff, where the victim later actually died of exposure. The mens rea continued throughout, as the defendant had set out to kill the victim

Question 77

What is another case example of this?

Answer 77

Church 1966

Question 78

What happened in Church 1966?

Answer 78

Defendant took a woman to his van for sexual purposes, where she mocked his impotence, leading to him attacking her and knocking her out. He panicked when he couldn’t revive her so threw her into a river, where she drowned. Court decided the mens rea continued even after he thought she was dead, so as to include her death from drowning

Question 79

What is transferred malice?

Answer 79

Occurs when the defendant’s mens rea is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim, eg by shooting person A, but missing and shooting person B

Question 80

What are cases for transferred malice?

Answer 80

Mitchell 1983, Latimer 1886, and Pembilton 1884

Question 81

What happened in Mitchell 1983?

Answer 81

Defendant got into argument in a post office and pushed an elderly man, who then fell on an elderly woman, who later died. Court said although there was no direct contact between defendant and victim, she was injured as a direct result of his act and so the mens rea was transferred (transferred malice)

Question 82

What happened in Latimer 1886?

Answer 82

Defendant aimed to hit someone with a belt, but missed and hit a bystander. Mens rea was transferred to the victim, from the intended victim as the offence was of the same type (malice was transferred)

Question 83

What happened in Pembilton 1884?

Answer 83

The defendant threw a stone at his intended victim, but missed and broke a window. The mens rea of intending to cause harm to the victim was not transferred to the window (criminal damage) as the intended act and actual act where not of the same type, so he wasn’t guilty of criminal damage based on the mens rea

Question 84

What is the conclusion for coincidence of actus reus and mens rea and transferred malice?

Answer 84

General principle of coincidence between actus reus and mens rea is sometimes interpreted quite widely to ensure that there can be a conviction when someone is truly guilty. These interpretations include continuing acts and transferred malice

Question 85

What are crimes of strict liability?

Answer 85

Crimes where the definition of the crime includes an actus reus and no mens rea. Performing the act is sufficient to make a person guilty eg many motoring offences

Question 86

Why were strict liability offences originally created?

Answer 86

To make it easier to prove guilt for business-related offences, because in the 19th century, with industrial revolution, there were many abuses of factory workers that were the subject of criminal law, but very few successful prosecutions as showing mens rea was difficult, and magistrates were also often factory owners, but when mens rea didn’t have to be proved, conviction rates increased and so did factory safety

Question 87

How can you tell if a statute requires mens rea?

Answer 87

By phrases such as ‘knowingly’ or ‘recklessly’

Question 88

What happened in Sweet v Parsley 1970?

Answer 88

Decided in the House of Lords and established that the offence of being involved in the management of premises which were used for the smoking of cannabis was not an offence of strict liability under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 (there was no mens rea)

Question 89

What happened in Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General for Hong Kong 1985?

Answer 89

Court considered the scope and role of strict liability offences in modern criminal law, starting with principle that in criminal law there is a presumption of mens rea

Question 90

What criteria did Lord Scarman lay down for the court to decide whether it is appropriate to impose strict liability?

Answer 90

Presumption of mens rea, truly criminal, statute must clearly exclude mens rea, only for public safety or social concern, encouraging greater vigilance

Question 91

What do many cases of strict liability result in?

Answer 91

Very minor penalty, which leads to questions of why there was prosecution in the first place

Question 92

What is a typical case example?

Answer 92

Alphacell v Woodward 1972

Question 93

What happened in Alphacell v Woodward 1972?

Answer 93

The defendants were papermakers. There was an overflow from settling tanks which allowed polluted water to be discharged into a river due to pumping equipment becoming blocked. The alarm systems and regular maintenance and inspect programmes couldn’t predict if and when there would be a blockage, but was still found guilty and fined £20. From the company’s point of view, the main problem was hidden costs and bad publicity

Question 94

What happened in Smedleys v Breed?

Answer 94

One tin of peas, out of millions of tins produced by the defendants, contained a caterpillar. The defendant were convicted under the Food and Drugs Act 1955, even though they had taken all reasonable care

Question 95

What happened in London Borough of Harrow v Shah 2000?

Answer 95

Court held the offence off selling a national lottery ticked to someone under 16 was a strict liability offence because the offence wasn’t truly criminal but dealt with a matter of social concern (serves as a reminder to others)

Question 96

What happened in Blake 1997?

Answer 96

Investigation officers hear unlicensed radio station broadcast and traced it to a flat where the defendant was found alone by record decks, still playing music and wearing headphones. Defendant admitted knowing he was using equipment but claimed he believed he was making demonstration tapes and didn’t know he was transmitted

Question 97

What did the court do in Blake 1997?

Answer 97

Court was told that pirate radio broadcasts might interfere with public service transmissions and so create a risk to public safety. Therefore the defendant was convicted as it was a crime of strict liability

Question 98

What is the conclusion for strict liability?

Answer 98

Requires no mens rea. May seem unfair but the reasons behind strict liability make prosecution a just outcome (easier to prove, takes less court time, encourages compliance with law, prevents defences being raised as excuses, makes regulation straightforward and protects public)