Criminal Law Notes PDF

Criminal law 1. Actus Reus: D committed guilty act 2. Causation: FC, Legal causation/how it happened, was D at fault & did D cause the outcome 3. Mens Rea: Did D have the necessary mindset to commit this crime? Actus reus / guilty act ⁃ Physical act forming the prohibited conduct to commit an...

Criminal law 1. Actus Reus: D committed guilty act 2. Causation: FC, Legal causation/how it happened, was D at fault & did D cause the outcome 3. Mens Rea: Did D have the necessary mindset to commit this crime? Actus reus / guilty act ⁃ Physical act forming the prohibited conduct to commit an offence, act must be voluntarily/purposely done. Hill v Baxter ⁃ Failure to act ≠ AR, no ‘Good Samartian’ UK law obligating others to act Types of AR Conduct crime: What D did Consequence crime: What D caused State of affairs crime: What D failed to do Conduct crime AR committed by DOING something wrong. Consequence crime AR committed by CAUSING something to go wrong. State of affairs crime AR committed by BEING somewhere considered wrong to the law. Larsonneur Crimes: exceptions to AR Statutory duty Contractual duty Relationship duty Duty undertaken voluntarily Duty through official position Duty when D caused chain of events Statutory duty Failed to act when under a duty = crime Contractual duty Under a duty contractually to keep others safe & failed to & caused harm = crime.Pittwood Relationship duty Failed to act when under a duty = crime.Gibbins & Proctor Duty undertaken voluntarily Voluntarily took duty & failed to meet standards willingly taken = crime.Stone & Dobinson Duty through official position Worked on the job & allowed harm to occur = crime.Dytham Duty when D caused chain of events Failed to act when aware of danger occurring & caused the issue = crime.Miller Causation D’s act must factually & legally cause V’s consequence Factual causation Did D’s act cause V’s harm, proved by ‘but for’ test.Pagget ‘But for’ D’s act, would V suffer consequence.Pagett YES = FC unsatisfied, D didn’t cause harm as consequence would’ve occurred regardless & legal causation not considered NO = FC satisfied, D caused harm & V suffered consequences FC not enough as own liability, something must contribute in ‘more than minimal’ (D’s act was main cause of V’s injury).Hughes Legal causation D guilty if act was ‘more than minimal’ to V(D’s act was main cause of V’s harm), no need to be sig cause.Kimsey In joint enterprise, all D’s guilty Thin skull rule D must take V as they find them, guilty if harm worsened by pre-existing condition.Blaue Intervening acts Acts of another interrupts D’s blameworthiness by V’s act, 3rd party’s act or unpredictable act of God D guilty if V’s act was RF as higher risk gives higher reasonable SoC.Marjoram Requirements of an intervening act Intervening act must be serious & separate from D’s act D caused consequences if D’s act caused a RF 3rd party.Pagett V’s act breaking chain of causation test Marjoram V’s reaction was a natural result of what D said/did & was a RF consequence Satisfied = V reasonably broke CoC V’s unreasonable act breaking CoC V broke CoC if RF & in proportion to a threat.Williams & Davis Intervening acts in medical treatments ⁃ CoC broken if medical treatment is separate from D’s sig act as medical neg rarely breaks CoC ⁃ D not guilty if medical treatment is separate, making D’s act insig to V’s harm.Cheshire ⁃ Switching off life support machine if doctor decided V’s brain-dead ≠ break CoC. Malcherek Mens rea / guilty mind ⁃ Mental element of an offence ⁃ Courts must prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ D has a MR Levels of MR ⁃ Intention: Highest level of MR ⁃ Recklessness: Basic intent ⁃ Negligence: Lowest level of MR Intention: Highest level of MR ⁃ D’s intention to cause V’s harm relevant, D’s reason irrelevant. Mohan Motive ⁃ Reason to do act Intention ⁃ Desire to do act Direct intent ⁃ D’s desired/exact plan outcome happened Indirect intent ⁃ D’s desire outcome didn’t necessarily happen Proving indirect intent ⁃ Intention found if D predicted the consequences. Woolin ⁃ D had foresight of the consequence. Woolin Recklessness: Basic intent ⁃ D didn’t intend/desired to do act. Cunnigham ⁃ D aware of risks of consequences but continued act anyways. Cunnigham Negligence: Lowest level of MR ⁃ D failed to meet standards of a reasonable person through act/omission Exception to negligence ⁃ Occurred in statutory offences. E.G: S3 Road Traffic Act ⁃ Manslaughter committed by ‘gros neg’ high degree of neg needed, more than civil Transferred malice MR passed over as D intended to harm someone but harmed another ⁃ D guilty if intended to commit similar crime to different V. Latimer ⁃ D not guilty if MR is for a different offence. Pembilton General malice D didn’t have specific V in mind, MR applies to V Series of acts ⁃ AR & MR must combine & be present at the same time to commit an offence. Thabo Meli ⁃ When doing AR, D must have MR at the same time. Thabo Meli ⁃ D guilty if during AR, D developed necessary MR, making AR & MR combine. Fagan Strict liability offences MR unneeded for at least 1 aspect of AR. Pharmaceutical Society of GB No guilty mindset = SLO. Gibson & Sylveire Defence of ‘due diligence’ & mistake unavailable in SLOs Interpretation by courts Courts use statutory interpretation to decide if statutory offence is SLO as P can be unclear AR requirement AR must be voluntary, absolutely liability crime if D didn’t commit act voluntarily/purposely Absolute liability crime State of affairs crimes, AR committed by BEING somewhere considered wrong to the law.Larsonneur AR can be involuntary or not No fault D guilty if act caused consequence even if totally (morally) blameless. Callow v Tilstone ‘Due diligence’ defence: Unavailable in SLOs D took reasonable care to prevent committing offence & consequence. Harrow LBC v Shah & Shah UNAVAILABLE Defence of mistake: Unavailable in SLOs D made genuine mistake & acquitted of charges. Cundy v Le Cocq UNAVAILABLE Presumption (assumption) of MR needed Silent AoPs assume MR’s needed. Sweet v Parsley Gammon test rebut (prove false) presumption Gammon test v A-G Hong Kong Crime is a social concern. R v Blake Wording of AoP indicates SL. Alphacell v Woodward Crime is regulatory than true crime (serious crime). Sweet v Parsley Promotes law enforcement Crime is a social concern Offence if danger to public safety or morals, justifying SLOs for range of issues. R v Blake Wording of AoP indicates SL AoP used ‘intentionally’ or ‘recklessly’ = offence needs MR AoP used ‘cause’ & ’possession’ = MR unneeded. Alphacell v Woodward Crime is regulatory than true crime (serious crime) If offence is regulatory (less serious), it may be considered as a SLO. Sweet v Parsley Promoting law enforcement Courts decides if imposing SLOs would make law effective in promoting its objectives Quasi-criminal offences SLOs are quasi-criminal offences in nature. Alphacell v Woodward Breaches like selling alcohol & lottery tickets Penalty for imprisonment Less likely SLO. B v DPP Imprisonable punishment but D’s guilty. Storkwain Strict liability ADVS Policy reasons, keeping public safe outweighs D’s rights Protection of society by promoting higher SoC, as SLOs are easy to prove, individs may be more cautious when acting in certain situations & protecting society from harmful behaviour Strict liability DISADVS Those unaware of risks can be still guilty. Environment Agency v Empress Car No evidence to suggests SLOs improve SoC taken by individs as health & safety risks still occur Assault: Non-fatal offence Act caused V to fear immediate unlawful violence or recklessness. S39 1988 Criminal Justice Act D caused V fear by assuming D will apply unlawful force Max punishment: 6 months prison &/or £5000 fine. S39 1988 Criminal Justice Act AR: Assault AR be committed by words or acts, doesn’t need to be physical. Constanza V must fear immediate unlawful violence. Lamb, immediate means act will occur soon. Ireland Intention: Highest level of MR D intended to commit AR D’s intention to cause V’s harm relevant, D’s reason irrelevant. Mohan Recklessness: basic intent D recklessly committed AR, D didn’t intend/desired to do act. Cunnigham Proved by subjective recklessness test, satisfied if D aware of acts/words caused V to fear unlawful violence D aware of risks of consequences but continued act anyways. Cunningham Words alone ≠ assault No clear threat/words only ≠ assault. Tuberville v Savage Battery: Non-fatal offence Unlawful force physically used on V while intended or subjectively reckless to act. Thomas AR: Unlawful force applied Unlawful force applied & physically restrained V, force can be slight touch. Collins v Wilcock Touching V’s clothes is sufficient/battery. Thomas Lawful/legal force V reasonably gave consent V used force as self-defence V attempted to prevent crime occuring Direct act Battery committed if D directly used force to harm V Indirect act Battery committed if D indirectly (not touching) caused force to harm V. DPP v K Omission Battery committed if D had a DoC to act. DPP v Santa Bermudez Continuing act ⁃ Battery committed if during AR, D developed necessary MR, making AR & MR combine. Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner Intention: Highest level of MR D intended to commit AR D’s intention to cause V’s harm relevant, D’s reason irrelevant. Mohan Recklessness: basic intent D recklessly committed AR, D didn’t intend/desired to do act. Cunnigham Proved by subjective recklessness test, satisfied if D aware of acts/words caused V to fear unlawful violence D aware of risks of consequences but continued act anyways. Cunningham Direct intent ⁃ D’s desired/exact plan outcome happened Recklessness D acted while intoxicated. DPP v Majewski Battery without assault V’s unaware D will attack as D didn’t threaten force to V S47 Offences Against the Person 1861: ABH Injury/harm equal to interfere with V’s health or comfort. Miller Max sentence: 5 years imprisonment Loss of consciousness is sufficient/enough for AR in battery/ABH. Abbas PI can be ABH as V’s mental health harmed, equal to interfere with V’s health of comfort. Chan Fook Physical pain not necessary. E.G: Cutting hair without consent. DPP v Smith AR: Assault occasioning (causing) ABH D committed assault if immediate unlawful force used on V causing ABH If ABH caused, it’s sufficient the assault caused V fear, no need to touch V Factual causation Did D’s act cause V’s harm, proved by ‘but for’ test.Pagget ‘But for’ D’s act, would V suffer consequence.Pagett YES = FC unsatisfied, D didn’t cause harm as consequence would’ve occurred regardless & legal causation not considered NO = FC satisfied, D caused harm & V suffered consequences Legal causation Assault &/or battery was operating (happening rn) & substantial/sig cause of ABH Thin skull rule D must take V as they find them, guilty if harm worsened by pre-existing condition.Blaue Intervening acts Acts of another interrupts D’s blameworthiness by V’s act, 3rd party’s act or unpredictable act of God D guilty if V’s act was RF as higher risk gives higher reasonable SoC.Marjoram Requirements of an intervening act Intervening act must be serious & separate from D’s act D caused consequences if D’s act caused a RF 3rd party.Pagett V’s act breaking chain of causation test Marjoram V’s reaction was a natural result of what D said/did & was a RF consequence Satisfied = V reasonably broke CoC V’s unreasonable act breaking CoC V broke CoC if RF & in proportion to a threat.Williams & Davis Intervening acts in medical treatments ⁃ CoC broken if medical treatment is separate from D’s sig act as medical neg rarely breaks CoC ⁃ D not guilty if medical treatment is separate, making D’s act insig to V’s harm.Cheshire ⁃ Switching off life support machine if doctor decided V’s brain-dead ≠ break CoC. Malcherek ABH Injury/harm equal to interfere with V’s health or comfort. Miller Max sentence: 5 years imprisonment Loss of consciousness is sufficient/enough for AR in battery/ABH. Abbas PI can be ABH as V’s mental health harmed, equal to interfere with V’s health of comfort. Chan Fook Physical pain not necessary. E.G: Cutting hair without consent. DPP v Smith Intention: Highest level of MR D intended to commit AR D’s intention to cause V’s harm relevant, D’s reason irrelevant. Mohan Recklessness: basic intent D recklessly committed AR, D didn’t intend/desired to do act. Cunnigham Proved by subjective recklessness test, satisfied if D aware of acts/words caused V to fear unlawful violence D aware of risks of consequences but continued act anyways. Cunningham S20 Offences Against the Person 1861: GBH Unlawful & malicious wounding or infliction of GBH to an individ with intention or recklessness to cause bodily harm. S20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Grievous harm on body must be a serious injury, doesn’t need to be life threatening. Saunders A non-fatal offence, max sentence is 5 years imprisonment AR: Wounding AR satisfied if V’s wound broke the continuity of whole skin. JJC v Eisenhower, scratch ≠ wound Harm doesn’t need to be permanent or require treatment. Golding STIs can be GBH. Dica Factors considered for V’s vulnerability Age & health of V considered to decide if injuries are serious harm. Bolton Inflicting GBH Threats are technically assault. Lewis V’s harm must be a consequence of D’s act Factual causation Did D’s act caused V’s harm, proved by ‘but for’ test. R v Pagget ‘But for’ D’s act, would V suffer the consequence. R v Pagett YES = FC unsatisfied, D didn’t cause harm as consequence would’ve occurred regardless & legal causation not considered NO = FC satisfied, D caused harm & V suffered consequences Legal causation Assault &/or battery was operating (happening rn) & substantial/sig cause of ABH MR D must intend to cause the general type of harm to occur, malice doesn’t require intention S18 Offences Against the Person 1861: GBH Unlawful & malicious wounding/causing GBH with intent to do some GBH or resist lawful force Can be committed recklessly as intention must be present AR: Wounding AR satisfied if V’s wound broke the continuity of whole skin. JJC v Eisenhower, scratch ≠ wound Harm doesn’t need to be permanent or require treatment. Golding STIs can be GBH. Dica MR Intended to do GBH/wound or prevent lawful apprehension or detainment of anyone & either is enough Transmission of disease can be S18 GBH if intention present Murder: Fatal offence Unlawful killing of reasonable person under King’s Peace (UK not at war) with malice aforethought, express or implied Mandatory life sentence to show justice is served, judge has no discretion but other offences judges decide sentence Defences of loss of control & diminished responsibility Type of homicide, fatal offence where it ends seriously, death AR: Killing AR satisfied if D’s act/omission was cause of V’s death must be positive act like stabbing. Gibbons & Proctor AR satisfied if reasonable person under King’s Peace killed AR: Unlawfulness AR satisfied if killing was unlawful, not permitted under law/outside what law allows AR satisfied if V killed under King’s Peace, UK not at war as war time killing isn’t murder Lawful if self-defence, charged with manslaughter instead of murder AR: Reasonable person Reasonable person is human being independent from mother Switching off life support machine if doctor decided V’s brain-dead ≠ murder. Malcherek No time limit for death occurring Intention: Highest level of MR - malice aforethought Cunningham stated 2 types of intent express & implied malice aforethought Expressed intention to killI, express malice aforethought Implied to cause GBH, implied malice aforethought Expressed malice aforethought, direct intent ⁃ Expressed intention to kill. Adams ⁃ D’s desire/exact plan outcome happened Implied malice aforethought, indirect intent ⁃ Implied to cause GBH. Mackie ⁃ D’s desire outcome didn’t necessarily happen Proving implied malice aforethought, indirect intent ⁃ Intention found if D predicted the consequences. Woolin ⁃ D had foresight of the consequence. Woolin Transferred malice MR passed over as D intended to harm someone but harmed another ⁃ D guilty if intended to commit similar crime to different V. Latimer ⁃ D not guilty if MR is for a different offence. Pembilton Series of acts ⁃ AR & MR must combine & be present at the same time to commit an offence. Thabo Meli ⁃ When doing AR, D must have MR at the same time. Thabo Meli ⁃ D guilty if during AR, D developed necessary MR, making AR & MR combine. Fagan Factual causation Did D’s act cause V’s harm, proved by ‘but for’ test.Pagget ‘But for’ D’s act, would V suffer consequence.Pagett YES = FC unsatisfied, D didn’t cause harm as consequence would’ve occurred regardless & legal causation not considered NO = FC satisfied, D caused harm & V suffered consequences FC not enough as own liability, something must contribute in ‘more than minimal’ (D’s act was main cause of V’s injury).Hughes Legal causation D guilty if act was ‘more than minimal’ to V(D’s act was main cause of V’s harm), no need to be sig cause.Kimsey In joint enterprise, all D’s guilty Thin skull rule D must take V as they find them, guilty if harm worsened by pre-existing condition.Blaue Intervening acts Acts of another interrupts D’s blameworthiness by V’s act, 3rd party’s act or unpredictable act of God D guilty if V’s act was RF as higher risk gives higher reasonable SoC.Marjoram Requirements of an intervening act Intervening act must be serious & separate from D’s act D caused consequences if D’s act caused a RF 3rd party.Pagett V’s act breaking chain of causation test Marjoram V’s reaction was a natural result of what D said/did & was a RF consequence Satisfied = V reasonably broke CoC V’s unreasonable act breaking CoC V broke CoC if RF & in proportion to a threat.Williams & Davis Intervening acts in medical treatments ⁃ CoC broken if medical treatment is separate from D’s sig act as medical neg rarely breaks CoC ⁃ D not guilty if medical treatment is separate, making D’s act insig to V’s harm.Cheshire ⁃ Switching off life support machine if doctor decided V’s brain-dead ≠ break CoC. Malcherek