Criminal terminology

Question 1

mala in se

Answer 1

• crimes which are wrong within itself . it doesn’t need law to prohibit them
• sometimes referred to as true crime/ crimes of trespass
• crimes that affect important human/social interests
• obviously wrong

Question 2

mala prohibita

Answer 2

• crimes that are made wrong by the law
• rationale behind them is that : a) if everyone was allowed to do it - it would cause harm
• b) to further a harm prevention goal

Question 3

principle of reasonable certainty

Answer 3

so the laws need to be sufficiently clear so people know what they’re liable for before they commit the act

Question 4

principle of non retroactivity

Answer 4

we can’t convict people of committing criminal offences if what they did is done before it was made a criminal offence

Question 5

proportionality principle

Answer 5

the more serious the crime the more serious the time essentially

• the severity of the penalty must not be disproportionate to the criminal offence
• subject to red lines that cannot be crossed e.g you cannot put d through a penal procedure without legal representation

Question 6

authoritarian principle vs restraint principel

Answer 6

their view - a wide reaching and flexible criminal law is justified. (bad man ‘ theory of law)

• thin ice principle comes from authoritarian principle - (counters maximum certainty )
• thin ice principle - people who know their conduct is borderline but do it anyway take a risk that their behaviour will be criminal
• restraint principle - can include things like principle of certainty and non retroactivity - b

Question 7

moral autonomy

Answer 7

in order to meaningfully exercise lifestyle autonomy - one must have moral autonomy - - i.e develop mental maturity fully to understand and distinguish between choices.

Question 8

maximum certainty

Answer 8

fair warning
no vagueness
an offence must be clearly defined inm law (art 7 of convention)

Question 9

rule of law principle - the principle of strict construction

Answer 9

any doubt in meaning of statutory provision should be resolved in favour of defendant
rationale - fair warning - if a person acts in favour of statute but court widens its meaning its unfair

Question 10

ar - causation - 2

Answer 10

1) factual causation - but for - if it was not for them the event or result would not have happened

2) legal causation -
also must be more than minimal cause of death (R V HUGHES) and do more than set the scene
breaking chain of causation

Question 11

legal causation - novus actus intervenus - a new act that intevenes

Answer 11

breaking the chain of causation in 4 occasions:

1) abnormal natural events
2) third party interventions (free deliberate and informed - kennedy)
3) medical treatment - The negligence had to be so independent of ds act that it was in itself potent and causing death
4) victims reaction to the defendants action - • An intervening action will not break the chain of causation if it was the natural result that a reasonable person could have foreseen

Question 12

voluntariness - Attorney General’s reference per Lord Taylor

Answer 12

If you’re going to successfully claim a defence of autonomism it requires ‘that there was a total control destruction of voluntary control on the defendant’s part. Impaired, reduced or partial control is not enough

Question 13

constructive liability

Answer 13

where you can be liable for an offence because you committ the actus reus but what you intend or be reckless to is something else
e.g ‘constructive’ manslaughter AR = causing death MR = can include recklessness as to minor injury e,g just wanted to punch someone but ended up killing them

Question 14

strict liability

Answer 14

Strict liability crimes are crimes which require no proof of mens rea in relation to one or more aspects of the actus reus
eg. speeding, driving without insurance.
so essentially not needing to prove they had intention or recklessness

Question 15

vicarious liability

Answer 15

automatically liable

Question 16

identification doctrine

Answer 16

a person who was the directing ‘mind and will of the company’ carried out the acts and had the necessary mental state- (so no vicarious liability - director has to be guilty for company to be guilty)