Principles of Criminal Law 101

The principle that a person should only be held criminally liable if they were at fault, meaning the crime was avoidable through their own actions.

The mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime. It is about their intention or knowledge.

The physical act of committing a crime. It is about the actions of the defendant.

A legal principle that establishes the defendant's actions as a direct cause of the harm. It requires a sufficiently close connection between the defendant's actions and the resulting outcome.

A situation where multiple individuals contribute to the outcome of a crime, but it can be difficult to ascertain the relative weight of each individual's contribution.

A situation where the defendant's actions are a significant factor in the victim's death, even if they were not the sole cause.

When the actions of the victim were a foreseeable response to the defendant's actions. This is considered in determining whether the defendant should be held liable.

An action or an inaction that contributes to the outcome of the crime. The legal system considers whether the omission was a cause of the crime.

When the law clearly states that mens rea is not required for an offense.

A specific set of words in a statute that explicitly states that mens rea is not required for an offense.

The court's interpretation of a statute to determine whether Parliament intended to exclude mens rea from a specific offense, even if not explicitly stated.

The principle that the interpretation of a statute should take into account the social context of the offense and the purpose behind it.

The legal cause of an event, determined by the court, which differs from the factual cause.

A legal offense that is less serious and often focuses on public welfare rather than individual harm.

An offense that involves direct involvement and requires a guilty mind to be proven, unlike strict liability offenses.

Each element of the actus reus must have a corresponding mens rea element. The mental state must match the physical act.

When the defendant's mental state is transferred from one intended target to another, even if the intended target was not ultimately harmed. For example, if someone aims to shoot A but accidentally shoots B, the intent to harm A can be transferred to B.

The actus reus and mens rea must occur at the same time to be considered a crime. The guilty mind must exist at the time of the guilty act.

A type of offense where the prosecution does not need to prove mens rea. The defendant's actions alone are sufficient for conviction, even if they had no intention or recklessness.

An offense that is incomplete in some way. The crime is attempted, planned, or encouraged, but the intended harm didn't occur.

The rationale behind criminalizing unfinished crimes (like attempts) is to stop potential harm before it happens.

A type of inchoate offense where a person performs actions with the intent to commit a specific crime, but the crime itself doesn't occur.

A type of inchoate offense where two or more people agree to commit a crime together. It's about the agreement, not the actual action.

The threat must be of serious harm to the defendant or someone they are responsible for, such as a family member.

The defendant's will must be overborne by the threat. This means they must feel they have no choice but to comply.

The threat must directly relate to the crime committed. The defendant cannot claim duress if the crime was unrelated to the threat.

The defendant's response to the threat must be reasonable. They cannot claim duress if their response was excessive or disproportionate to the threat.

Even if the defendant's mental state is affected by drugs or alcohol, this does not automatically excuse their actions. They must still meet the requirements of the duress defense.

A defence available to a defendant who claims they were not capable of understanding their actions due to a mental disorder.

A defence that allows someone to use force to protect themselves or others from harm. This defence relies on the defendant's subjective belief that force was necessary and their objective response being reasonable.

A defence used when a person commits a crime due to threats of death or serious injury. This relates to a threat from another person and can apply to the defendant or someone they are protecting.

A defence similar to duress, but the threat isn't from a person. Instead, the threat comes from circumstances. This allows someone to commit a crime if they believe it is the lesser of two evils.

A defence that allows someone to commit a crime when they believe it was necessary to prevent a greater harm. The choice must be between two evils, and the chosen action must be proportionate to the threat.

A defence used by someone who uses force to prevent a crime or make an arrest. It's a broader defence than self-defence and applies to protecting public interests from harm.

The requirement that a defendant's belief about the need for force be honest and reasonable. This assessment is made based on how the defendant perceived the situation, not necessarily on the actual facts.

The requirement that the force used by the defendant in self-defence must be proportionate to the perceived threat. The force used must be reasonable in the circumstances.

The defendant's mistaken belief that the situation required the use of force must be both unreasonable and genuine. The defendant is entitled to rely on this mistake, even if it was unreasonable, as long as they genuinely believed it to be true. For example, mistaking an innocent bystander for an attacker.

Even if the jury finds the mistake unreasonable, the defendant can still rely on it as a defence if they can prove they genuinely believed it to be true. This means the defendant's mistake must be an honest one, even if it is not based on solid evidence or logic.

The right to use pre-emptive force to defend yourself against a threat is recognized. However, the attack must be considered imminent or about to happen for the force to be considered necessary. This means that the threat must be immediate and there is no reasonable time to escape or call for help.

There's no absolute requirement for a person to retreat from a threat before using force for self-defence. However, the force must be considered the last resort and genuinely necessary in the circumstances. If there were reasonable alternatives, like calling for help or retreating safely, then using force might not be considered justified.

If a person instigated the attack, the defence of self-defence may not be available. However, this doesn't mean that self-defence is never possible in such a situation. The court must assess the circumstances to determine whether the person's actions were solely intended to create a situation for self-defence. If the violence was not manufactured deliberately, then self-defence may still be a valid defence.

The amount of force used in self-defence must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances. It's judged based on how the defendant perceived the situation, not on what actually happened. However, the force used must be proportionate to the threat. Using excessive force is not justified even if the defendant genuinely feared for their life.

The 'Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008' emphasizes that the assessment of reasonable force must be made from the perspective of the defendant at the time of the incident. This acknowledges that people in stressful situations may not make the most rational decisions, and the court must take this into account when evaluating the degree of force used.

Voluntary intoxication and insane delusion are considered exceptions to the general rule that a mistake can be a defence. When someone is intoxicated to the point of losing control or suffers from an insane delusion, their mistaken belief will likely not be considered a defence.