Criminal Law Notes PDF

Term 1 -- Criminal Law Notes (till week 9) **Criminal Law: An Overview and Its Purpose:** **Criminal Law** refers to the body of law concerning crimes and their legal consequences. It regulates behaviour deemed unacceptable by society, outlining punishments for individuals who violate these standards. The primary question here is what criminal law aims to achieve and how it operates within the legal system. **Key Elements of Criminal Law:** 1. **Procedural Law** -- Governs the legal processes and rules by which the law is enforced, e.g., how trials are conducted. 2. **Substantive Law** -- Defines specific offences and their respective punishments. **What Criminal Law is Not:** - **Criminology** -- The study of crime, its causes, and its effects. - **Law of Evidence** -- The set of rules determining what evidence is admissible in court. **The Social Function of Criminal Law:** Criminal law is a **social construct** designed to identify and respond to acts of deviance and wrongdoing. It reflects society's view of certain actions as harmful or immoral and involves state intervention to address such actions. **Criminal vs. Civil Wrongs:** - **Criminal Wrongs** -- Involve violations of laws that are seen as an offence against the state or society at large. - **Civil Wrongs (Torts)** -- Concern disputes between individuals or entities where one party seeks compensation rather than punishment. **Purpose: Deterrence and Prevention?** Historically, criminal law served to **punish harm already done**. However, in England, a **\'preventive turn\'** has emerged, focusing on **preventing harm before it occurs**. **Deterrence and Prevention:** - Criminal law aims to deter potential wrongdoers by imposing penalties. - However, its **effectiveness as a deterrent is debated**, with difficulties in measuring its true impact. **Symbolic Function:** - Criminal law also plays a **symbolic role** in society, establishing social values, defining right and wrong, and acting as a strong arm of the state. **Stigmatisation:** - Being charged or convicted of a crime brings **stigma**, branding individuals as either **victims** or **perpetrators**, affecting their social standing and reputation. **Key Players in the Criminal Law Process:** The criminal law system involves several key participants, each playing a distinct role in the process: 1. **The Police** -- Responsible for investigating crimes and arresting suspects. 2. **The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)** -- Represents the state (referred to as **Regina or "R"**) and prosecutes offenders. 3. **Defendant or "D"** -- The individual accused of committing a crime. 4. **Defence Counsel/Team** -- Represents the defendant, ensuring their rights are protected. 5. **Jury (in Crown Court)** -- Determines the facts of the case and decides on the defendant's guilt or innocence. 6. **Judge/Magistrate** -- Oversees the trial, ensures fairness, and issues rulings on legal matters. 7. **Witnesses/Experts** -- Provide testimony or specialised knowledge relevant to the case. 8. **Victim or "V"** -- May appear as a witness, but their role is often secondary to the focus on the state's prosecution. **Defendants in Criminal Law:** - **Adults** -- Individuals over the age of 18. - **Children/Minors** -- Individuals 10 years old and above, subject to specific legal considerations. - **Corporations and Public Bodies** -- Can also be defendants, as seen in cases of **corporate manslaughter**. This raises the question: Why hold non-human entities criminally responsible? **Core Principles of English Criminal Law:** 1. **Presumption of Innocence** -- Every defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. 2. **Burden of Proof**: - **Prosecution's Role**: Must prove each element of the offence **beyond reasonable doubt** and demonstrate the absence of a defence. - **Defence's Role**: Must cast doubt on the prosecution's case or provide some evidence supporting a defence (an **evidential burden**). 3. **Seriousness of Offences** -- Offences vary in gravity, influencing how they are **charged, graded**, and ultimately punished. 4. **Trial Outcomes** -- The trial concludes with a verdict of **"Guilty" or "Not Guilty"**. 5. **Sentencing** -- While judges have some flexibility in sentencing, they are sometimes bound by **mandatory sentences** or **fixed penalties**. **Principles Guiding Criminal Law:** 1. **Principle of Fair Warning**: - Statutes should be written in clear, understandable language so individuals know what is prohibited. This raises a question: Would it be beneficial to adopt a **Criminal Code** in England for greater clarity? 2. **Principle of Fair Labelling**: - Offences should be labeled accurately to reflect the nature of the crime. This is particularly relevant when **legal definitions differ from common understanding**, such as the term \"assault.\" 3. **Balancing Autonomy and Welfare**: - Criminal law must strike a balance between respecting individual autonomy (the right to make personal choices) and promoting societal welfare. To what extent can these be reconciled? **Racism in the UK Criminal Justice System:** The UK criminal justice system has long faced accusations of **racial disparities**, especially in the treatment of Black and ethnic minority individuals. From over-policing in certain communities to under-policing when these communities are victims, systemic racism plays a significant role in perpetuating inequalities. **Overrepresentation of Black People in UK Prisons** - The UK imprisons a **higher percentage of Black people** compared to their population size than the US. - The UK also has the **largest prison population in Europe**, with **90,000 prisoners** out of a total **495,000** across the continent. **Over-Policing vs. Under-Policing** - Black communities in the UK face **over-policing as offenders** and **under-policing as victims**. - Despite **defunding over the past 20 years**, the UK still has the **second highest police budget in Europe**. - In 2018-19, the total UK criminal justice system budget (policing, courts, prisons) was **£28.8bn**, surpassing spending on primary education, social care, and social housing. **Macpherson Report and Persistent Racial Disparities** - **Home Affairs Committee** (2021): The **Macpherson Report**, twenty-two years on, highlights the **urgent need for action** to tackle racial disparities in policing. - The report calls for reforms to address these deep-rooted issues and to create a more equitable justice system. **Deaths in Custody and the United Families & Friends Campaign (UFFC)** - The **United Families and Friends Campaign (UFFC)** was founded in 1997 as a coalition of families affected by deaths in police, prison, and psychiatric custody. - Initially a network of **Black families**, UFFC has expanded to include individuals from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds united by similar injustices. **Judicial Racism: Historical Context** A **Manchester University Report (2022)** highlights the historical links between racism and the British legal system. - As **Colin Bobb-Semple** discusses in \"Race, Jail v Bail,\" during British colonialism, planters in the Caribbean became magistrates and administered justice harshly against enslaved Africans. After emancipation, these planters continued to wield legal power, perpetuating systemic racism in the justice system. **Violence Against Women and Police Misconduct** In the aftermath of the **Sarah Everard murder**, significant attention was drawn to violence perpetrated by police officers: - Nearly **200 women** have died at the hands of the police and prison system in England and Wales since the 1970s. - From 2012 to 2018, more than **500 Metropolitan Police officers** were accused of sexual assault, yet only **43 faced disciplinary proceedings**. - **Wayne Couzens**, the officer who murdered Everard, had several prior complaints of sexual misconduct and was known within the force as **'The Rapist'**. - This points to a **structural issue** within law enforcement, not just isolated incidents of misconduct. - Only **1.4% of sexual violence cases** in the UK result in prosecution, fuelling a common sentiment: **"Police don't keep us safe"**. **Historical Roots of British Policing** British policing has colonial roots: - In the **18th century**, growing resistance in the Caribbean colonies and urban populations led to the **development of policing practices** in places like colonial India and Ireland. - In **England**, the first central government-funded police forces were established primarily to **protect the interests of slavers** and maintain order among London's dock workers. **BLM Movement in the US: Reform vs. Abolition** The **Black Lives Matter (BLM)** movement in the US has sparked discussions on reforming or abolishing the police: - After the murder of **George Floyd**, the **Minneapolis City Council** vowed to dismantle the police department, yet only enacted a **4% funding cut**. - The **George Floyd Justice in Policing Act** proposed reforms like banning racial profiling, chokeholds, and limiting qualified immunity. However, these changes **would not have prevented George Floyd\'s death**, as his death was caused by a knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. - Despite decades of reform efforts (e.g., body cameras, unconscious bias training), the **failure of reform** persists. - The **Breathe Act**, which was not adopted, called for investments in **housing, employment, and universal basic income**, leading to a push for **police abolition**. **Ruth Wilson Gilmore on Abolition** Abolitionist scholar **Ruth Wilson Gilmore** emphasises that abolition is not just about **decarceration**---releasing people from prison---but about **reorganising how society operates**. - Abolition challenges the notion that **prisons and punishment are the solutions** to social, political, and economic issues. - It calls for creating systems that make life **"precious"** by addressing the root causes of crime and inequality, such as **poverty** and **lack of social services**. **Community-Led Transformative Justice** Abolition is about **transformative justice**, not simply the **elimination of prisons and police**. - Most **911 calls** are related to **mental health crises**, suggesting a need for **mental health professionals** rather than law enforcement officers in many situations. - **Community-led conflict resolution programs**, often inspired by **indigenous practices**, address the underlying causes of crime, like poverty and inequality in areas such as **housing**, **education**, and **youth services**. Organisations such as **Critical Resistance**, **Abolitionist Futures**, and others are pioneering abolitionist approaches globally. **The Right to Organise and Protest** New laws in the UK have expanded police powers, cracking down on protest: - The **Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022** and the **Public Order Act 2003** limit protest activities and increase state control. **Guides by GBC** (Green and Black Cross) have emerged to help activists defend their right to organise and protest peacefully. **Conclusion: Structural Racism in Policing and Society** The issue of racism in the UK criminal justice system is not simply about **racist individuals** but about **structural inequalities** deeply embedded in the system. - **Funding decisions** determine which communities are policed and prosecuted, and this has broader implications for areas like **housing**, **education**, and **youth services**. - The problem is systemic, reflecting a broader issue of **institutional racism** within the government, police, and other state institutions. **Elements of Criminal Conviction:** - **Actus Reus (The Guilty Act)**: - **Definition**: The physical component of the crime. It refers to the defendant's voluntary act (or in some cases, a failure to act) that leads to the prohibited consequence. - **Requirement**: The prosecution must show that the accused engaged in an act or omission that is unlawful under the criminal code. - **Examples**: Physical acts, such as assault or theft, or omissions where there is a duty to act, such as failing to provide care when legally required (e.g., *R v Gibbins and Proctor*, where a parent's failure to feed a child led to criminal liability). - **Mens Rea (The Guilty Mind)**: - **Definition**: The mental state or intent required to commit a crime. It reflects the defendant's state of mind at the time of the act. - **Types of Mens Rea**: - **Intention**: A clear and deliberate decision to bring about a particular result (e.g., intending to cause serious harm in a case of assault). - **Recklessness**: Awareness of a risk and a decision to take that risk anyway. - **Negligence**: A failure to act with the level of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar situation. - **Requirement**: Proving mens rea depends on the type of offence. The prosecution must demonstrate that the accused had the requisite mental state to commit the crime. - **Causation**: - **Definition**: Establishing that the defendant's conduct directly caused the harmful consequence - relationship. - **Two Types**: - **Factual Causation**: The \"but for\" test---would the harm have occurred \"but for\" the defendant's actions? - **Legal Causation**: The defendant's actions must be a significant and operative cause of the result, even if other factors contributed. - **Requirement**: The prosecution must show that the defendant's actions were not only a cause in fact but also a legal cause of the harm. - **Beyond Reasonable Doubt**: - **Definition**: The standard of proof required in criminal cases. The prosecution must convince the court that there is no reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. - **Implication**: If there is any reasonable doubt, the jury or judge must acquit. This high standard reflects the serious consequences of a criminal conviction and the importance of protecting individual rights. **Role of a Defence Lawyer** The defence lawyer's primary responsibility is to represent the defendant's interests and ensure a fair trial. Specific duties include: 1. **Challenge the Prosecution's Case**: - The defence lawyer scrutinises the prosecution's evidence, aiming to identify weaknesses, inconsistencies, or gaps. - They will cross-examine witnesses, question the reliability of evidence, and argue against the sufficiency of proof in establishing each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Protect the Defendant's Rights**: - Ensuring the defendant's rights are upheld throughout the criminal justice process, including the right to remain silent, protection from self-incrimination, and the right to a fair trial. - If there's evidence of procedural errors or rights violations, the defense lawyer can move to exclude evidence or dismiss charges. 3. **Present Defenses**: - The defence lawyer raises any applicable legal defences, such as self-defence, duress, insanity, or lack of intent, depending on the case. - They may argue that the defendant lacked the necessary mens rea or that the actus reus cannot be proven. 4. **Create Reasonable Doubt**: - Since the prosecution bears the burden of proof, the defence lawyer's goal is often to create reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt. - By challenging evidence and suggesting alternative explanations, the defense lawyer works to show that the prosecution has not met its burden. 5. **Negotiate with the Prosecution**: - In some cases, the defence lawyer may engage in plea bargaining, negotiating with the prosecution for reduced charges or a lesser sentence if a conviction seems likely. **Elements of a Crime** In criminal law, elements of a crime provide a structured way to analyse whether an offence has occurred. These elements are foundational to criminal liability, ensuring only those who fulfill the specific criteria of a crime are convicted. Each crime has specific components, often referred to as **actus reus** (the external element) and **mens rea** (the internal element). **1. Actus Reus -- The "Guilty Act" or External Element** Actus reus refers to the physical or outward part of the offence. This is essential, as criminal law does not generally punish \"thought crimes\"---there must be an external action (or in some cases, a failure to act). 1. **Conduct or Omission** - **Conduct Crimes**: Many crimes involve affirmative actions or conduct (e.g., assault, where the act of striking someone constitutes the actus reus). - **Omission Crimes**: Some crimes can also be committed by failing to act when there is a legal duty to do so, like: - **Murder** (in cases where a parent or guardian fails to provide necessary care). - **Statutory Duties**: Crimes where failure to do something constitutes the offence, such as failing to file tax returns or to provide a breath test when legally required. 2. **Crimes Not Requiring Active Conduct** - Some offences do not require specific conduct but rather involve a \"state of affairs\" or possession: - **Possession Offences**: Crimes like drug possession require only that the individual has an illegal substance, regardless of action. - **State of Affairs Offences**: Certain offences are based on an individual's status or presence in a particular situation. - **Example**: *Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent* (1983) -- being found drunk on a public highway is sufficient without requiring any specific conduct. - **Membership Crimes**: Merely being a member of a banned organisation (e.g., a terrorist group under s. 11 TA 2000) can fulfill actus reus. 3. **Circumstance** - Some crimes are only criminal due to specific circumstances, which give the actus reus its criminal character, when combined with mens rea. Examples include: - **Theft**: Requires that property belongs to someone else; the circumstance of ownership is essential. - **Sexual Offences**: Sexual intercourse without consent is the criminal circumstance required to constitute an offense. 4. **Result** - For certain offences, actus reus requires that the conduct results in a particular outcome: - **Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm**: Requires a tangible result of harm. - **Murder**: Requires the death of a person as the outcome of the defendant's conduct. - **Criminal Damage**: Requires that damage is caused to property by the defendant's actions. **Example of Actus Reus in Context**: - **Murder**: Actus reus includes the unlawful killing of another human being under the Queen's peace. - **Theft**: Actus reus is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another. **2. Mens Rea -- The "Guilty Mind" or Internal Element** Mens rea refers to the mental state or intention accompanying the act. It indicates the defendant's level of culpability at the time the actus reus occurred. The required mens rea varies depending on the offence: 1. **Types of Mens Rea** - **Intention**: The highest level of culpability, where there is a deliberate decision to bring about a specific result (e.g., intending to kill in cases of murder). - **Recklessness**: Awareness of a substantial risk and a decision to take that risk anyway (e.g., knowingly engaging in conduct that could harm someone). - **Negligence**: A failure to meet the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise, resulting in harm. 2. **Examples of Mens Rea in Context** - **Murder**: Requires intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. - **Theft**: Requires intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. **Additional Considerations in Criminal Law** - **Not All Crimes Require a Mens Rea**: Some offences, particularly regulatory crimes or strict liability offences, do not require mens rea (e.g., selling alcohol to a minor without intent or knowledge). - **Not All Crimes Require a Circumstance**: While circumstances often define the actus reus, not every crime involves specific situational factors. - **Not All Crimes Require a Result**: Crimes like possession offenses do not depend on a result but are defined by status or condition. **Summary** - **Actus Reus**: The "guilty act," covering conduct, omission, possession, or circumstances that make the conduct criminal. For some crimes, a specific result is required. - **Mens Rea**: The "guilty mind," indicating the defendant's mental state, including intention, recklessness, or negligence. **Omission Liability** In criminal law, **omission liability** refers to holding someone criminally liable for failing to act rather than for an active wrongdoing. However, criminal law is generally cautious about imposing liability for omissions. This reluctance is largely due to: 1. **Practical Difficulties**: It can be challenging to define when and how an individual should be responsible for failing to act, especially in complex or sudden situations. 2. **Respect for Individual Autonomy**: People are generally free to act as they choose, and imposing a duty to intervene may be seen as infringing on personal freedoms. For instance, **French law** imposes a **duty to rescue** or **duty to prevent a crime if reasonably possible**, but the **UK** does not impose such general obligations on bystanders. **When Omission Liability May Apply in UK Law** Despite the general reluctance, UK law does impose omission liability in specific circumstances. Liability for an omission may arise if the following conditions are met: 1. **Recognised Offence Capable of Being Committed by Omission** - The offence itself must be one that can be committed through a failure to act. Not all crimes are capable of being committed this way; however, some are expressly defined to allow for omission liability (e.g., child neglect). - **Motorist Offences**: For instance, failing to provide a breath specimen when required under the Road Traffic Act. - **Murder**: If a defendant's failure to act leads to the death of another person, liability for murder can arise. *R v Gibbins & Proctor (1918)* established that a parent's failure to feed a child could result in murder charges. - **Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person**: In *R v Santana Bermudez (2004)*, the defendant's failure to inform a police officer of a needle in his pocket, which led to harm, was treated as assault occasioning actual bodily harm. - **Property Offences**: The creation of a dangerous situation with an ensuing failure to act, such as in *R v Miller (1983)*, where the defendant caused a fire and did not act to put it out, establishes omission liability. **Controversy and Trends** The courts have shown a **trend toward greater acceptance** of omission liability, particularly in cases where preventative actions could avert harm. This trend, referred to as the "preventive turn," reflects a cautious but expanding approach. However: - **No liability is imposed for attempted offences by omission**---attempt crimes generally require positive action. - **Unlawful Act Manslaughter** cannot be committed by omission, as this offense requires an unlawful act, rather than a failure to act. 2. **Existence of a Duty to Act** - The defendant must have a **legal duty to act** in the situation. UK law recognises several scenarios where a duty to act may arise: - **Statutory Duty**: Certain statutes impose duties to act, such as the requirement to report or prevent specific offences. - **Contractual Duty**: A person under a contractual obligation to provide a service may be liable if they fail to do so (e.g., a lifeguard failing to rescue a swimmer). - **Duty Arising from a Relationship**: Parents or guardians have a duty to care for their children, and failing to meet this duty can result in criminal liability. - **Assumption of Responsibility**: If someone voluntarily undertakes a duty of care (e.g., caring for an elderly relative), they may be liable for failing to act in that capacity. - **Creation of a Dangerous Situation**: If an individual creates a situation that endangers others, they may have a duty to mitigate the harm (e.g., a driver causing an accident and failing to seek help for an injured party). 3. **Breach of Duty Causing the Result** - The omission must constitute a breach of the established duty, and this breach must have directly caused the result in question, such as harm or death. **Causation** principles apply here to ensure the omission is sufficiently linked to the outcome. **Examples of Omission Liability in Practice** - **R v Gibbins and Proctor**: A parent's failure to feed their child, leading to the child's death, was held to constitute murder due to the parental duty to care. - **R v Stone and Dobinson**: A duty arose where the defendants took on the care of a relative, and their failure to ensure her welfare resulted in liability. - **R v Miller**: A squatter who accidentally started a fire and failed to take action to prevent further damage was held liable because he created a dangerous situation and failed to act. **Conclusion** Omission liability in criminal law is generally limited to situations where: - The offence can be committed by omission. - A clear duty to act exists. - The failure to act breaches this duty and causes harm. This approach ensures that omission liability is not imposed too broadly, respecting personal autonomy while holding individuals accountable in situations where a duty to intervene is legally clear and justifiable. **Question summary:** **For a conviction to result, what must the prosecution prove?** - The prosecution must prove *beyond a reasonable doubt* that: 1. The **Actus Reus** (AR), or the external element of the offense, was committed. 2. The **Mens Rea** (MR), or the guilty mind, was present (for most crimes). 3. A causal link exists between the defendant's actions and the prohibited outcome, particularly for result crimes. **2. So, what is the job of the defence?** - The defence aims to: - Raise doubts about whether the Actus Reus or Mens Rea was established, or both. - Challenge evidence, argue that the Actus Reus or Mens Rea is incomplete, or argue for any valid defences (such as necessity, duress, or self-defence). - Highlight any weaknesses in causation or the prosecution's argument. **3. What makes up the Actus Reus?** - Actus Reus includes: - **Conduct**: The behaviour or actions of the defendant (or failure to act, in omissions). - **Circumstance**: The context that may make conduct criminal (e.g., property belonging to another for theft). - **Result**: Where the crime requires a specific outcome caused by the conduct (e.g., death in murder cases). - For certain crimes, *causation* must be shown to link conduct to the result. **4. What is the relationship between the Actus Reus and Mens Rea?** - In most cases, both Actus Reus (the physical act) and Mens Rea (the mental state) must be present for liability. The prosecution must prove that the defendant's guilty mind coincided with the wrongful conduct, establishing a clear intent or recklessness to commit the crime. **5. In which 5 circumstances can liability for omission to act result?** - Omission liability applies when: 1. **Statutory/Offence-Specific Duty**: Certain laws mandate action (e.g., providing a breath test). 2. **Contractual Duty**: A failure to act under a contract, as seen with lifeguards or caregivers. 3. **Familial Duty**: Parent or caregiver duties to provide care. 4. **Assumption of Responsibility**: Voluntarily taking responsibility for another's welfare. 5. **Creation of a Dangerous Situation**: If a person creates a dangerous situation, they are obligated to prevent harm. **6. What are the 3 requirements for omissions liability?** - For omissions liability: 1. There must be an **offence that can be committed by omission**. 2. A **duty to act** must exist under one of the recognised categories. 3. The **failure to fulfil this duty** must have caused the harmful result. **Causation:** **Key Principle** - For the defendant (D) to be found liable, **D's conduct (or omission) must have caused the prohibited result** (e.g., harm, injury, or death). This means that, for a conviction to occur, the prosecution must establish a clear, unbroken link between D's actions (or failure to act) and the outcome. - **No causation, no liability**: If it cannot be shown beyond reasonable doubt that D's actions (or omission) caused the result, then D cannot be convicted of the result crime. This principle ensures that individuals are only held responsible for outcomes that they directly brought about. **Causation: A Two-Part Process:** For causation to be established, both **factual causation** and **legal causation** must be satisfied: 1. **Factual Causation**: Did D's conduct or omission, in fact, cause the result? 2. **Legal Causation**: Was D's conduct a **substantial**, **blameworthy**, and **operating** cause of the result? Both questions must be answered **"yes"** to establish causation and proceed with a conviction. If either fails, there is no causation, and D cannot be held liable for the result crime. **Factual Causation:** Factual causation is assessed using the **"but for" test**: - **"But for D's conduct or omission, would the result have occurred?"** - If the answer is "no"---meaning the result would not have happened without D's actions or failure to act---then factual causation is established. - If the answer is "yes"---the result would have occurred anyway---D's conduct is not the factual cause, and causation fails. **Key Case Example**: - **R v White \[1910\]**: In this case, D poisoned his mother's drink, but she died of an unrelated heart attack before the poison could take effect. Here, "but for" D's conduct, the result (death) would still have occurred, so D was not the factual cause of her death. **Exception for Multiple Causes**: - When more than one person contributes to the result, more than one party may be found factually liable. The courts can hold multiple parties liable if each person's actions significantly contributed to the outcome. - **R v Benge \[1846\]**: In this case, a railway accident was caused by the actions of several individuals, and all were held liable because each person\'s conduct played a significant role in causing the accident. **Acceleration Principle**: - D's actions must have **accelerated** the result; in other words, they must have brought about the result sooner than it would have occurred naturally. This acknowledges that all people will eventually die, but if D's actions hasten this outcome, factual causation is established. **Omission**: - Factual causation can also apply to omissions if D had a legal duty to act. If **D's failure to act** would have prevented the result, then D's omission can be a factual cause. - Example: A lifeguard who fails to act in an emergency could be factually liable if their inaction directly led to the harm or death that occurred. **Legal Causation:** While factual causation is broad, **legal causation** adds a layer of fairness and responsibility. Legal causation addresses **whether D is fairly responsible** for the result in the eyes of the law. This involves considering the substantial, blameworthy, and operative nature of D's conduct. **Controversial Nature of "Fairness"**: - Legal causation raises questions about fairness, often rooted in legal principles and sometimes influenced by moral judgments. This aspect can be controversial, as what is considered "fair" may vary by case and judge interpretation. **Principles of Legal Causation** Legal causation must meet three criteria: D's conduct must be **substantial**, **blameworthy**, and **operative**. 1. **Substantial Cause**: - D's role in the outcome must be more than minimal (not **de minimis**) and cannot be **slight or trifling**, **negligible**, or **insignificant**. - D's actions must have been a meaningful contribution to the result. 2. **Blameworthy Cause**: - D's conduct must be blameworthy for them to be legally liable. - **Key Cases**: - **R v Dalloway \[1847\]**: D was driving a cart without holding the reins, but the death of the victim would have occurred even if D had been holding the reins. Since D's conduct was not blameworthy in causing the death, he was not legally liable. - **R v Hughes \[2013\]**: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that D's conduct must be blameworthy to establish legal causation. In this case, D was driving without insurance but was not at fault for the accident. The court held that driving without insurance, while illegal, was not a blameworthy cause of the victim's death. - **R v Taylor \[2016\]**: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles from Hughes, confirming that blameworthiness is a key factor in determining legal causation. 3. **Operative Cause**: - D's conduct must still be an **operative** cause of the result at the time it occurred, meaning the chain of causation must remain unbroken. - The concept of **novus actus interveniens** (a new intervening act) can break the chain of causation, potentially absolving D of liability. Intervening acts could include: - **Subsequent actions by D**: If D later takes actions that sever their initial connection to the outcome. - **Actions of the victim (V)**: If V's own actions were independent and unforeseeable, they may break the chain. - **Natural events**: An unforeseeable natural occurrence that disrupts the causal link. - **Actions of a third party**: A third party's voluntary, deliberate action that was not reasonably foreseeable by D. **Key Case Example**: - **R v Empress Cars \[1999\]**: Facts: - **The defendant:** Empress Cars, a company operating diesel storage facilities. - **The incident:** A diesel tank on the company\'s premises was deliberately tampered with by an unknown third party. The tampering caused diesel to leak into a river, leading to significant environmental damage. - **The charge:** The company was prosecuted under the Water Resources Act 1991 for causing pollution to enter controlled waters. - **The defence argument:** Empress Cars argued that the deliberate act of the third party was an independent and unforeseeable act that broke the chain of causation. - **Key issue:** Whether the deliberate act of a third party (tampering) constituted a **novus actus interveniens**, breaking the chain of causation and absolving the company of liability. Legal Principle: The **House of Lords** ruled that: - A **novus actus interveniens** must be both **unforeseeable** and **independent** to break the chain of causation. - In this case, the act of tampering was foreseeable, given the circumstances of storing diesel in an unsecured tank. - The deliberate act of the third party did not break the causal chain because the company had created a situation where such tampering could reasonably occur. Outcome: Empress Cars was held liable because: - The act of pollution was attributable to the company's failure to secure the tank adequately. - The intervening act (third-party tampering) was not sufficiently extraordinary or unforeseeable to break the chain of causation. **Controversy and Inconsistency**: - The courts have faced challenges in consistently applying these principles, leading to debates and case-specific outcomes. This has sparked criticism, as the balance between fairness and legal accountability may vary, making causation one of the more complex areas of criminal law. **Chain of Causation:** The **chain of causation** refers to the unbroken link between the defendant's (D's) actions (or omissions) and the final result. For D to be held liable, this chain must remain intact. If an intervening event breaks the chain, D may no longer be held legally responsible for the outcome. **Types of Intervening Acts** Several types of acts can intervene and potentially break the chain of causation, depending on whether they sever D's conduct from the result: 1. **Interventions by D**: Additional actions by D that may contribute to the result. 2. **Acts of Nature**: Natural events outside of anyone's control, which may or may not be foreseeable. 3. **Third-Party Actions**: Actions by someone other than D or the victim (V), which can potentially redirect the chain of causation - medical negligence. 4. **Victim's Own Actions**: Acts by V in response to D's conduct, which may or may not be viewed as breaking the causal chain. **Breaking the Chain: Novus Actus Interveniens:** An **intervening act** (novus actus interveniens) is any new, independent act that occurs after D's conduct and before the result. For an act to break the chain of causation, it must be **unforeseeable** and **significant** enough to remove D's responsibility for the outcome. **1. Intervention from D** This type of intervention is rare but can occur when D's additional actions influence the result after the initial harm. - **Example**: D shoots V, who is hospitalised. During a hospital visit, D inadvertently infects V with smallpox, worsening V's condition. Here, D's infection of V could be seen as an additional causal factor. However, for the infection to break the chain, it would need to be significant and unforeseeable in relation to the original harm caused by the shooting. **2. Intervention by Natural Events** Intervening acts from nature, such as natural disasters, can break the causal chain if they are **unforeseeable** and **independent** of D's actions. - **Foreseeability**: Courts consider whether the natural event could have been foreseen by a reasonable person. If foreseeable, the event does not break the chain, and D may still be held liable. **Examples**: - **R v Gowans \[2003\]**: A coma patient's death due to infection was deemed foreseeable. The infection did not break the chain because infections are an expected risk in cases involving severe injury. - **Perkins (1946)**: Examples include the natural tide, which is generally foreseeable and thus unlikely to break the chain. - **Unforeseeable Events**: Extreme events like a lightning strike, an earthquake, or a falling tree might be deemed unforeseeable. If one of these rare events causes the result, it may break the chain and absolve D of liability. **3. Intervention by the Victim (V)** V's own actions in response to D's conduct can either break or maintain the chain of causation. Courts assess two main criteria: 1. **Foreseeability**: Was V's response a foreseeable reaction to D's actions? - **R v Roberts \[1971\]**: V jumped out of a moving car to escape D's unwanted advances. The court held that V's actions were a foreseeable response and did not break the chain. - **R v Corbett \[1996\]**: V's age, mental capacity, and intoxication were taken into account, suggesting that the chain of causation remains intact if V's actions were foreseeable given their specific vulnerabilities. 2. **Voluntariness**: Was V's action free, voluntary, and informed? - **R v Kennedy (No. 2) \[2007\]**: V's free and informed decision to self-administer heroin broke the chain of causation, as V's actions were voluntary and not directly controlled by D. - **Alternative Liability Routes**: In cases like **Evans**, where V's actions are less voluntary or informed, courts may look for other routes to impose liability on D. - **R v Field \[2021\]**: Here, V was led into a dangerous situation without knowledge of D's murderous intent, making V's actions less voluntary. The court found that D's undisclosed intentions influenced V's actions. - **R v Rebelo \[2021\]**: D sold a dangerous chemical online, which a vulnerable person consumed. The court held that V's decision was not fully informed or voluntary due to their addiction, and the chain was not broken. **Controversy**: Field and Rebelo have been criticised for potentially exceeding the scope of **Kennedy (No. 2)**, where V's voluntary actions typically break the chain. These recent cases suggest that courts are willing to extend liability when V's actions are less informed or coerced. **4. Victim's Vulnerabilities** Under the **eggshell skull rule**, D must "take their victim as they find them," meaning that V's pre-existing vulnerabilities, even if unknown to D, will not break the chain of causation. - **R v Blaue \[1975\]**: D stabbed V, who then refused a life-saving blood transfusion due to religious beliefs and died. The court held that V's actions did not break the chain because D is responsible for the full extent of harm caused, regardless of V's vulnerabilities or personal choices. - The **reasonableness of V's actions is irrelevant** when applying the eggshell skull rule. 1. **Intervention from Third Parties (X)** In cases where a **third party's actions intervene**, the original defendant (D) may or may not be held liable, depending on factors such as **foreseeability, voluntariness, and the status of the third party (X)**. 1. **Multiple Causes and Independent Liability** - It is possible for multiple parties (Ds) to be independently liable if they each contribute to a harmful result. However, if X's actions alone cause the result, D may avoid liability, as long as certain conditions are met. 2. **Foreseeability and Voluntariness** - As with other causation principles, if the third party's actions were **foreseeable**, D may still be liable. - **Voluntariness** plays a critical role; if X's intervention is seen as a voluntary and independent act, it may break the chain of causation. For instance, in **R v Michael (1840)**, D sent poison to be administered as medicine to her baby by the caregiver. A small child accidentally administered the poison, killing the baby. Here, D was still held liable because the child's actions were not considered a truly voluntary act but rather an unwitting intervention. 3. **Status of the Third Party (X)** **a) Doctor or Medical Professional** When the third party is a doctor, higher standards are applied to determine causation. Courts have ruled that a doctor's intervention will only break the chain if: - The treatment was **"palpably wrong"** (obviously incorrect). - **V's injuries had largely healed**, so the original injury was no longer a substantial factor in V's death. **Relevant Cases** - **R v Jordan (1956)**: In this case, V's injuries were nearly healed when Dr. X administered the wrong medication, causing V's death. The court held that the doctor's action was "palpably wrong" and so independent of the initial injury that it broke the chain of causation. - **R v Smith (1959)**: D stabbed V, who was then dropped by a medic, and subsequently received very poor treatment by Dr. Y. Despite the flawed medical care, the court held D liable because the original wound was still a significant and operating cause of death. - **R v Cheshire (1991)**: Even though V's original wounds had mostly healed, the medical intervention was not "so independent" or "so potent" as to break the causal link. The court was reluctant to assign sole responsibility to the doctor, given the initial injury's ongoing impact. **Takeaway**: Doctors' acts are unlikely to break the chain unless they are significantly independent and the original injury has ceased to play a substantial role. **b) Non-Medical Third Parties** - Courts apply different standards if X is not a medical professional: - **R v Pagett (1983)**: D used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield while police officers shot back at him, killing V. The police's act of shooting was not seen as voluntary in the sense that would break the chain; D was held liable because of his initial and direct role in creating the dangerous situation. - **R v Empress Car Co Ltd \[1999\]**: An unidentified person (X) tampered with a valve at a factory, causing oil pollution. The court held that D was liable despite X's act because pollution cases often adopt a lower threshold for causation, considering broader regulatory purposes. 4. **Type of Offence and Policy Considerations** - The courts' approach in cases like *R v Empress Car Co Ltd* suggests a **policy-driven reasoning** in causation. In pollution cases, stricter liability may be applied to support environmental protection, even when an unidentified third party is involved. - **Judicial Critique**: Some legal scholars argue that courts may, at times, decide cases on policy grounds and then rationalise their decisions post hoc by adapting causation principles to fit. **Inconsistencies and Moral Judgments in Causation:** The application of causation principles can be inconsistent, often reflecting subjective judgments on fairness and morality. - **Example of Inconsistency**: In **Blaue**, V's refusal of medical treatment did not break the chain, while in **R v Roberts**, V's jump out of the moving car did not break the chain, but could have been argued to be a voluntary act. - **Cases Involving V's Self-Inflicted Harm**: - **R v Dear \[1996\]**: V worsened their own injuries, yet the chain was unbroken because D's initial attack was a substantial cause of death. - **R v D \[2006\]**: V's suicide after a prolonged history of abuse by D was linked back to D's conduct, suggesting that self-inflicted harm may not always sever the chain. - **R v Wallace (Berlinah) \[2018\]**: After D's acid attack, V ended their life through euthanasia. Courts debated whether V's decision to end suffering was foreseeable and thus attributable to D's actions. **Case Background** In *R v Wallace*, the defendant (D) Berlinah Wallace carried out a deliberate acid attack on her former partner, Mr. van Dongen (V). V suffered extensive injuries and severe pain as a result. Some time later, unable to bear his suffering and with no hope of recovery, V opted for euthanasia in Belgium. The question for the courts was whether V's decision to end his life broke the chain of causation, or if D's actions could be deemed the legal cause of V's death. **Legal Causation Issue in Wallace** The critical legal issue in *R v Wallace* centred on whether V's suicide could be attributed to D\'s actions or whether V's choice constituted a **novus actus interveniens** (an intervening act), breaking the chain of causation. 1. **Foreseeability Test for Causation** The jury was directed to consider: - **Reasonable foreseeability**: "At the time of the acid attack, was it reasonably foreseeable that V would commit suicide as a result of his injuries?" - **Context and Circumstances**: Including the nature and brutality of the attack, as well as D's actions and words at the time. - **Expected Range of Victim Responses**: Was V's decision to undergo euthanasia a reaction within the expected range for a person in his situation? This encouraged the jury to weigh whether V's choice was so unusual that it severed the causal link. 2. **Outcome and Precedent** The Court of Appeal (CA) found that while V's decision to undergo euthanasia did break the chain of causation in this case, the court recognised the possibility of a suicide **not breaking the causal chain** in other, similar contexts. The judge held that a defendant's actions could, in principle, leave a victim with no realistic alternative but to end their life, meaning the causal chain would remain unbroken. However, for *Wallace*, V's decision was ultimately judged as sufficiently autonomous, leading to a retrial verdict of **guilty only for GBH** rather than murder. **Impact of Wallace and Comparison with R v Kennedy (No. 2) \[2007\]** The *Wallace* decision was groundbreaking because it suggested that in extreme circumstances, a victim's suicide might **not** break the causal chain if D's actions leave V with limited options. This introduced flexibility into the concept of causation, contrasting with the more rigid approach in *R v Kennedy (No. 2) \[2007\]*. In *Kennedy (No. 2)*: 1. V died after self-administering heroin provided by D. The courts ruled that V's act of injecting himself broke the causal chain, as it was a **free, voluntary, and informed choice**. 2. The judgment emphasised **voluntariness** and **autonomy** as critical factors in causation, suggesting that V's addiction did not prevent him from making a "free and unfettered" decision. In *Wallace*, however: 1. The court acknowledged that **V's free will** might be severely impacted by **extreme suffering or permanent injury**, creating a scenario where a choice to end one's life is not entirely free or unfettered. 2. This led to debates on whether the **'free and voluntary'** standard applied in *Kennedy (No. 2)* is always appropriate, particularly in cases where D's conduct leaves V in a state of irreversible suffering. **Debate on Moral Judgment and Legal Flexibility** *Wallace* highlighted the challenge of moral judgment in causation cases: 1. Courts are tasked with deciding **what is "fair" in law** and to what extent legal causation should account for the victim's suffering and potential vulnerabilities. 2. **Criticism** has arisen over whether *Kennedy (No. 2)* was "rightly decided," especially when compared to cases like *Wallace* where V's "choice" to end their life may be deeply constrained by their condition, suggesting that "free and unfettered" decisions may sometimes be **illusory**. **Conclusion** The *Wallace* case underscores the complexities in causation when V's subsequent actions---particularly suicide---are seen as potentially "forced" by D's conduct. It opens the door for future cases to consider whether extreme suffering caused by D can render a victim's self-harm more directly attributable to D's initial act. Thus, while *Kennedy (No. 2)* maintains the importance of autonomy, *Wallace* introduces an important nuance, emphasising that causation is not always straightforward and may sometimes reflect **moral judgments** about responsibility and fairness. **Addiction as Vulnerability**: Cases like **R v Rebelo** indicate a growing recognition of addiction as a vulnerability that may limit the voluntariness of V's actions, challenging earlier rulings like **Kennedy (No. 2)** where V's voluntary actions typically broke the chain. **Causation by Omission:** In cases of causation by omission, **D's failure to act** must be shown to have caused the result. This involves a high burden of proof, requiring certainty that the harm would not have occurred "but for" D's omission. 1. **R v Broughton \[2020\]** - In *R v Broughton*, D was accused of failing to seek help for V, who later died. The Court of Appeal held that even though D's omission might have reduced V's chance of survival by 90%, the fact that there was still a **10% chance that V would have died regardless** undermined causation. - The court emphasised that causation by omission requires clear proof that **D's failure to act directly caused the harm**. 2. **"But For" Test for Omissions** - For causation by omission, it must be demonstrated that **D's omission directly led to the harm**. If there is doubt (e.g., a high likelihood that the result could have occurred independently), courts are unlikely to hold D liable. 3. **Summary** - **Causation by omission** remains a challenging area, as courts are reluctant to assign liability unless D's failure to act clearly and significantly impacted the outcome. This aligns with principles in criminal law, where positive acts generally carry more weight than omissions, unless D owed a specific duty to act. **Reform of the Law on Actus Reus: Key Areas of Debate:** The current law on *Actus Reus* (AR) has faced criticism and calls for reform, particularly regarding omissions, results, and causation. 1. **Omissions: Should There Be a Duty to Act Based on Citizenship?** - **Current Law**: In English law, individuals are generally not liable for failing to act unless they have a specific duty to do so (e.g., parental duty, contractual obligations, or duties arising from special relationships). - **Proposed Reform**: Some argue for a broader **"duty to rescue"** that would apply to all citizens, requiring people to act in situations where assistance could be provided easily and safely. This would be similar to laws in countries like France and Germany, which impose a **general duty of assistance** in emergency situations. - **Arguments For Reform**: - **Moral Duty**: There is an ethical argument that citizens should help others in distress, especially when there is minimal risk to themselves. - **Social Responsibility**: A duty based on citizenship could foster a more cohesive society, promoting responsibility and goodwill among people. - **Arguments Against Reform**: - **Practicality and Enforcement**: Critics argue it could be challenging to define what constitutes an "easy and safe" rescue, and enforcement might be problematic. - **Risk of Criminalising Inaction**: This reform could lead to excessive liability, potentially punishing people for inaction when circumstances are unclear. - **Possible Compromise**: A more limited duty, applying only to cases where danger is clear and the rescuer faces minimal risk, could balance social responsibility with individual freedom. 2. **Results: Liability and the Role of "Luck"** - **Current Law**: For some offences, liability depends on whether D's actions produce a particular outcome (e.g., harm to V). Critics argue that this can make liability feel arbitrary, as results can be heavily influenced by factors outside D's control (often referred to as "moral luck"). - **Reform Discussion**: - **Luck and Fairness**: Critics question whether it's fair for two people who behave identically to face different outcomes and penalties simply due to the role of chance. For example, if two people engage in dangerous driving, but only one causes a fatal accident, only that person might be held liable for the death. - **Reform Options**: One proposal is to create a greater emphasis on **risk creation** rather than just the result, assigning liability based on dangerous conduct rather than purely on outcomes. - **Balance of Deterrence and Fairness**: Any reform would need to weigh the desire to deter harmful actions against the risk of unfairly penalising individuals based on unlucky outcomes. 3. **Causation: Law Commission's Draft Bill** - **Current Law**: Causation is a core part of establishing AR, but it's often a complex and contentious issue in court, especially in cases involving multiple causes or intervening acts (e.g., R v Kennedy No.2). The "but for" test and principles of legal causation (e.g., substantial, blameworthy, and operating cause) provide structure, but remain imperfect. - **Law Commission's Proposed Reforms**: - **Clarifying Causation Rules**: The **Law Commission's draft bill** suggests simplifying causation principles by codifying them, aiming to reduce ambiguity and inconsistency. This could include clearer rules on intervening acts and guidance on how causation principles apply to complex scenarios. - **Impact on Legal Consistency**: Codification could make it easier for courts to apply causation rules predictably, reducing reliance on case-by-case judgments, which sometimes seem inconsistent. - **Pros and Cons of Codification**: - **Advantages**: Codified causation rules could make the law more predictable, accessible, and understandable, potentially reducing confusion for juries. - **Disadvantages**: Some argue that causation issues are inherently complex and varied, so rigid codified rules might reduce courts' flexibility to address unique cases fairly. **Definition of Mens Rea** - *Mens rea* means \"guilty mind\" in Latin and refers to the mental element of an offence. It ensures that only those who act with a culpable state of mind are criminally liable. - Example: Intentionally stealing someone\'s phone demonstrates mens rea, whereas accidentally taking it does not. **Mens Rea in Context** 1. **Voluntariness**: - For conduct to constitute a crime, it must usually be voluntary. - **Cases**: - **Larsonneur (1933)**: A French woman was deported from Ireland to England against her will and charged with being an alien in the UK without permission. Despite her involuntary arrival, she was convicted because the offence was one of absolute liability. - **Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)**: D was drunk in a hospital. The police moved him to a public highway and charged him with being drunk in a public place. His presence on the highway was involuntary, but this did not exempt him from liability under the law. 2. **Mens Rea Terms**: **Intention** - **Direct Intention**: - D has a clear aim or purpose to bring about a specific result. - Example: D deliberately poisons V to cause death. - **Oblique (Indirect) Intention**: - D's primary aim may not be the result, but the outcome is a virtual certainty of their actions, and D foresees this as such. - **Key Cases**: - **Woollin (1998)** **Facts:** - The defendant (*D*), Mr. Woollin, was feeding his three-month-old baby son, who began choking on food. - Out of frustration, Woollin lost his temper and threw the baby forcefully against a hard surface (a wall or floor). - The baby suffered a fractured skull and died as a result. - Woollin claimed he did not intend to kill or seriously injure the child but admitted to throwing him in anger. **Legal Issue:** - The central issue was whether Woollin intended the death or serious harm of the baby, which would determine whether he could be found guilty of murder. **Key Legal Principle:** - The case focused on the definition of *intention* in criminal law, particularly for murder. - The court revisited the concept of oblique intention, which arises when the defendant's primary aim is something other than causing death or serious harm, but a harmful result occurs as a side effect. **House of Lords Decision:** - The court provided a refined test for oblique intention: A *result* (e.g., death or serious harm) is intended if: 1. It is a **virtual certainty** of the defendant\'s actions, and 2. The defendant **foresees it as such**. - The jury is entitled to find intention only if both elements are satisfied. This means the outcome must have been so inevitable that Woollin must have foreseen it as practically unavoidable. - Applying this test, the court found that Woollin did not directly intend to kill his son but recognised that throwing the baby made serious harm a virtual certainty. **Outcome:** - Woollin\'s murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter because the court concluded that the jury should only have found him guilty of murder if they believed he both foresaw and intended the death or serious harm as a virtual certainty. - **Matthews and Alleyne (2003)** **Facts:** - The defendants, Matthews and Alleyne, robbed and kidnapped the victim, a 19-year-old man, and threw him into a river despite knowing he could not swim. - The victim drowned, and his body was recovered several days later. - Matthews and Alleyne claimed they did not intend for the victim to die, arguing they believed he might swim or reach safety. **Legal Issue:** - Whether the defendants intended to kill or cause serious harm to the victim, which was crucial for a murder conviction. **Court of Appeal Decision:** - The court reaffirmed the principle established in *Woollin* regarding *oblique intention*. Specifically: 1. A result is intended if: 1. It is a **virtual certainty** that the result (death or grievous bodily harm) would occur from the defendant's actions, and 2. The defendant **foresaw it as a virtual certainty**. 2. However, the court clarified that foresight of virtual certainty is evidence of intention but not the same as intention itself. - In this case: 1. The defendants knew the victim could not swim. 2. Throwing him into a river made his death a virtual certainty, and they foresaw this. 3. The jury was entitled to infer intention from these facts. **Outcome:** - Matthews and Alleyne were convicted of murder. **Key Comparisons to *Woollin*:** - **Similar Principle:** 1. Both cases rely on the test of *virtual certainty* and the defendant's foresight of that certainty to establish oblique intention. 2. However, while *Woollin* framed foresight as a guideline for juries to infer intention, *Matthews and Alleyne* emphasised that foresight is evidence, not the same as intention. - **Application to Facts:** 1. In *Woollin*, the defendant's actions (throwing the baby) were impulsive and not premeditated, leading to a conviction for manslaughter. 2. In *Matthews and Alleyne*, the deliberate nature of throwing the victim into a river, knowing he could not swim, supported a finding of murder. - **Development of the Law on Intention**: - **Hyam v DPP (1975)**: D set fire to a house, intending to frighten the occupants, which led to deaths. The court held that foresight of a \"high probability\" of harm was sufficient for intention. **Facts:** - The defendant (*D*), Mrs. Hyam, set fire to the house of her romantic rival by pouring petrol through the letterbox and lighting it. - Her intention was to frighten the occupants and drive them away, not to cause death. - The fire led to the deaths of two children in the house. **Legal Issue:** - Whether *D* could be said to have intended the deaths if her primary aim was only to frighten, not to kill. **Decision:** - The House of Lords held that *D* could be found guilty of murder if she foresaw death or serious injury as a **high probability** of her actions. - While foresight of high probability did not automatically mean intention, it was strong evidence of it. **Significance:** - Established that foresight of a likely consequence (a high probability of harm) could be sufficient for intent. However, this was criticised as being too broad. - **Moloney (1985)**: In a drunken game, D accidentally shot and killed his stepfather. The court clarified that foresight of consequences does not necessarily equal intention. **Facts:** - The defendant (*D*) and his stepfather were drinking heavily and engaged in a drunken competition to see who could load and fire a shotgun the fastest. - *D* accidentally shot and killed his stepfather. **Legal Issue:** - Whether *D* had the intent to kill or cause serious harm, even if the act was not premeditated or deliberate. **Decision:** - The House of Lords ruled that *D's* foresight of the consequences did not necessarily equal intention. - Intention should be assessed based on whether *D* aimed or desired the outcome, not simply whether it was a consequence he foresaw. **Guidance:** - Lord Bridge introduced two questions to help juries decide intention: - Was the death or serious harm a natural consequence of *D's* act? - Did *D* foresee that consequence as a natural consequence? **Significance:** - Clarified the distinction between foresight and intention but left ambiguity on the threshold of foresight required. - **Hancock and Shankland (1986)**: Miners dropped concrete blocks onto a road, killing a driver. The court emphasised the need to consider how likely the consequence was. **Facts:** - The defendants (*D*) were striking miners who dropped a concrete block from a bridge onto a taxi carrying a non-striking miner. - The block hit the taxi, killing the driver. **Legal Issue:** - Whether *D* intended to kill or cause serious harm, or whether their actions were only aimed at blocking the road. **Decision:** - The House of Lords criticised the *Moloney* guidelines, stating they oversimplified the relationship between foresight and intention. - Emphasised the need for juries to consider **how likely** the consequence was and whether *D* appreciated that likelihood. **Significance:** - Reinforced that foresight of consequences is evidence of intention but not intention itself. - Highlighted the importance of proportionality: the greater the likelihood of death, the stronger the inference of intention. - **Nedrick (1986)**: D poured petrol through a letterbox, causing a fire and killing a child. The court introduced the \"virtual certainty\" test. **Facts:** - The defendant (*D*) poured petrol through the letterbox of a house and set it on fire as part of a personal dispute. - A child died in the resulting blaze. **Legal Issue:** - Whether *D* intended to kill or cause serious harm when his primary aim was not directed at the victim. **Decision:** - The Court of Appeal introduced the \"virtual certainty\" test: - Death or serious harm must be a **virtual certainty** as a result of *D's* actions. - *D* must **foresee** this outcome as virtually certain. **Significance:** - This test created a more precise standard for juries to assess oblique intention. - It laid the groundwork for later cases like *Woollin*. **Recklessness** - **Definition**: - D is reckless when they foresee a risk and proceed despite it, and taking that risk is unreasonable. - **Key Elements**: - **Subjective Recklessness**: D must foresee the risk. - **Objective Recklessness**: It must be unreasonable to take the risk, given the circumstances. - **Historical Development of Recklessness**: - **Subjective Approach**: - **R v Cunningham (1957)**: D removed a gas meter to steal money, causing a gas leak that endangered neighbours. The court held that recklessness required foresight of the risk. **Facts:** - The defendant (*D*) tore a gas meter from the wall of a house to steal money, causing gas to escape into the neighboring property. - The escaping gas endangered the life of the neighbor, who was unaware of the leak. **Legal Issue:** - Whether *D* was reckless in causing the gas leak and endangering life. **Decision:** - The court held that recklessness required *D* to have **foresight of the risk** of harm and proceed regardless. - Since *D* did not foresee that removing the meter would cause a gas leak and harm, he was not guilty of maliciously endangering life. **Significance:** - Established the **subjective test** for recklessness: *Did the defendant foresee the risk of harm but take it anyway?* - **Objective Approach**: - **R v Caldwell (1981)**: D set fire to a hotel while drunk. The court adopted an objective standard, ruling D was reckless if a reasonable person would foresee the risk. **Facts:** - The defendant (*D*), in a state of intoxication, set fire to a hotel out of revenge. - The fire was quickly extinguished, but the lives of hotel guests were endangered. **Legal Issue:** - Whether *D* was reckless despite his intoxicated state and lack of actual foresight of the risk. **Decision:** - The House of Lords introduced the **objective test** for recklessness:A defendant is reckless if: 1. He creates an obvious risk of harm, and 2. A reasonable person would have foreseen the risk, regardless of whether *D* actually did. - Caldwell was found guilty because a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of endangering lives. **Significance:** - This case broadened the definition of recklessness, making it easier to convict defendants who failed to consider obvious risks, even if they were unaware due to intoxication or other reasons. - **Return to Subjective**: - **R v G and R (2003)**: Two boys set fire to a bin, causing substantial damage. The court ruled that recklessness requires D to foresee the risk, rejecting Caldwell's objective test. **Facts:** - Two boys, aged 11 and 12, set fire to a bin behind a shop without realising the fire would spread. - The fire caused £1 million in damages to the building. **Legal Issue:** - Whether the boys were reckless despite their lack of foresight of the damage. **Decision:** - The House of Lords overruled *Caldwell* and reinstated the **subjective test** for recklessness:A defendant is reckless if: 3. They are aware of a risk, and 4. It is unreasonable to take that risk in the circumstances. - The boys were acquitted because they did not foresee the risk of the fire spreading. **Significance:** - Marked a return to the subjective approach, ensuring that defendants are only reckless if they consciously disregard a risk. - **Notable Cases on Recklessness**: - **Stephenson (1979)**: D, suffering from schizophrenia, set fire to a haystack but did not foresee the risk due to his condition. Subjective recklessness saved him from liability. **Stephenson (1979):** - **Facts:** A schizophrenic defendant set fire to a haystack to keep warm but did not foresee the risk of the fire spreading due to his mental condition. - **Decision:** He was not reckless because he lacked **subjective foresight** of the risk. - **Significance:** Highlighted the fairness of the subjective test for individuals with mental health conditions. - **Parker (1977)**: D smashed a phone in anger. The court held that recklessness required the risk to enter D's mind, even if fleetingly. - **Facts:** The defendant smashed a public phone in frustration after it ate his money. He claimed he was too angry to foresee the risk of damage. - **Decision:** The court held that recklessness includes situations where the risk **enters the defendant's mind**, even fleetingly, and is ignored. - **Significance:** Ensured that fleeting awareness of a risk does not absolve liability. **Dishonesty** - **Old Law**: - **R v Ghosh (1982)** established a two-part test: 1. Was D's conduct dishonest by the standards of reasonable people? (Objective test) 2. Did D realise their conduct was dishonest by those standards? (Subjective test) - **R v Ghosh (1982):** **Facts:** - The defendant (*D*), Dr. Ghosh, was a locum surgeon who claimed fees for operations he did not perform. - He argued that he believed he was entitled to the money and thus did not consider his actions dishonest. **Legal Issue:** - The case centred on how to determine whether *D's* conduct was **dishonest** under criminal law. **Decision:** - The Court of Appeal established a **two-stage test** for dishonesty: 3. **Objective Test:** Was the defendant's conduct dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people? 4. **Subjective Test:** Did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would view his conduct as dishonest? - Ghosh was convicted because the jury found his actions dishonest under both limbs of the test. **Significance:** - Provided a mixed test for dishonesty, requiring both an objective standard and consideration of the defendant\'s subjective state of mind. - The test was criticised for being confusing and allowing defendants to escape liability by claiming ignorance of societal norms. - **Criticism of Ghosh**: - Allowed defendants with skewed moral views to escape liability. - Created uncertainty by relying on jury interpretation. - **New Law**: - **Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017)** replaced Ghosh. 1. The test now asks: 1. What was D's actual knowledge or belief about the facts? 2. Was D's conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary, decent people? - **Case Example**: **Facts:** 1. The claimant (*C*), Mr. Ivey, was a professional gambler who used a technique called \"edge-sorting\" to gain an advantage at a casino. 2. The casino refused to pay his winnings, alleging that his technique amounted to cheating. 3. Ivey claimed he did not consider his actions dishonest. **Legal Issue:** 1. Whether *C's* actions were dishonest, and whether dishonesty should involve a subjective element. **Decision:** 1. The Supreme Court rejected the second (subjective) limb of the *Ghosh* test and replaced it with a purely **objective test for dishonesty**: 1. Determine the facts as the defendant believed them to be. 2. Assess whether the defendant's conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. 2. Ivey\'s actions were deemed dishonest, even though he did not consider them so. **Significance:** 1. Abolished the subjective element from the test for dishonesty. 2. Clarified that dishonesty is judged solely by societal standards, not the defendant's personal beliefs. 3. This new standard applies across both criminal and civil law contexts, influencing cases involving theft, fraud, and cheating. **Negligence** - **Definition**: Failure to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. - Negligence is typically used in cases of gross negligence manslaughter. - **Key Case**: - **Adomako (1995)**: An anaesthetist failed to notice a disconnected oxygen tube during surgery, leading to a patient's death. The court ruled this as gross negligence manslaughter, requiring a \"very high degree\" of negligence. **Exceptions to Mens Rea** 1. **Strict Liability**: - Offences that do not require proof of mens rea for at least one element of the actus reus. - Example: **Sexual Offenses Act 2003, s.5** -- Sexual activity with a child under 13 is an offense regardless of D's knowledge or belief about the victim's age. 2. **Ulterior Mens Rea**: - The mens rea element extends beyond the corresponding actus reus. - Example: **Burglary** requires proof of entry into a building **with intent to steal**, even if no theft occurs. **Identifying Mens Rea** - **Subjective Mens Rea**: Considers what D thought, desired, or foresaw. - Example: Intention or subjective recklessness. - **Objective Mens Rea**: Focuses on what a reasonable person would have foreseen or done. - Example: Gross negligence. **Reform Discussions** - Codifying mens rea could create consistency but may restrict judicial flexibility. - Is objective mens rea unfair? It may impose liability on defendants unaware of risks. **Case Studies for Reference** - **Woollin (1998)**: Virtual certainty test for oblique intention: **4 All ER 103** - **Court**: House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) - **Facts**: D, frustrated with his crying three-month-old son, threw the baby towards a pram, causing the baby to hit a hard surface and die from his injuries. D was charged with murder, but the issue was whether his actions amounted to intention. - **Issue**: Was D's foresight of death or serious harm as a result of his actions sufficient to establish intention for murder? - **Ruling**: The court established the *virtual certainty test*. D's actions constituted oblique intention if: 1. The result (death or serious harm) was a virtual certainty of D's actions; and 2. D foresaw the result as a virtual certainty. - **Outcome**: Murder conviction quashed, replaced with manslaughter. This case refined the test for oblique intention and is now the leading authority. - **R v G and R (2003)**: Overruled Caldwell and re-established subjective recklessness: **4 All ER 765** - **Court**: House of Lords - **Facts**: Two boys, aged 11 and 12, lit newspapers on fire and threw them under a bin, believing the fire would extinguish itself. However, the fire spread, causing £1 million in damages. They were charged with criminal damage based on recklessness under **Caldwell**'s objective test. - **Issue**: Should recklessness be judged subjectively (what the defendant foresaw) or objectively (what a reasonable person would foresee)? - **Ruling**: The court overturned **Caldwell** and ruled that recklessness requires D to foresee the risk themselves. It reinstated subjective recklessness, where D must personally appreciate the risk, irrespective of what others may foresee. - **Outcome**: Convictions quashed due to their lack of subjective foresight. This case marked a significant shift back to a subjective approach for recklessness. - **Ivey v Genting Casinos UKSC (2017)**: Modern test for dishonesty - **Court**: UK Supreme Court - **Facts**: Phil Ivey, a professional gambler, won £7.7 million playing Punto Banco at a London casino. He used a technique called *edge sorting* to identify high-value cards and gain an advantage, without the casino\'s knowledge. The casino refused to pay, alleging he had cheated. - **Issue**: Was Ivey's use of edge sorting dishonest under the civil law standard, and what standard of dishonesty should apply? - **Ruling**: The court abolished the second, subjective limb of the **Ghosh** test. It ruled that dishonesty should be judged by: 3. Determining D's actual state of knowledge or belief of the facts; and 4. Considering whether D's conduct, in light of that belief, was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. - **Outcome**: Ivey was found to have acted dishonestly under this test. This case is now the leading authority on dishonesty and has significant implications for criminal law. - **Adomako (1995)**: Standard for gross negligence manslaughter: **1 AC 171** - **Court**: House of Lords - **Facts**: D was an anesthetist responsible for monitoring a patient during surgery. He failed to notice a disconnected oxygen tube for several minutes, causing the patient to suffer cardiac arrest and die. D was charged with gross negligence manslaughter. - **Issue**: What is the standard for gross negligence in cases where D has a duty of care? - **Ruling**: The court held that gross negligence manslaughter requires: 5. A duty of care owed by D to V; 6. A breach of that duty; 7. The breach causing death; and 8. A breach so gross as to justify criminal liability.The standard of grossness is determined by whether D's conduct departed significantly from the standards of a reasonably competent professional. - **Outcome**: D's actions were deemed grossly negligent, and he was convicted. This case remains the leading authority on gross negligence manslaughter. **Homicide Offence:** Homicide involves unlawful killings and includes the following offences: 1. **Murder**: Most serious offence, requiring both Actus Reus (AR) and Mens Rea (MR). 2. **Manslaughter**: - **Voluntary Manslaughter**: Partial defences reduce liability from murder. - **Involuntary Manslaughter**: Liability arises without intent to kill, through gross negligence or unlawful acts. **Murder:** **Definition by Coke (1797):** "Unlawful killing of a reasonable person under the King's peace, with malice aforethought." **Modern Definition:** Unlawful killing of a person under the King's peace with the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). **Elements of Murder:** **Actus Reus (AR):** 1. **Unlawful Killing** - Must lack a lawful defence (e.g., not self-defence). 2. **Killing by Act or Omission** - Omissions are criminal where D owes a duty of care. - *R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)* - **Facts**: A father (Gibbins) and his partner (Proctor) withheld food from Gibbins\' daughter, leading to her death from starvation. - **Issues**: Did their failure to act constitute murder? - **Held (Divisional Court)**: They owed a duty of care to the child. The omission to provide food was deliberate, constituting murder. 3. **A Person** - A foetus is not a legal person. - *AG's Reference (No. 3 of 1994) \[1997\] UKHL* - **Facts**: D stabbed his pregnant girlfriend, causing the premature birth of the baby, who later died from complications. - **Issues**: Could D be charged with murder of the foetus? - **Held (House of Lords)**: A foetus is not a person for the purpose of murder; however, liability for manslaughter was possible. 4. **Causation** - D's actions must factually and legally cause V's death. - *R v Blaue (1975) CA* - **Facts**: D stabbed V, a Jehovah's Witness who refused a life-saving blood transfusion due to her faith, resulting in her death. - **Issues**: Did the refusal of medical treatment break the chain of causation? - **Held (Court of Appeal)**: No, the thin-skull rule applied. D must take V as they find them, including their beliefs. - *R v Cheshire (1991) CA* - **Facts**: D shot V, who required surgery. V died from rare complications caused by negligent medical care. - **Issues**: Did the medical negligence break the chain of causation? - **Held (Court of Appeal)**: No, D's conduct remained a significant and operating cause of death. 5. **Under the King's Peace** - Killings in war or lawful execution are excluded. **Mens Rea (MR):** The MR for murder requires **intention**, which can be: 1. **Direct Intention** - D's purpose is to kill or cause GBH. - *R v Mohan \[1976\] QB* - **Facts**: D accelerated his car towards a police officer to escape apprehension. - **Issues**: Did D intend to harm the officer? - **Held (Court of Appeal)**: Direct intent means D's aim or purpose; here, D intended harm. 2. **Oblique Intention** - Death or GBH is a virtually certain consequence of D's actions, and D foresees this. - *R v Woollin \[1998\] UKHL* - **Facts**: D threw his 3-month-old son onto a hard surface in frustration, causing his death. - **Issues**: Did D intend to kill or cause GBH? - **Held (House of Lords)**: Oblique intent exists if death is a virtually certain consequence of D's act, and D appreciates this. **Malice Aforethought:** - Encompasses intent to kill or cause GBH; premeditation is not required. **Special Issues in Murder:** **Mercy Killing and Euthanasia** - Both are currently unlawful in England and Wales. - *R v Inglis (2010) EWCA* - **Facts**: D, a mother, injected her severely disabled son with a lethal dose of heroin, believing it was an act of mercy. - **Issues**: Could her good intentions negate liability? - **Held (Court of Appeal)**: No. Mercy killings still amount to murder if intent to kill is present. **Partial Defences to Murder (Voluntary Manslaughter):** 1. **Loss of Self-Control** (*Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s.54-55*) - D must lose control due to a qualifying trigger (fear of violence or things said/done). - *R v Clinton (2012) EWCA* - **Facts**: D killed his wife after learning of her infidelity and hearing taunts about his suicidal thoughts. - **Issues**: Did the infidelity qualify as a trigger under s.54? - **Held (Court of Appeal)**: Infidelity alone cannot be a trigger, but accompanying taunts and humiliation could amount to a qualifying trigger. 2. **Diminished Responsibility** (*Homicide Act 1957, s.2*) - Requires an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition. - *R v Byrne (1960) CA* - **Facts**: D, a sexual psychopath, strangled a woman due to uncontrollable urges. - **Issues**: Could his condition reduce liability? - **Held (Court of Appeal)**: Yes. Diminished responsibility applied as his mental condition impaired his ability to control his actions. 3. **Suicide Pact** (*Homicide Act 1957, s.4*) - If D kills in pursuance of a suicide pact, liability is reduced to manslaughter. **General Defences to Murder:** 1. **Self-Defence**: D must use reasonable and proportionate force. - *R v Clegg (1995) HL* - **Facts**: A soldier shot a joyrider who was driving away, killing them. - **Issues**: Was the force proportionate and necessary? - **Held (House of Lords)**: No. D's force was excessive as the threat had passed. 2. **Insanity**: Requires D to be unable to understand the nature of their act under the M'Naghten Rules. 3. **Intoxication**: May negate intent but rarely succeeds in murder cases. **Sentencing for Murder:** 1. **Mandatory Life Sentence** - Minimum tariff typically 15 years (*Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965*). 2. **Whole Life Orders** - Reserved for heinous crimes (*e.g., Wayne Couzens, Lucy Letby*). **Reform Proposals (Law Commission 2006):** 1. **First-Degree Murder**: Intent to kill or cause GBH with awareness of death risk. 2. **Second-Degree Murder**: Less culpable killings (e.g., intent to cause serious harm without awareness of risk of death). 3. **Manslaughter**: Focused on risk-taking rather than intent. **Voluntary Manslaughter Overview:** - **Definition:** Occurs when D satisfies both **actus reus** and **mens rea** for murder, but a **partial defence** reduces the liability to manslaughter. - **Key Defences** (partial): 1. **Loss of Control (LoC)** (Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s54 & s55) 2. **Diminished Responsibility (DR)** (Homicide Act 1957, s2, as amended). - **Purpose:** Avoid a mandatory life sentence for situations with mitigating circumstances. **Loss of Control (LoC):** **Statutory Basis:** Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Sections 54 & 55. **Key Elements:** 1. D's acts resulted from a **loss of self-control** (s54(1)(a)); 2. The loss of control had a **qualifying trigger** (s54(1)(b)); 3. A person of D's **sex and age**, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, in D's circumstances, might have acted similarly (s54(1)(c)). **Key Principles and Cases:** 1. **Loss of Control Must Be Genuine (Subjective Test)** - **Jewell \[2014\]** - **Court:** Court of Appeal - **Facts:** The defendant killed the victim at point-blank range after allegedly enduring prolonged stress and sleeplessness. The defendant had prepared a \"survival kit,\" including weapons and other supplies, suggesting premeditation. - **Issue:** Whether the loss of control defence was applicable. - **Judgment:** The Court of Appeal held that the evidence of planning and preparation undermined the claim of a loss of control. The court emphasised that \"extreme emotion\" alone does not qualify unless there is an actual loss of rationality or the ability to exercise judgment. - **Citation:** *R v Jewell \[2014\] EWCA Crim 414*. 2. **Loss of Control Need Not Be Sudden (s54(2))** - **Ahluwalia \[1992\]:** - **Court:** Court of Appeal - **Facts:** Kiranjit Ahluwalia killed her abusive husband by setting him on fire while he was asleep. The killing followed years of domestic violence. The defence of provocation was raised but failed because the loss of control was not considered \"sudden\" under the old law. - **Issue:** Whether the delay in the act could negate the loss of control defence. - **Judgment:** The court dismissed the appeal for provocation but allowed diminished responsibility on the grounds of depression. - **Citation:** *R v Ahluwalia \[1992\] 4 All ER 889 (CA)*. - **Relevance Post-2009:** Delayed reactions can qualify, improving justice for abuse victims. 3. **Qualifying Trigger (s55)** - Fear of serious violence (s55(3)) (*subjective test*). - Things said or done of extremely grave character causing a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (s55(4)) (*mixed subjective/objective test*). - **Clinton \[2012\]:** - **Court:** Court of Appeal - **Facts:** The defendant killed his wife after she taunted him about her infidelity and mocked his suicide attempt. Sexual infidelity was not the sole trigger for the loss of control but was part of a broader context of humiliation and provocation. - **Issue:** Whether sexual infidelity could be considered under the loss of control defence. - **Judgment:** The Court of Appeal held that while sexual infidelity alone is excluded, it can be considered when part of a larger context contributing to the loss of control. - **Citation:** *R v Clinton \[2012\] EWCA Crim 2*. - **Dawes \[2013\]:** - **Court:** Court of Appeal - **Facts:** The defendant claimed that he acted in self-defence and lost control after finding his wife with another man. Evidence suggested that the defendant might have consciously provoked a confrontation. - **Issue:** Whether loss of control could be claimed when the defendant initiated the circumstances. - **Judgment:** The Court of Appeal clarified that loss of control cannot be claimed if the defendant deliberately sought to provoke violence to excuse their actions. - **Citation:** *R v Dawes \[2013\] EWCA Crim 322*. 4. **Reasonable Person Standard (s54(1)(c))** - **Asmelash \[2013\]:** - **Facts:** D killed V during a drunken argument. - **Judgment:** Intoxication is excluded from the \"reasonable person\" test. - **Rejmanski \[2017\]:** - **Facts:** D killed V during a PTSD-triggered dispute. - **Judgment:** PTSD can be considered in understanding D's circumstances but not in assessing normal tolerance/self-restraint. **Diminished Responsibility (DR):** **Statutory Basis:** Homicide Act 1957, s2, as amended by Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s52. **Key Elements:** 1. **Abnormality of mental functioning** (s2(1)). - Defined in **Byrne \[1960\]:** A state so different that a reasonable person would find it abnormal. - **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeal - **Facts:** The defendant was a sexual psychopath who strangled and mutilated a woman. His condition was uncontrollable and affected his mental functioning. - **Issue:** Whether diminished responsibility could be applied. - **Judgment:** The court held that an \"abnormality of mind\" must be such that a reasonable person would regard it as substantially impairing the defendant's mental responsibility. - **Citation:** *R v Byrne \[1960\] 2 QB 396 (CCA)*. 2. **Recognised medical condition** (s2(1)(a)). - Must meet criteria from DSM-5 or ICD-11 (e.g., depression, PTSD). 3. **Substantial impairment** of: - Understanding conduct (s2(1A)(a)); - Forming rational judgment (s2(1A)(b)); - Exercising self-control (s2(1A)(c)). 4. Abnormality must provide a **causal explanation** for the killing (s2(1)(c)). **Key Principles and Cases:** 1. **Substantial Impairment** - **Golds \[2016\]:** - **Court:** Supreme Court - **Facts:** The defendant killed his partner and raised diminished responsibility, arguing that his mental impairment was \"substantial.\" - **Issue:** The meaning of \"substantial impairment\" in the context of diminished responsibility. - **Judgment:** The Supreme Court ruled that \"substantial\" means more than trivial and should be assessed as \"weighty\" or \"significant.\" - **Citation:** *R v Golds \[2016\] UKSC 61*. 2. **Effect of Intoxication** - **Dowds \[2012\]:** - **Court:** Court of Appeal - **Facts:** The defendant killed his partner while intoxicated. He argued that acute voluntary intoxication constituted a \"recognised medical condition\" under diminished responsibility. - **Issue:** Whether voluntary intoxication could amount to diminished responsibility. - **Judgment:** The Court of Appeal held that voluntary intoxication alone is insufficient for a diminished responsibility defence. - **Citation:** *R v Dowds \[2012\] EWCA Crim 281*. - **Dietschmann \[2003\]:** - **Court:** House of Lords - **Facts:** The defendant, who was intoxicated, killed a man after believing the victim disrespected his late aunt. - **Issue:** Whether diminished responsibility could apply when intoxication coexists with a recognised medical condition. - **Judgment:** The court held that diminis

Criminal Law Notes PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue