Criminal Law - Criminal Liability PDF

Criminal Law – Criminal Liability By Mrs. J. Arthur Objectives Define crime Explain the elements of crime Indicate the age of criminal responsibility Explain acts, omissions, consequences and surrounding circumstances Introduction The beginning premise is that persons are...

Criminal Law – Criminal Liability By Mrs. J. Arthur Objectives Define crime Explain the elements of crime Indicate the age of criminal responsibility Explain acts, omissions, consequences and surrounding circumstances Introduction The beginning premise is that persons are entitled to do whatever they wish to do, unless what they wish to do is prohibited by law. That prohibition may be prescribed by the criminal law. What is Crime Simply put, a crime is whatever the criminal law prohibits persons from doing. From your reading you will realise there is a difficulty in defining the word crime in law. According to Omerod (2008), an attempt to define crime at once encounters difficulty. The Elements of Crime The definition of each criminal offence must be closely examined in order to ascertain what elements must be provided before criminal liability is established. These elements fall under two categories Actus Reus Mens Rea The Elements of Crime Elements of Crime contd. Smith and Hogan states: It is a general principle of the criminal law that a person may not be convicted …. Unless the prosecution have provide…… Elements contd. (a) that he causes a certain event or that responsibility is to be attributed to him for the existence of a certain state of affairs, which is forbidden by the criminal law (b) that he had a defined state of mind in relation to the causing of the event or the existence of the state of affairs. The event, or state of affairs is called the actus reus and the state of mind is the mens rea at the time. Elements contd. The principle that a person is not criminally liable for his conduct unless the prescribed state of mind coincides with the prohibited actus reus also being present is frequently stated in the form of a Latin maxim: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea i.e. “an act does not make a man guilty of a crime, unless his mind be also guilty. Elements Contd. Generally the two elements must coincide Exception to this rule are strict liability offences. However……………….. Elements Contd. 1. A person may be convicted of a crime if he has negligently brought it about (negligence not normally a basis for criminal responsibility). 2. It is not true that in all cases that there must be a contemporaneous coincidence of actus reus and mens rea. Elements Contd. 3. In certain crimes, mostly statutory, criminal responsibility may follow even though the accused has acted without fault – crimes of strict liability – though, even here, there is a presumption of mens rea. Sweet v Parsley (1970) A.C. 132 The presumption must be displaced for the responsibility to follow. 4. A man may be convicted where he has not acted in an objectively criminal way – as in attempts. Actus Reus That the accused has performed voluntarily certain acts, or caused certain events or states of affairs, which by the common law or under statute constitutes the elements of the crime. All those elements of the offence contained in the definition minus those parts of the definition which relate to the accused’s mental state. Actus Reus The definition of actus reus can be broken down into three parts (the 3 c’s) 1. Conduct 2. Circumstances 3. Consequences Definition Example of offence Conduct Act or Omission e.g. assault Circumstances Theft or Rape Consequences Result Crimes e.g. murder Actus Reus Contd. It is too narrow to define the concept in terms of only ‘acts’. I. Persons may be held responsible for the acts of others (strict liability) II. Omissions may be accounted as criminal III. There may be a criminal ‘state of affairs’ IV. The actus reus may include some reference to the victim’s state of mind, e.g. the actus reus of rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse and thus the fact of the person’s non-consent is part of the actus reus. V. The actus reus must be voluntary Actus Reus Contd. Sometimes a distinction is drawn between conduct crimes and result crimes. Conduct crimes relate to what the accused did or did not do, the circumstances of his act are critical – e.g. rape ( having non-consensual sexual intercourse) and bigamy (going through a second ceremony of marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage) Actus Reus Contd. Result crimes relate to the consequences of what the accused did – e.g. murder ( as a result of what the accused did the victim must die). Cross and Jones, p.50: the actus reus is the act (or omission or other event) indicated in the definition of the crime charged together with any surrounding circumstances, other than the accused’s state of mind or any defence, and any consequences of that act indicated by that definition. This neatly combines both conduct and result crimes and enables us to say that the actus reus is prohibited conduct. Omissions As a rule the law imposes no obligation on persons to act to prevent the occurrence of harm or wrongdoing. We are not required to be our brother’s keeper. The principle was reaffirmed in Miller (1982) 2 All E.R. 386. However, an omission may give rise to criminal responsibility where there is a duty to act arising at common law or under statute. In the former case there generally must be a special relationship. Read Study Guide pg. 86 – top of 88 Other considerations of Actus Reus 1. The actus reus must be proved. The prosecution must prove all those elements constituting the offence and a failure to prove any particular element necessarily involves an acquittal. See: Deller(1952) 36 CAR 184 Haughton v Smith (1975) A.C. 476 Other considerations of Actus Reus 2. the accused’s conduct must be voluntary For an act to be involuntary, the person doing it must be deprived of free choice as to what to do and divested of the ability to control what he does. E.g. person who acts in an epileptic fit, or in his sleep, or when attacked by a swarm of bees, or in a state of automatism. See Smith (1988-9) C.I.L.R. 355 An exception to this general principle is where D suffers from self-induced intoxication and the crim involves a ‘basic’ intent. The Actus Reus must be voluntary The accused’s conduct must be “voluntary” or “freely willed” if he is to incur liability. It may be involuntary for the following reasons. Automatism Automatism occurs where the defendant performs a physical act but is unaware of what he is doing, or is not in control of his actions, because of some external factor. See R v Quick (1973) 3 All ER 347 Reflex Actions Sometimes people can respond to something with a spontaneous reflex action over which they have no control. Although significantly different, this is sometimes classed as a form of automatism. The classic example is that given in Hill v Baxter 91958) 1 All E.R. 193, of someone being stung by a swarm of bees while driving and losing control of the car. State of Affairs Cases One group of cases which cannot be discussed in terms of voluntary acts are often referred to as the “state of affairs’ cases. These crimes are defined not in the sense of the defendant doing a positive act but consisting in the defendant “being found”, “being in possession” or “being in charge” etc. See: R v Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App R 74 Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983) The Times 28 March Other considerations of Actus Reus Note that in Bratty (1963) A.C. 386 Lord Denning referred to the burden on the prosecution to prove that an act is voluntary. In discharging this, the prosecution would be entitled to rely on the presumption that every man has sufficient mental capability to be responsible for his crimes. Other considerations of Actus Reus But cf. (see also) Ramroop (1972) 20 W.I.R. 532 ( in rebutting this presumption. D must lay a prper foundation to suggest his conduct was involuntary). Other considerations of Actus Reus 3. Causation D must have caused the crime by some conduct on his part. That conduct need not to be the immediate cause since, e.g. a person may ‘act’ through the innocence agency of another. Michael (1840) 9 C, & P. 356 Manley (1844) 1 Cox C.C. 104 Stringer & Banks (1992) 94 CAR 13