Law 3007 Criminal Law Notes (lecture slides)

Woodmingtom v DPP [1935] AC 462 golden thread....it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoners guilt.. Wilson Criminal Law 2011 to establish fault...the prosecution bears the burden of proving...mens rea, if any for the crime in question...disapproving any defence in support of which evidence is adduced
Requirements for Criminal Law 1. Actus reus 2. Mens rea 3. No defence Examples Theft Act 1968 s1(1) a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving another of it Sexual Offence Act 2003 s1 reference to rape 1) A person (A) commits an offence if a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis b) B does not consent to the penetration c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents Strict Liability It makes a person legally responsible for the damages & loss caused by his/her acts & omissions regardless of culpability Often applies in vehicular traffic offenses o In a speeding case whether the defendant knew that the posted speed limit was being exceeded is irrelevant. The prosecutor would need to prove only that the defendant was operating the vehicle in excess of the speed limit It prevents defendants from raising diminished mental capacity defences since the intent does not need to be proven Whitehouse v Lemon The appellants were convicted for blasphemy as they published a poem which involved detailed acts of sodomy & fellatio upon the body of Christ CA dismissed the case as they jury did not find it blasphemous & the appellants did not intentionally publish it Prince (1875) Kidnapping children, involve d mens rea & it was seen as omission/ mistake Sweet v Parsley (1970) Smoking cannabis whihc contrasted against the Drugs Act 1965 s5(b) Lords squashed her conviction o wherever an action is silent as to mens rea there is a presumption that, in order to give effect to the will of Parliament we must read in words appropriate to require mens rea Defendants appeal was allowed as they had no means of mens rea (+the offence was not absolute) R v Zahid (2010)

Appeal was dismissed as o No discernable reason whether he did no know what was in the bag/ or that he thought what was in the bag was an innocent object

Actus Reus (doing word criminal/guilty act = handling/stabbing someone to death) The physical action makes a person liable for a crime therefore, a person cannot be found guilty of thinking criminal thoughts/wishing a crime would take place It is the conduct of the accused & it could be a commission/omission & it must be a voluntary act that causes the damage/harm Deller (1952) Deller was charged with falsely pretending that he was the owner of a motorcar which he had exchanged for another one Court could not go behind the form & look at the reality of the transaction which was in reality; the transaction was a loan, the documents to affect the change would be void as it was not registered under the Sale Act 1878 With indictment, the conviction was squashed Chapman (1988) Trail judge should deal with the standard of burden of proof when summing up Case was dismissed likewise with Edwards v DPP (1993) Haughton v Smith The assumption that a person can only be convicted of attempting to commit an offence if the steps taken by him was successful as a result of that act S was charged only with attempting to handle stolen goods but the police had recovered thereby, they were no longer stolen goods Court dismissed case Automatism excuses responsibility on the defence of mental disorder/rarely used for defence Crime committed by an involuntary act caused by an external factor It means the defendant was not aware of his actions when making particular movements that constituted the illegal act Esther Griggs case o She threw her child out the window as she thought the house was in fire Quick (1973) o whether duty of judge to leave defence to jury o Q claimed that being diabetic & medical evidence that his actions were consistent with a hypoglycaemic state o Q wanted to plead guilty for insanity o Court held that his defence for automatism should have been left to the jury, his evidence was not evidence of insanity o If left to the jury, Q would be found guilty as he had eaten insufficiently etc but it was not certain thereby, the case was squashed Draft Criminal Code Clause 33 (1) o A person is not guilty if a) He acts in a state of automatism i) Is a reflex, spasm or convulsion ii) occurs while he is in a condition (whether of sleep, unconsciousness, impaired consciousness..depriving him of effective control of his act b) The act/condition is the result neither of anything done ore omitted with the fault required for the offence nor voluntary intoxication If drunk refer to s12 of the Liscensing Act 1872 being found drunk on a highway o A person is in a public place

o o

He is drunk He is perceived to be there and to be drunk

Causation link between conduct & result It provides means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect/injury = actus reus from which the specific injury arose & is combined with mens rea, compromising elements of guilt When referring to causation 2 areas must be considered o Factual causation Did the defendant act in the plaintiffs loss But-for-test method = test for necessity Was it necessary for the defendants act to have occurred for the harm to have occurred - This inquires that but for the defendants act would the harm have occurred? o A shots & wounds B. We as But for As act, would B have been wounded? o Legal causation Questions public policy impose or release defendant from liability? But-for test causes 2 main difficulties in legal causation Almost anything is a cause o But for a tortfeasirs grandmothers birth, the relevant tortuous conduct would not have occurred o But for the victim of crime missing the bus, he/she would not have been at the site of the crime then crime would not have occurred to him/her The legally liable is the once closest to/most proximate to the injury = Proximate Cause rule If the new event, whether via human agency/natural causes, does not break the chain, the original actor is liable for all the consequences flowing naturally from the initial circumstances. But if the new act breaks the chain, the liability of the initial actor stops at that point, & the new actor, if human will be liable for all that flows from his/her contribution