Criminal Law - Fundamentals Flashcards
Everyone involved in criminal proceedings must prepare and conduct cases in accordance with the overriding objective of the Criminal Procedure, which requires that all cases are dealt with justly. This is defined by CrimPR 1.1 as:
(a) Acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty.
(b) Dealing with the prosecution and defence fairly.
(c) Recognising the rights of a defendant, particularly Art. 6 of the ECHR.
(d) Respecting the interests of witnesses, jurors and victims and keeping them informed of the progress of the case.
(e) Dealing with cases efficiently and expeditiously.
(f) Ensuring appropriate information is available to the court when bail and sentence is considered.
(g) Dealing with the case in a way that takes into account:
- Gravity of offence
- Complexity of what is in issue.
- Severity of the consequences to the defendant and others involved.
- The needs of other cases.
-
To adhere to the overriding objective, courts must engage in active case management by…
(8 bullet points)
(a) Early identification of real issues
(b) Early identification of witnesses’ needs.
(c) Effective timetabling
(d) Monitoring progress and compliance with directions.
(e) Ensuring evidence is presented in shortest, clearest way.
(f) Discouraging delay and unnecessary hearings.
(g) Encouraging cooperation in the progress of the case
(h) Making use of technology.
Explain the difference between the Legal Burden and Evidential Burden
The evidential burden = The defence’s burden of proving that a defence should be put in issue. They merely need to adduce sufficient evidence that the defence is arguable.
The legal burden = The prosecution’s burden of proving all the elements of an offence, beyond reasonable doubt. Exceptionally, this can be the defendant’s burden (“reversed legal burden”) - see next flashcard.
Generally, the legal burden rests on the prosecution, but which defences trigger the reversed legal burden?
What, therefore, is the defendant required to prove?
- Diminished Responsibility: A partial defence (i.e. it reduces the charge from murder to manslaughter) based upon abnormality of mental functioning.
- Insanity
- Some statutory defences.
The defendant must (a) adduce enough evidence to put the defence in issue. AND (b) prove the existence of the defence, on the balance of probabilities (NOT beyond reasonable doubt).
The actus reus of an offence falls under one of three categories:
- Conduct - a voluntary act or omission.
- Consequences - E.g. murder requires death to result from defendant’s act.
- Circumstances - E.g. possession.
What are the two requirements for criminal liability to attach to omissions?
- The crime was caused by the omission.
- There was a duty to act.
Apart from statutory omission, there is also liability under common law. Please list the categories.
(a) Contractual duty. E.g. terms of employment to act a certain way.
(b) Public Office duty. E.g. A police officer failing to intervene when he sees a man being attacked.
(c) Voluntary assumption of responsibility.
- Case: The defendant took responsibility to care for her elderly aunt. The defendant neglected to feed the aunt and was convicted of manslaughter.
(d) Creation of a dangerous situation.
(e) Special relationship duty. E.g Parent and child. It may extend to spouses, but only if one is dependent on the other.
Where the actus reus of an offence requires a certain consequence, it is necessary to show causation. What are the two necessary components of causation in criminal law?
Factual Causation and Legal Causation. Both are for the jury to decide.
- Factual Causation.
- Legal Causation.
What is the test for factual causation and provide the relevant case.
“But for” the defendant’s action, would the consequence have occurred?
Case: White poisoned his mum, but she actually died from a different cause. “But for” White’s actions, she would have died anyway. He was acquitted of murder.
What is the test for legal causation?
Was the defendant’s conduct a substantial and operating cause of the consequence?
- Need not be the sole cause.
If an unusually weak victim dies from the defendant’s act, can the defendant argue that they did not legally cause their death?
No. The “Thin Skull” rule states that the defendant must take the victim as they find them.
Case: Blaue stabbed his victim. The victim was taken to hospital, but refused a life-saving blood transfusion, as she was a Jehovah’s Witness. Held: Thin Skull rule applied and defendant was convicted.
What is the doctrine of “Novus Actus Interveniens” and what are the three types?
The chain of causation is broken in such a way that the defendant’s act is no longer the cause. The three types are:
(1) Force majeure (AKA. an “Act of God”). E.g. Natural disaster.
(2) Third Party Acts
(3) Acts/Omissions of the Victim.
Acts of third parties may only break the chain of causation if…
The third party’s actions are free, deliberate and informed.
Also, the defendant can still be criminally liable under the legal causation test, if their act substantially contributed to the result.
Acts of the victim may only break the chain of causation if… Conversely, if those actions are…
Those actions are “so daft” as to be unforeseeable. Conversely, if those actions are a natural consequence of the defendant’s actions, the chain will not be broken.
Case: A woman was touched by a taximan, and jumped out of a moving car, causing injuries. Held: chain wasn’t broken by her actions. Taximan liable.
The victim was given treatment after gunshot wounds from the defendant. Two months later, he died due to complications arising from medical negligence. Will the defendant be convicted or acquitted?
The chain of causation is not broken even if negligent medical treatment is the immediate cause unless it is so independent of the defendant’s actions and so potent that it makes the contribution by the defendant insignificant.
What are the most common forms of mens rea?
- Intention.
- Recklessness
- Knowledge
- Negligence
Define “Intention”. What are the two types?
A mens rea component for serious offences such as murder and GBH with intent.
The two types of intention are:
(1) Direct Intention - Was it D’s aim or purpose to bring about the result?
(2) Oblique Intention - While it wasn’t D’s aim or purpose to bring about the result, did he foresee that result as a virtually certain consequence of his actions?
- Intention is interpreted subjectively, i.e. looking into the defendant’s actual state of mind at the time.
- Intention is unrelated to motive/desire, as we do not need to consider the reasons behind the actions.
Oblique intention is rarely used. The majority of cases are in determining whether a homicide is murder (requiring intent) or manslaughter (requiring only recklessness). What test is used to establish oblique intention?
The test applied is the Woolin Test which states:
“The jury is only entitled to find intention where they feel sure that the consequence was a virtual certainty to occur as a result of the defendant’s actions, and the defendant had foreseen that such was the case”.
Is the jury is entitled or obliged to infer intention where the defendant foresees virtual certain death/serious injury?
Intention is a question of fact (not law), so the jury is entitled (not obliged) to infer oblique intention.
Define transferred intent.
D has the mens rea against one person (or property) but, in targeting that victim, accidentally commits the actus reus against another. The doctrine ensures that D is still liable.
The doctrine only occurs where the mens rea and actus reus are for the same offence.
Define recklessness.
Whether D was reckless as to the harm that could be done is a two-part test:
(1) D actually foresaw that the type of harm might be done. (subjective element)
(2) D went on to take that risk unreasonably. (objective element)
When is negligence relevant to criminal law?
- Absence of negligence as an offence to certain statutory offences.
- Gross negligence manslaughter.
What is Strict Liability?
Offences in which mens rea is not required for one or more elements of actus reus, by statute.
Some offences (“absolute liability”) require no mens rea at all and there are no defences available, unless the defendant is under the age of 10 (the age of criminal responsibility)
Mens rea is presumed to be required where the statute is silent.
Where legislation does not expressly include corporate liability, what two ways can a corporation be criminally liable?
- Vicarious Liability - relates to statutory/regulatory offences committed by the employee.
- Non-vicarious liability stemming from the “Identification Principle”
How does vicarious liability operate in relation to mens rea of the employee?
- If it is an “absolute liability” offence, vicarious liability attaches and the employer is liable, because mens rea is irrelevant.
- If the offence requires mens rea, vicarious liability does NOT attach, if it was the employee who allowed the breach to occur, especially if the employer gave instructions against it.
What is the “Identification Principle”?
This is the principle that “the acts and states of mind” of those directing a company will be imputed to the company. This is limited to the Directors and potentially other senior officers.
This can cause either individual or corporate liability.
Phil accidentally reverses his car onto a police officer’s foot. When he realised this, he refused to move the car. Is he guilty of asssault? Why/why not?
Guilty of assault. Although the actus reus and mens rea did not coincide, they are treated as a “continuing act”.
D hits the victim, intending to kill her. Having believed she was dead, he rolled her off the cliff, which was the actual cause of death. Can D claim he did not have the mens rea at the time of death?
No. Although actus reus must coincide with mens rea, the two acts constituted a series of acts to predetermine the result, therefore the mens rea coincided with the actus reus.
What is the difference between specific intent and basic intent?
Basic intent offences can be committed recklessly, whereas specific intent can only be committed with intent.
List six specific intent offences.
- Murder
- GBH with intent.
- Theft.
- Robbery.
- Burglary.
- Handling stolen goods.
Name six basic intent offences.
- Manslaughter
- Rape
- GBH
- ABH.
- Common Assault.
- Criminal Damage.
Can voluntary intoxication be a defence against basic intent or specific intent offences?
Involuntary intoxication, of course, can be a defence to either.
- Voluntary intoxication cannot be a defence for basic intent offences, because the intoxication itself was reckless.
- It can be a defence against specific intent offences, if the intoxication prevented the formation of the necessary intention.
For the CPS to charge a person, what two tests need to be satisfied?
- Is there sufficient evidence for there to be a realistic chance of conviction?
- If so, is it in the public interest for the person to be charged?
What jurisdiction does the Magistrates’ Court have?
(5 bullet points)
All offences begin their life in the Magistrates’ Court. Inter alia, it has the following jurisdiction:
(1) Dealing with preliminary matters in the early stages of all cases, including bail applications.
(2) Hearing summary offences, including either-way offences and sentencing for these offences.
(3) Committing either-way offences to the Crown Court for sentencing, where their sentencing powers are insufficient.
(4) Sending either-way offences to the Crown Court for trial, by their own decision or by defendant’s election.
(5) Sending indictable-only offences immediately to the Crown Court for trial.
In the Magistrates’ Court, trials tend to be heard by a bench of ____ lay magistrates or a ___ .
Their sentencing power is limited to a maximum of ____ months’ imprisonment, or a total of ________________.
In the Magistrates’ Court, trials tend to be heard by a bench of 3 lay magistrates or a District Judge .
Their sentencing power is limited to a maximum of six months’ imprisonment, or a total of twelve months for two or more offences.
The most serious offences are dealt with in the Crown Court. The trial is presided over by….
A judge and a jury.
- The judge is the trier of law. He decides legal issues and directs the jury on the law.
- The jury is the trier of fact. They decide on factual issues, i.e. whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
In the Crown Court, what is the trial judge’s sentencing power?
Secondly, who are the Crown Court judges?
The trial judge is responsible for passing a sentence once the jury has decided on a guilty verdict.
He has the authority to pass sentences up to and including life imprisonment, although some offences are limited by statute.
There are three types of judges who preside over the Crown Court: Hight Court judges, Circuit Judges and Recorders (part-time judicial officers).
The Crown Court exercises the following jurisdiction:
4 bullet points
(1) Tries either-way offences sent by the Magistrates’ Court.
(2) Tries indictable-only and related offences.
(3) Sentences offenders.
(4) Hears appeals (against conviction or sentence) from Magistrates’ Court decisions.
When is it appropriate for a party to appeal to the Divisional Court?
Either the prosecution or defence can appeal to the Divisional Court, by way of “case stated” against decisions from the Magistrates’ Court.
It is appropriate where the Magistrates’ Court misinterpreted a point of law or evidence. It deals with questions of law, not fact (c.f. appeals to the Crown Court).
The Divisional Court is presided over by a Lord Justice and a Justice.
