Criminal Law Revision Summary
General Principles of Criminal Law 2
Loss of Control (Provocation) 17
Gross Negligence Manslaughter 26
Offences Against the Person 29
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm 31
Unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm 31
Wounding with Intend to do GBH 32
Accomplice Liability (aid, abet, counsel or procure) 33
Sexual Offences (In Summary) 55
Property Crimes (In Summary) 56
Mens Rea – guilty mind (MR)
Actus Rea – guilty act (AR)
Burden of Proof: Woolmington v DPP (1935)
Set out the golden thread of the burden of proof is always on the prosecution.
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that defendant committed the actus reus and mens rea.
Conduct and Fault must come together: R v Deller (1952)
Cannot be prosecuted own a guilty mind alone if there is no actus rea.
Unknown justification: R v Dadson (1850)
Police officer fired a shot at a trespasser, was charged with GBH. But Larceny Act (1827) stated it was justifiable to fire on an escaping felon. PO did not know that victim was a felon. Police officer was convicted.
G Williams argues that this was decided wrongly, as the was lawful justification even if the police officer did not know of it.
Smith and Hogan disagree arguing that we cannot rely on such an unknown justification – view upheld in the law
Lanham argues we ought to break down crime into three elements: fault, mens rea, and the defence itself.
Comission vs Omission
R v Smith (1826) – Railway watchman took a break during which a man was hit by train. Held: Generally no liability for omission
Williams, G: We punish misfeasance, we don’t punish non-feasance
Ashworth argues that society demands more: in different areas we have and should develop areas of societal responsibility
That reasonable steps should be taken to prevent harm
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]
‘Pulling the plug’ on Hillsborough victim in PVS
Obiter Lord Bland:
if an interloper got into the hospital and pulled out the tubes then that would be murder as an act of commission.
It is different when done by a Dr, as this should be viewed as an omission to continue the treatment.
Distinguishes ending life, and not continuing life.
Six Exceptions including Liability for Commission
1) Statutory Liabilities, e.g. failing to provide a breathalyser.
2) Contractual Liabilities
R v Pittwood (1902) 19 T.L.R. 37
A crossing keeper left the gate open when off for lunch – someone was hit crossing tracks in their cart. Was liable to everyone who used the crossing.
3) Parental and Familial Liabilities
A grey area as to when they begin and end, and how far they extend.
Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
Gibbon’s daughter who was starved to death in the household. Gibbons as father had an obligation to his daughter. Proctor was also liable as she lived under the same roof
But only applies in cases of a special relationship. Not brother and sister.
4) Assumption of a Duty of Care
R v Stone and Dobinson (1997) Q.B. 354
This precedent has not been followed in 43 years.
S and D took in S’s sister and agreed to care for her. She was mentally ill and vulnerable. Found dead in dreadful conditions.
This was a voluntary assumption and a preclusion of others which led to liability for omission.
The high water mark of liability.
R v Ruffell (2003)
Appelant court found one friend liable for gross negligence manslaughter for not looking after friend while high
5) Creation of a Dangerous Situation (supervening fault)
Where you created the harm you have a duty to counteract it to protect life limb or property, hence supervening fault.
Fagan v MPC (1968)
D accidentally drove onto policeman’s foot. Refused to move off. Argued he had no coincidence of actus and mens. As a continuing act held laible.
R v Miller (1983)
Squatter fell asleep with lit cigarette, awoke to see smouldering mattress, got up and went to another room and went back to sleep.
Lord Diplock established principle of supervening fault.
DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2004]
The defendant, Santa-Bermudez, had lied about the presence of sharp objects in his pocket when being searched by a female police constable and the constable was injured.
His failure to warn her of the danger constituted the actus reus of the crime.
R v Evans (2009)
Generally, no murder liability for heroin dealers as break in causation.
Evans accused of supplying a syringe to her half-sister as she came out of rehab. Did not phone for help as they were worried they would get into trouble with the authorities.
6) Public Office
R v Dytham (1979)
The defendant was a police officer. He stood by whilst a bouncer kicked a man to death.
He was charged with the offence of misconduct in a public officer.
The Doctrine of Transferred Malice.
When the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible.
D’s MR against third party is ‘transferred’ to join with the AR committed against third party.
R v Latimer (1886)
A aims belt at B, hits person C. Liability transferred from B to C
R v Pembliton [1874]
The AR and transferred MR must be for the same offence.
A threw stone to harm person B, hit and shattered a window. This was not within the same crime, so the malice could not be transferred from the...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.