Silence During This Lecture Turn off Your Mobile Take Notes If You Wish to Ask a Question Please Raise Your Hand PRECIS NOTES WILL BE CHECKED At the start of the Lecture 1

Criminal Law elements … Preparing for Law A2 by Dr Peter Jepson See Chapters 1 to 3 of ‘Criminal Law for A2’ by Jacqueline Martin (2006) You should read and précis the textbook prior to this presentation … 2

If I crash my Smart Car, while in a rage, I could face two consequences … I could face a civil claim – in Tort – from any person whom I injure as a result of a negligent act or omission And, I could face criminal charges - instigated by the Police and brought by the CPS - for dangerous driving or some other motoring offence. 3

Criminal Law Is Concerned With Offences Against the STATE … In a criminal case the prosecution must prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT [Woolmington v DPP [1935]] that D is responsible for the criminal action …Woolmington v DPP [1935]] 4

Who decides guilt if the case is determined in a Magistrates Court? Who decides guilt if the case is determined in the Crown Court? Who passes sentence? This could result in a Magistrate or Jury mode of Trial… 5

Majority of Crimes Consist of Two Elements … The Actus Reus – or guilty act The Mens Rea - or guilty mind 6

The Actus Reus The physical element of a crime A wrongful or prohibited action or failure to act (omission). Common Law and ??????? Law crimes). In both cases the definitions will include a specific reference to the actus reus required for the offence … 7

The Actus Reus This may also refer to the act and the consequences … e.g. an assault or battery resulting in actual bodily harm (abh) In this example, the result should be considered as well as the act Also, the act MUST cause the result. 8

The Actus Reus To summarise some key principles – In determining the actus reus you need to consider … –The voluntary act or omission –Which causes –The result and, –(in some cases) the circumstances surrounding the event. 9

Conduct - Act or Omission Either a positive act or an omission could amount to the actus reus Thus, for the actus reus to be fulfilled … 10

Conduct - Act or Omission 1.D needs to voluntarily commit a positive action which results in the prohibited consequences; or 2.D fails to carry out an action which they are obliged to do resulting in the prohibited consequences. 11

A Failure to Act … R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) – starving a child to death.R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) R v Pittwood (1902) contractual duty and omission to act.R v Pittwood (1902) R v Miller (1983) – D created a danger and then failed to remove the harm.R v Miller (1983) R v Naughton (2001) – a duty to act and a failure to do so.R v Naughton (2001) 12 Students to explain each of the above cases

Voluntary Act It is said that an act must be voluntary When it is an act or omission, D’s behaviour must be as a result of an action over which D has some control - as opposed to a reflex action with no control (e.g. stung by bees – or sleepwalking). Defence of automatism cover this (done later in A2 proper). 13

Causation In simple terms this can be illustrated by D stabbing V who is placed on a life support machine. If Doctors conclude they might as well turn of the machine it is clear that D caused the death. However, if the cleaner accidentally unplugs the life support machine then the cleaner (and not D) could be liable. 14

When considering the issue of causation the courts look for … Causation in fact: and Causation in law. 15

Causation in fact – applying the ‘but for’ test … R v Pagett (1993) R v White (1910) What – if anything – is a common theme in these two cases? Not governed by statute law – common law only. 16

Causation in Law – Common law only Relates to whether or not the consequence was caused by the accused – or, Whether the accused made a significant contribution to it. 17

Causation in Law Example: If D hits V on the head and fractures her skull – and she dies. D has caused V’s death. If, on the other hand V had recovered – leaves hospital and walks straight under a bus and dies – D cannot be said to have killed V. 18

Causation in Law – the chain of causation See facts of R v Smith (1959)R v Smith (1959) Compare them to … R v Blaue (1975) and R v Cheshire (1991) - did the intervening events break the chain of causation?R v Blaue (1975)R v Cheshire (1991) Switching off a life support machine – R v Malcharek (1981)R v Malcharek (1981) 19

Mens rea – guilty mind Two basic categories … (1) intention. (2) recklessness. 20

Mens rea – guilty mind Each particular offence has its own actus reus and mens rea – in other words they vary from offence to offence. In statutory offences the mens rea is defined by terms such as knowingly, maliciously, intentionally, wilfully, recklessly etc. 21

Specific Intention For some offences it is necessary to have a specific intent … Examples of Murder or causing GBH … 22

Specific Intention In R v Mohan (1976) it was said that Specific Intention is ‘a decision to bring about, as far as it lies within D’s power, no matter whether the accused desired the consequence of his act or not.’ This can probably best be illustrated by the case of R v Moloney [1985] intent to commit GBH or murderR v Moloney [1985] 23

Practical Task In class, turn to page 218 of ‘AS Law’ (Charman, Vanstone and Sherratt) read sections 18 and 20 of Offences Against the Person Act Which parts are the Actus Reus and which are Mens Rea? Students should photocopy page 218 before the Lecture. 24

Oblique Intent When a person desired the result of their actions they are said to have direct intent. Where a person does not intend the consequences of death – but they happen – can they be liable? Suppose the odds of death are remote – see R v Hancock and Shankland [1986]R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] 25

Oblique Intent A recent House of Lords case has laid down guidelines in relation to oblique intent. See the case of R v Woollin [1998]R v Woollin [1998] Break into Law Firms and discuss – What does Diana Roe mean (at page 27) when she says that Woollin has made the law more certain in some ways - while it leaves issues unresolved? Also, do the activity on page 27 of J Martin! 26

Recklessness Historically there have been two types of recklessness – Caldwell (often termed objective) and Cunningham (often termed subjective). 27

Objective Recklessness Based on the case of MPC v Caldwell [1982].MPC v Caldwell [1982] … the risk is so obvious that any reasonable person would have seen it. The case of Elliott v C (a minor) 1983 highlights a basic problem with this approach. What if D is unable to see the risk due to special characteristics?Elliott v C (a minor)

What is the current law? What is the current law on recklessness? - research and then present to the entire class the case(s) which explain the current law on recklessness. 29

Restrictive use of Objective recklessness In 2003 the House of Lords (R v G and another) decided that only ‘Cunningham Recklessness’ now applies. 30 Note: The Law may now be clarified. However, for examination purposes it is still likely to be an issue for debate/exams

Transferred Malice Suppose I purposely throw this duster at X, and I miss him because he ducks (so he does not get hit), hitting Y instead. What offences – if any – have been committed? 31

Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea Unless it is a strict liability offence the actus reus and mens rea are both needed. But need they exist at the same time? Consider the case of Fagan v MPC (1969)Fagan v MPC (1969) 32