Criminal Law: Purposes, Types & Offences

Purposes of Criminal Law

• To forbid and prevent conduct that inflicts or threatens individual/public interest.
• Individuals with a tendency to commit crimes should be monitored/regulated by public authority.
• Actions that are innocent should be protected from being labeled/punished as criminal.
• To clearly inform people about behaviours/actions considered offences.
• To make a clear and fair distinction between serious crimes and minor offences.

Types of Law

• Substantive Law: Rights and duties of individuals/organizations and crimes/penalties in criminal law.
• Evidential Law: Rules/principles that govern the proof in legal proceedings.
• Procedural Law: Guidelines that govern the conduct of criminal proceedings in court.

Classification of Offences

• By Source:
  • Common Law: Established through judicial decisions and precedents over time.
  • Statutory: Explicitly defined by legislative acts of parliaments.
• By Subject-Matter:
  • Offences against person or property (burglary is a mixed offence).
• By Reference to Mode of Trial:
  • Summary Offences: Minor offences only tried in magistrates' courts.
  • Either-Way Offences: Can be tried in either magistrates' or crown court, depending on case specifics.
  • Indictable Offences: Serious offences only tried in crown court.
• By Fault-Base:
  • Intentional Offences: Crimes committed with deliberate intent (murder and theft).
  • Reckless Offences: Disregarding a substantial risk that actions could cause harm (reckless driving and manslaughter).
  • Negligent Offences: Failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm (negligent homicide and some forms of medical malpractice).
  • Strict Liability Offences: Do not require proof of intent or negligence (traffic violations and selling alcohol to minors).

Guilty Mind (Mens Rea)

• Intention
• Recklessness
• Negligence

Actus Reus

• Physical act or omission that constitutes a crime.
• Involves a voluntary action or failure to act that results in a criminally prohibited outcome.

The Elements of Actus Reus

• Conduct: an act, an omission, or a state of affairs.
• Acts: physical action such as theft (appropriation of property) and murder (conduct causing death).

Omission

• A failure to act when there is a duty to do so.
• Direct Liability: individual/entity is held responsible for their own actions or omissions.
• Derivative Liability: one party responsible for the actions of another (if D had a duty to act).

Events

• A specific action or conduct that constitutes a crime.
• Physically assaulting someone or committing theft.
• State of Affairs: situations where the mere existence of a certain condition constitutes the actus reus.
• Being in possession of illegal drugs or being found in a restricted area without permission.

Actus Reus Factors

• Conduct, circumstance, consequence, and causation.

Result Crimes

• Crimes that require proof of a specific outcome or harm resulting from D's actions.
• Prosecution must prove that D's actions caused the death of V in a murder case.
• Conduct Crimes: Focus on the D's actions themselves, regardless of the outcome.
• Prosecution only needs to prove that D engaged in certain prohibited conduct.
• E.g. Driving under the influence (DUI)- operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs.

Circumstance

• Specific conditions or facts surrounding the conduct that make it criminal.
• Taking someone's property is only theft if the property belongs to someone else and is taken without permission

Causation

• The link between the defendant's conduct and the resulting harm.
• The conduct must directly cause the criminal outcome.
• Factual Causation: but-for test.
• Legal Causation: chain of causation broken due to intervening acts or events.

Duty to Act

• Contractual: from agreements between parties.
• Statutory: imposed by legislation.
• Common Law: established by court decisions and precedents.
• Exists in certain categories of close personal relationships.
• Special Relationship: e.g. husband/wife R V SMITH, R V GIBBONS
• Voluntary Assumption of Care: taking on responsibility of caring for a weak person.
  • R V STONE AND DOBINSON (ANOREXIA), R V RUFFELL (2003) (friend + drug)
• Creation of Danger: arises when an individual creates a dangerous situation.
  • R V MILLER (1983) (arson + house)
• No general duty to act exists.

Mens Rea

• Mental state/intent of an individual when committing a crime.
• Offences Requiring Proof: Intention, recklessness, or a specific mental state (e.g. dishonesty in theft).
• Offences Satisfied by Proof of Negligence: Failure to meet the standard of care, leading to harm/damage.
• Causing injury by not following safety protocols.

Intention

• Direct Intention: Clear and specific aim to bring about a particular result.
• Oblique Intention: Not a specific aim, but foresees actions are likely to cause a particular result.
• S.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967
• DPP v Smith: Subjective test of intention and foresight.
• Moloney Guidelines: Direction to give jury in RARE cases where D's intention is not 'obvious'.
  • Lord Bridge
• Hancock & Shankland : While foresight of a consequence is relevant, it does not automatically equate to intention.
  • Lord Scarman

Nedrick & Woollin Test

• Test for oblique intention

1. Nedrick (1986):
   • The jury should only infer intention if they are sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty.
2. Woollin (1999):
   • The jury should "find" intention if they are sure of the virtual certainty and the defendant's appreciation of it.

Oblique Intention Cases

• Hyam v DPP (1975): Foresight of a high probability of serious harm equated with intent.
• R v Moloney (1985): Foresight of natural consequences is evidence of intention but not conclusive proof.
• R v Nedrick (1986): Jury should not infer intention unless death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty.
• R v Woollin (1999): Jury should "find" intention if they are sure of the virtual certainty and the defendant's appreciation of it.

Offences From Minor-Serious

• Common Assault
• S.47 OAPA 1861 - Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)
• S.20 OAPA 1861 - Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) or Wounding
• S.18 OAPA 1861 - Causing Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent (GBH) or Wounding with Intent

Common Assault

• Psychic Assault: Mental aspect of assault, where the victim is put in fear or apprehension of imminent unlawful force.

Battery

• Intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another person without his/her consent.
• Mens rea is intention or subjective recklessness

Actus Reus

• Conduct: physical act of applying force to another person.
• Circumstance: the force applied must be unlawful.
• Consequence: the application of force to another person.
• Force includes the merest touching.
  • See Collins v Wilcock ; R v Thomas
• The application of force need not be aggressive.
  • See Faulkner v Talbot
• The force need not be applied directly.
  • See Haystead v DPP ; DPP v K, R v Martin (1881); R v Halliday (1889).

Battery Omission

1. Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969):
   • Fagan accidentally drove his car onto the foot, then refused to move
   • Court held that the guilty act and mens rea coincided, leading to his conviction.
2. DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003):
   • The defendant assured a police officer that he had no sharp objects on him but the officer was hurt by a needle
   • Court ruled that the omission created a dangerous situation and that it was sufficient for the actus reus.

Mens Rea - Battery

• D must intend to use unlawful force on V without V’s consent, or D must be reckless as to whether to use unlawful force on V without V’s consent
• R v Venna QB 421

Unlawful Act

• The definition of assault provided at the beginning of the lecture indicates that the term 'unlawful' is included in the actus reus, making it a component of the actus reus. This interpretation aligns with the approach taken in the case of R v Williams (Gladstone) (1983)

S.47 - Actual Bodily Harm

• "any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim."
• R v Miller
• Causing harm that is more than trivial but not seriously harmful (e.g., bruises, minor fractures).
• D does not need to have intended or foreseen the actual bodily harm that occurred.
• R v Savage & Parmenter

S.20 - Inflicting Bodily Injury

• Unlawfully and maliciously wounds or causes serious bodily harm to another person.
• Wounding: There must be a break in both layers of the skin.
  • C (a minor) v Eisenhower.
• Infliction: Causing harm
  • R v Burstow, R v Wilson, R v Dica.
• Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH): Means "really serious harm"
  • DPP v Smith; R v Saunders.
  • "Serious harm" is also sufficient, considering the effect on the victim R v Bollom (2004) 2 Cr App R 6.

Mens Rea of S.20

• Cases include Cunningham, Mowatt (1968), and Savage & Parmenter (1992).
• The defendant must have intended or realized the risk of some physical harm and continued regardless.
• Subjective recklessness applies, meaning the defendant's own awareness of the risk is considered.

S.18 OAPA 1861

• Unlawfully and maliciously wounds or causes GBH with the intent to cause such harm.
• Malicious wounding with intent to cause GBH ("wounding" involves breaking the skin)
• Maliciously inflicting GBH with intent to cause GBH (GBH refers to really serious harm)

MR of S.18 OAPA 1861

• D must intend to cause grievous bodily harm

Homicide

• Actus Reus: voluntary act/omission by the defendant that leads to the death of another person.
• Circumstance: circumstances surrounding the conduct must make the act unlawful.
• Consequence: the death of another person.
• Causation:
  • Factual Causation: the "but for" test.
  • Legal Causation: this considers whether the conduct was a significant contributing factor to the death.
• Defenses:
  • Sound Memory and Age of Discretion: defendant can claim a defence if they are insane or an infant.
  • Lawful Killings: Deaths caused in self-defense etc.
• The requirement that death occur within a year and a day of any injury has been abolished by the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996.
• Killing another can be lawful in circumstances like killing enemy soldiers in battle, advancement of justice , self-defence.
• The D must cause the death of a reasonable creature in rerum natura (in existence/human being).
• Attorney General's Reference (No. 3 of 1994): Clarified the law regarding the death of a child caused by injuries inflicted before birth.
• In existence/in being = person born alive and is capable of independent life.
• Requires that D caused the death of V, and is a result crime.

Homicide Causation

• Cause in Fact: Defendant's actions directly led to the victim's death.
• R v White (1910): Defendant poisoned his mother's drink, intending to kill her. However, she died of a heart attack before the poison could take effect.

Cause in Law

• The D must be a substantial and operating cause of the victim's death.
• Substantial Cause:
  • D more than minimally accelerated the death of the victim.
  • It is not necessary to show that the defendant was the sole cause of the death.
• Operative Cause:
  • However, if can be shown that the intervening event (not D’s conduct) was the operative cause of death, D is not guilty. Exception:
• While ordinarily D has not caused the death if something operative intervenes, there are exceptions.

Contemporaneity

• Actus reus and mens rea must happen at the same time for a defendant to be liable.
• However, if D formed mens rea earlier in a series of acts, and the death occurs as part of a pre-conceived plan, then the earlier mens rea is sufficient for a conviction.

Mens Rea of Murder

• Intention to kill or intention to cause GBH, also known as malice aforethought.
• Requires a more direct intent than just recognising a possible outcome.
• Requires direct or oblique intention.
• GBH = "really serious harm"- DPP v Smith
• R v Rahman : Confirmed that the test for intention in murder remains subjective.
  • Test e.g. Moloney

Manslaughter

• Voluntary manslaughter
• Involuntary manslaughter

Murder: AR + Intention to kill/cause GBH Voluntary Manslaughter: AR + MR + partial defence established1

If Reduce a Murder Charge

• Loss of Control: the defendant lost self-control due to a qualifying trigger.
• Diminished Responsibility: the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning.
• If D didn't have MR for murder, they may be guilty of manslaughter if killing was 'unlawful'.

MR of Involuntary Manslaughter

• Anything but intention to kill/cause GBH.
• Intending to do an unlawful and dangerous act.
• Gross Negligence and Reckless Manslaughter.

Constructive Manslaughter

• Unlawful Act: The defendant must intend to commit an act that is unlawful.
• Dangerous Act: The act must be dangerous, meaning a reasonable person would recognise it as likely to cause some bodily harm, however slight.
• Define unlawful act manslaughter: DPP v Newbury and Jones.
• Attorney General's Reference (No. 3 of 1994) : Clarified approach to constructive (unlawful act) manslaughter.

To be guilty of c.m, p must prove:

1. D intentionally did the act
2. act was unlawful
3. act was dangerous
4. unlawful act caused death of V

• Unlawful Act Causing Death: The act must be a crime
• Act, Not Omission: The act must be a positive action, not an omission.
• More Than Negligence: The act must involve more than mere negligence; it must be a crime, not just a lawful act performed carelessly.
• R v Newbury, DPP v Newbury- Established that foresight of harm is not required for constructive manslaughter.
• R v Dalby- The unlawful act must be directed against a person and cause direct injury to the victim.

Dangerous Act

• The act must be one that a reasonable person would realize is likely to cause bodily harm, however slight
• Cases:
  • Dawson: involved a dangerous act leading to death.
  • Watson: Highlighted the dangerous nature of the act.
  • Bristow: confirmed the requirement of a dangerous act.
  • Carey: D found not guilty following the death of a 15-year-old girl after an affray.
  • JM and SM: involved a fight leading to death, emphasising the dangerous act.
  • JF & NE: involved setting a fire in a derelict building, leading to death.
• Dangerousness is assessed using an objective test
• If reasonable and sober person, with the same knowledge as the defendant, would appreciate that the act was dangerous;
• If reasonable man knows what D knows: R v Dawson.

Voluntary Manslaughter

• Unlawful act = voluntary and not an omission.
• Unlawful: Act must amount to a criminal offence.
• Dangerous: Act must be dangerous - R v Church.
• Causation: Act must be the factual & legal cause of death.
• For any unlawful killing, consider murder first.

Subjective Recklessness Manslaughter

• The defendant kills the victim while foreseeing a risk of death or personal injury but proceeds with their actions regardless.

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

• R v Adomako

1. Duty of Care: P must broke D was under a duty of care
2. Breach of Duty: D must have breached said duty applying ordinary rules of negligence.
3. Breach Caused Death.
4. Breach Was Grossly Negligent: must be grossly/severely negligent.

• R v Wacker , dismissed no duty of care existed argument because D was involved in an illegal activity with the victims.
• R v Bateman , to establish criminal liability, the negligence must be very severe and show such disregard for the life and safety of others.

Gross Negligence or Constructive Manslaughter?

• R v Willoughby , spreading petrol to set the building on fire was a dangerous unlawful act, constituting criminal damage.
• For exceptional cases, the judge can direct the jury that a duty exists, such as between a doctor and patient.

Theft

• A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
• Section 1(1) Theft Act 1968
• AR:
  1. Appropriation: Any assumption of the rights of the owner
  2. Property: The item must be considered property under the law
  3. Belonging to another: The property must belong to someone other than the defendant
• MR:
  1. Dishonesty: The defendant must act dishonestly
  2. Intention to permanently deprive: The defendant must intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property

AR - Appropriation

• The defendant to assume one of the rights of an owner, such as moving, touching, taking, using the property.
• Appropriation can occur without direct contact with the property.
• S.3 (2) states that if the original possession of the property was innocent, then this is not appropriation.
• R v Lawrence, appropriation can occur even if the owner consents to the property being taken.
• R v Morris, appropriation means taking or using someone's property in a way that interferes with or takes over their rights, without their permission.
• R v McHugh addressed the issue of whether appropriation happens when a person puts petrol in their car at a petrol station or only when they drive away without paying.

Property S. 5(1)

• If you have control over something or a legal right to it, it's considered your property.
• Woodman established that theft can occur even if the owner is unaware of the property's existence.
• Just picking up items in a store isn't theft unless you intend to steal them.

Belonging To Another

• If you promise to use someone's property or money in a certain way, you are legally required to keep that promise.
• If someone receives property by mistake and is legally required to return it or its value, the property is considered to belong to the person who should get it back.
• This must be a mistake, and must be a legal obligation to make restoration.
• Chase Manhattan Bank clarified that when money is paid to someone by mistake, the person who made the payment retains a legal interest in the money.

Intention to Permanently Deprive

• Means that even if someone only has temporary possession of property, can still be theft.

• Is a landmark case because it established that taking money with the intention of returning an equivalent amount still constitutes theft

• R v Lavender established that treating property as one's own to dispose of constitutes an intention to permanently deprive under the Theft Act

• R v Marshall, clarified that defendants had intended to treat the tickets as their own to dispose of regardless of the rights of London Underground.

• R v Lloyd the court decided that borrowing something isn't theft unless you keep it for so long or in such a way that it loses all its value or usefulness.

• R v Raphael established that forcibly taking a car and offering the victim a chance to buy it back constitutes robbery

Dishonesty Tests R V Ghosh + Ivey V Genting

1. Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017):
   • Determine the defendant's actual state of mind.
   • Decide if actions were dishonest based on the standards of ordinary, decent people (objective).
2. R v Ghosh (1982):
   • Was used to assess dishonesty in various criminal cases until it was replaced by the decision in Ivey.

• R v Barton confirmed that the test for dishonesty established in Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) should be applied in criminal cases.