Criminal Law
Course Outline
Week
1. Murder”
2. Manslaughter Involuntary
3. Manslaughter – Voluntary
4. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person
5. Theft
6. The Deception Offences
7. Criminal Damage
8. Self Defence
9. Duress of Threats & Circumstances
10. Mistake & Intoxication
11. Secondary Parties
12. Attempted Offences
13. Incitement & Conspiracy
14. Revision
Criminal Law: Introduction
BOOKLIST
Recommended texts: Criminal Law, Smith & Hogan, 1999, Butterwort s. Criminal Law: Cases an Material smith & Hogan, 1999, Butter worth’s.
You are not required to purchase a statute book.
You are additionally expected to read the Criminal Law Review/The Times regularly so as to keep yourself fully up dated on the law in this area.
ASSESSMENT
You will be assessed by way of an essay that will be circulated to you in the next few weeks and an examination at the end of this module, details of which will be included in the introductory lecture. A statute book will not be provided in the examination.
LECTURES AND TUTORIALS
Attendance is required at both. You must not treat the lecture as a definitive account of the law. It is only a starting point. The onus is upon you to compile your own set of notes from ‘ the suggested reading. Key cases have been emboldened though you should aim to read all of the cases that are listed. Lectures will set out the framework for a particular area of criminal law. The emphasis will be upon familiarizing you with key concepts and principles. You are expected to fill in the detail by researching the law.
You must come prepared for tutorials. You will be expected to contribute to discussion. Attendance is compulsory. If you are unable to attend for good reason please inform me in advance in writing, appending any relevant documentation to your letter. Failure to attend for no good reason will be penalized.
THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT (1998)
You should also familiarize yourself with the Human Rights Act (1998). As you will no doubt be aware it incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into English law and takes effect from A October 2000. Its main effect will be procedural though it is likely to have an impact upon interpretation of the substantive criminal law.
Appendix B
MODULE SPECIFICATION
A Key Information (cover sheet)
| Module Code: | |
| Module Title: | Criminal Law |
| Module Level: |
M (U or) Credits: Learning Hours:- – -208Semester/Term Availability (per site):Full-time: Semester One
Part-time: Semesters One & TwoDuration (per site):Full-time: 50
Part-time: 50Named Programme(s)/Pathways indicate Core or OptionCommon Professional Examination):Estimated Total
Student Numbers Module Summary
(maximum 100 worlds):This module will look at substantive criminal offences as module Summary constructed by the legislature and judiciary and consider –:maximum 100 words): how these inter-relate with rules governing criminal defences and capacity. It examines the impact and consistency of legal principle in the legislative and judicial construction and interpretation of criminal law
B Learning Experience :
1 Aims of the Module:
To enable students to understand the main principles of English Law and to apply legal rules to solve legal problems.
2 Learning „outcomes:
(what will students know and be able to do by the end of the module)
Students will be able to:
I . Critically appraise the rules and principles of criminal low.
2. Recognize and evaluate the relevant facts of a criminal low problem.
3. Demonstrate an ability to apply criminal law -7-.z to a criminal law problem.
4. Critically analyze the concepts of blame and harm. 5. Undertake independent legal research. 6. Communicate effectively in writing.
5. Characteristics of Context
6. Responsibility
| Characteristic of Context | * Responsibility | Ethical Understanding | ||||
| LO4 | ||||||
| Knowledge & Understanding | Analysis | Synthesis/ Creativity | Evaluation | |||
| LO1 | ||||||
LO2
LO3
LO4LO1
LO2
LO3
LO4
LO6
LO1
LO2
LO4Psycho-motorSelf Appraisal/ Reflection on PracticePlanning &
ManagementProblem
SolvingCommunication & PresentationInteractive
Group Skills LO2
LO3
LO4
LO5
LO6LO2
LO3
LO6LO2
LO3
LO6
Content:
1. General principles of criminal liability.
2. Fatal and non-fatal offences against the person.
3. Property offences.
4. Inchoate offences and accessorial liability.
5. Excusatory and justificatory defences.
6. Capacity.
Teaching and learning methods:
Indicate the hours per week/term/semester devoted to each activity and whether the teaching and learning methods are negotiable. Specify mode if appropriate.
Lectures – 30 hours
Seminars – 30 hours
Independent study – 145 hours
5. Assessment:
a)
| Type of assessment | Number How many | Length | Timing When? | Weighting | Assessor |
| Coursework | 1 | 2,000 words maximum | November |
(f/t)
February
(p/t)
25%
Tutors and External ExaminersExamination13 hours + 15 mins reading timeJanuary
1(f/t)
June
(p/t)
75%
Tutors and External Examiners
b) Pass requirements: (e.g. `overall pass’ in module or pass in each component)
INTRODUCTION – TECHNIQUE
The criminal law module you will study is a very expansive one, encompassing many offences, defences and ideas. There is therefore little use in setting down the procedure for answering questions – because there isn’t one. Over time. and with experience, you will develop a technique of your own.
There are however general points that I can make at this stage which I hope will assist you in developing an `approach’ to answering questions.
The Exam
• You will be examined by way of a 2 hour paper; there is an additional 15 minutes for reading.
• Candidates are allowed to bring into the examination any clean and unmarked copy of an unannotated published collection of Criminal Law statutes.
• Candidates must answer 3 questions from a choice of 6. All questions carry equal marks. The exam comprises 75 % of your Crime mark.
• The other 25 % is from an assessed essay about which you will he advised soon.
THE SPECIES OF CRIMINAL LAW QUESTION
There are, essentially two types of questions. These are:
• the essay question
and
• the problem question
Sometimes a question will be divided up into two parts (parts (a) and (b)). Part (a) may be an essay question, whilst part (b) is a problem question.
This means that the candidate must strive to develop his/her legal skills to answer both types of questions.
ANSWERING CRII1EINAL LAW QUESTIONS
As indicated above, there is no single “ideal type” technique. However, the following may be useful in developing your own technique.
Essay Questions
The question usually consists of a quote on a particular issue within an area of criminal law, followed by the words.
• “Explain and discuss” or
• “Discuss” or
• “To what extent do you agree?”
For example:
In relation to murder it is easy to state what mens rea must be proved but it is much more difficult to explain to the jury how they should apply that rule to the facts of the given case. explain and discuss.
[996, June CPE Crime Exam, No. 2 (a)]
In this species of question, you are required to engage in an academic discussion cent redound the issue disclosed by the quote. Such questions are simply asking whether you agree the quote; if yes, why? and to what extent. If no, why?
Try to structure your answer so that it includes:
a) An Introduction
Tell the examiner what you believe the question is asking you. You may also wish to mention which issues you will consider in answering the question.
b) A Discussion of Relevant Issues
Consider 5 or 6 issues within the relevant area of law. For example, in the question above (on the mens rea of murder) the essential issues to discuss would be
– the mens rea for murder
– purposive intention
– inferred intention under the case of Nedrick [1986] and Hancock & Shankland (1986)
– the old law on inferred intention under MoIoney [1985] and the difficulties that involved.
A Conclusion
Deal with the set question directly. In other words, answer the question. For example, your conclusion to the question above could be either of the following (depending upon how you have developed your argument):
– “The statement is wholly true given the complexity of the idea of inferred intention. In effect a judge must direct a jury that the defendant intends a result even when he does not intend that result! This is likely to confuse jurors.”
– “The statement is not an accurate reflection of the law on intention, which, since Hedrick, has become clearer. Juries are now given two types of intention, purposive and inferred, and the latter is seldom relied upon. The concept of inferred intention has been made more ‘user friendly’ by the cases of Hedrick and Hancock and Shankland. “
Neither of these conclusions are the correct answer. You may reach a conclusion somewhere between the two above – as long as it is a logical expression of the argument in your essay, your conclusion is also valid.
PROBLEM QUESTIONS
These are quite different from essay questions. Whereas the latter invite academic discussion, problem questions are more practical and involve the candidate in giving legal advice’ in relation to a problem scenario. In effect, the candidate is being asked whether the defendant is guilty (eg. of murder, ABH, GBH etc) and/or whether he may rely on and legal defences (eg – Self Defence, Duress, Provocation etc).
Be cautious!! Try not to give a “yes/no” DEFINITRIVE answer. Lawyers seldom do! Quite often, a Defendant
– may be liable if …..”
or
– “on balance may not be liable if ……. or
– “may have a fair chance of succeeding on the defence of ….. “
The following is a suggested approach to tackling such questions. Again, in time you will develop your own `method’ – the following will help to achieve this.
(a) Identify the legal issues
i.e. – what possible offence(s)
– any possible defence (s)
(b) Consider the law on each issue
– the law may be ambiguous in certain areas. Incorporate this into your answer when you ……
(c) Apply the law
– assess whether the defendant(s) would be liable
i.e. – is the actus reus fulfilled?
– is the mens rea fulfilled?
and, if relevant, consider whether his/her defence would succeed.
MURDER
Actus Reus
White [1910] 2 KB 124
Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273
Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133
Notman [1994] Crim LR 518
Hayward (1908) 21 Cox CC 692
Wall (1802) 28 St Tr 51
Blaue [197511 WLR 1411
Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95
Khan [1998] Crim LR 830
Kennedy [1999] Crim LR 65
Dear [1996) Crim LR 595
Latif [1996] 1 WLR 104
Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
Malcherek [1981] 1 WLR 690
Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152
Smith (195912 QB 35
Cheshire (199111 WLR 844
Mellor (1996) 2 Cr App R 245
Mens Rea
Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55
Mohan [19761 QB 1
Moloney [1985] AC 905
Nedrick 11986] 1 WLR 1025
Hancock & Shankland [1986] AC 455
Woollin 119991 AC 82
Additional ReadinQ
J. C. Smith, A Comment on Moor’s Case, [2000] Crim LR 41
Manslaughter
Invoulntary
Constructive Manslaughter
Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23
Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576
Lowe [1973] QB 702
Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981
Slingsby [1995] Crim LR 570
Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152
Church [196611 QB 59
DPP v Newbury [1977] AC 500
Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150 ,
Watson [198911 WLR 684
Ball [1989] Crim LR 730
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8
Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576
Adomako [199511 AC 171
Litchfield [1998] Crim LR 507
Singh [1999] Crim LR 582
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
Diminished Responsibility
Homicide Act (1957), Section 2
Dunbar (1958] 1 QB 1
Byrne [196012 QB 396
Brown [1993] Crim LR 961
Seers (1984) 79 Cr App R 261
Egan [1992] All ER 470
Lloyd [1967] 1 QB 175
Mitchell [1995] Crim LR 506
Campbell (1986) 84 Cr App R 255
Vinagre (1979) 69 Cr App R 104
Reynolds [1988] Crim LR 679
Ahluwalia [199214 All ER 889
Hobson [ 1998] 1 Cr App R 31
Price (1971) The Times, 22 December 1971, news item
Tandy [198911 WLR 350
Insteal [1992] Crim LR 35
Di Duca (1959) 43 Cr App R 167
O’Connell [1997] Crim LR 683
Gittens 119841 QB 698
Further Reading
• Mackay, R. D. `The Abnormality of Mind Factor in Diminished Responsibility’ [1999] Crim LR 117.
• Smith, J. C. [1984] Crim LR 553-4
Provocation
Duffy [194911 All ER 932
Ibrams (1981) 74 Cr App R 154
Homicide Act (1957), Section 3
Rossiter (1992) 95 Cr App R 326
Cambridge [ 1994] 1 WLR 971
Bullard v The Queen [1957] AC 635
Burgess [1995] Crim LR 425
Dhillon [ 1997] 2 Cr App R 104
Scott [1997] Crim LR 597
Stewart [1995] 4 All ER 999
Acott [ 1996] 4 All ER 443
Acott [199711 WLR 306
DPP v Camplin [1978] AC 705
Doughty (1986) 83 Cr App R 319
Davies [1975] QB 691
Pearson [1992] Crim LR 193
Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889
Humphreys [1995] 4 All ER 1008
Thornton (No 2) 1199611 WLR 1174
DPP v Camplin [1978] AC 705
Bedder v DPP 1195411 WLR 1119
Roberts [1990] Crim LR 122
Newell (1980) 71 Cr App R 331
Morhall [1996] AC 90
Dryden [1995] 4 All ER 987
Luc Thiet Thuan v The Queen [1997] AC 131
Smith [1998] 4 All ER 387
Ali [1989] Crim LR 736
Mancini v DPP [1942] AC 1
NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
Criminal Justice Act (1988). Section 39
Offences Against the Person Act (1861), Sections 47, 20 & 18
Crime & Disorder Act (1998), Section 29
Ireland [1998] AC 147
Constanza [199712 Cr App R 492
Cox [ 1998] Crim LR 810
Smith v Chief Superintendent, Woking Police Station (1983) 76 Cr App R 234 ~ Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod 3
Collins v Wilcox [198413 All ER 374
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [196911 QB 439
Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Wilson [1984] AC 242
Martin (18 81) 8 QBD 54
DPP v K [1990] 1 WLR 1067
Spratt [1990] 1 WLR 1073
Savage [199211 AC 699
Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498
Burrell v Harmer [19671 Crim LR 169
Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23
Richardson [1998) 2 Cr App R 200
Brown [1994] 1 AC 212
Laskey v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 39
A-G Ref (No 6 Of 1980) [198 1 ] QB 715
Wilson [1996] 2 Cr App R 241
Emmet (1999) The Times, 15 October 1999
Education Act 1996, Sections 548 & SSOA, 548(5)
Miller [1954] 2 QB 282
Chan-Fook 1199411 WLR 689
Morris [1998] 1 Cr App R 386
Smith (1837) 8 C & P 173
J. J. C. (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1983] 3 All ER 230
DPP v Smith [19611 AC 290
Saunders [1985] Crim LR 230
Mowatt 1196811 QB 421
Slimmings [1999] Crim LR 69
Mandair [1995] 1 AC 208
Marjoram [2000] Crim LR 372
Further Reading
Hirst, Assault, Battery and Indirect Violence’ [1999] Crim LR 557
THE LAW RELATING TO THEFT
Theft Act (1968), Sections 1- 6
Davis (1988) 88 Cr App R 347
Marshall [1998] 2 Cr App R 282
Oxford v Moss (1978) 68 Cr App R 183
Horsmann [1998] QB 531
Preddy 119961 AC 815
Welsh [1974] RTR 478
Woodman [1974] QB 754
Turner (No 2) 1197111 WLR 901
Bonner [1970] 1 WLR 838
Goodwin [ 1996] Crim LR 262
Gilks [1972] 1 WLR 1341
Marshall [1998] 2 Cr App R 282
Clowes (No 2) [1994] 2 All ER 316
Wain [199512 Cr App R 660
Kohn (1979) 69 Cr App R 395
Shadrokh-Cigari [1988] Crim LR 465
Powell v MacRae [1977] Crim LR 571
Hallam [1995] Crim LR 323
Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Levin [ 1997] AC 741
Klineberg [ 1999] 1 Cr App R 427
Floyd v DPP [1999] All ER (D) 1190, unreported in printed form
Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd [1981] Ch 105 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] AC 669
Corcoran v Whent [ 1977] Crim LR 52
Nathan [1997] Crim LR 835
Dobson v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation plc 1199011 QB 274 Walker [1984] Crim LR 112
Edwards v Ddin [ 1976] 1 WLR 942
Wheeler (1991) 92 Cr App R 279
Small (1988) 86 Cr App R 170
Hall [1973] QB 126
Arnold [1997] 4 All ER 1
Lewis v Lethbridge [19871 Crim LR 59
Williams [1995] Crim LR 77
Wain
Meech [ 1974] QB 549 Breaks [1998] Crim LR 349
Moynes v Cooper [195611 QB 439
A-G’s Ref (No 1 of 1983) [1985) QB 182
Gilks
Lawrence 119721 AC 626
Morris [19841 AC 320 Gomez 119931 AC 442
Hallam
Preddy
Forsyth [1997] 2 Cr App R 299
Naviede [1997] Crim LR 662
Ngan [1998] 1 Cr App R 331
Mazo [1997] 2 Cr App R 518
Kendrick [1997] 2 Cr App R 524
Broom v Crowther (1984) 148 JP 592
Ghosh [19821 QB 1053
Roberts (1985) 84 Cr App R 117
Holden [ 1991 ] Crim LR 478
Boggeln v Williams [1978] 1 WLR 873
McHugh (1993) 97 Cr App R 335 Lloyd [19851 QB 829
Duru [1974] 1 WLR 2
Fernandes [1996] 1 Cr App R 175
MarsAhall
Cahill [1993] Crim LR 141
Lavender [ 1994] Crim LR 297
Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299
THE DECEPTION OFFENCES
Theft Act (1968), Sections 15 & 16
Theft Act (1978), Sections 1 & 3
We will consider the following offences:
Obtaining property by deception
Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception
Obtaining services by deception
Making off without payment
The last of these is not, of course, a deception offence but is included here because of its similarity to both theft and the deception offences.
Re London and Globe Finance Corporation Ltd [1903] 1 Ch 728
Goldman [ 1997] Crim LR 894
Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Charles [1977] AC 177
Rozeik [1996] 1 WLR 159
Gee [1999] Crim LR 397
DPP v Stonehouse [1978] AC 55
Williams [1980] Crim LR 589
Silverman (1988) 86 Cr App R 214
Firth (1989) 91 Cr App R 217
Rai (1999) The Times, 10 November 1999
MPC v Charles
Lambie [19821 AC 449
Nabina [ 1999] All ER (D) 733, unreported in printed form; [ 1999] 7 Arch News 2
Collis-Smith [ 1971 ] Crim LR 716
Coady [1996] Crim LR 518
Clucas [1949] 2 KB 226
Miller (1992) 95 Cr App R 421
Doukas 1197811 WLR 372
Gilmartin 119831953
Greenstein [197511 WLR 1353
Ghosh 119821 QB 1053
Clarke [ 1996] Crim LR 824
Gomez [1993] AC 442
Preddy [1996] AC 815
DPP v Turner [1974] AC 537
Waites [1982] Crim LR 369
McNiff [1986] Crim LR 57
Callender [1993] QB 303
Naviede [1997) Crim LR 662
Halai [1983] Crim LR 624
Shortland [1995] Crim LR 893
CRIMINAL DAMAGE
Criminal Damage Act (1971), Section 1
Roe v Kingerlee [1986] Crim LR 735
Roper v Knott [1898] 1 QB 868
Hardman v Chief Constable of [1986] Crim LR 330
Cox v Riley (1986) 83 Cr App R 54
Whiteley (1991) 93 Cr App R 25
Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell [1982) AC 341
Lawrence 119821 AC 510
Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset v Shimmen (1986) 84 Cr App R 7
Elliot v C [198311 WLR 939
R (Stephen Malcolm) (1984) 79 Cr App R 334
Coles [199511 Cr App R 157
Reid [ 1992] 1 WLR 1118
Merrick [1996] 1 Cr App R 130
Paine [1998] 1 Cr App R 36
SELF DEFENCE
DPP (Jamaica) v Bailey [1995] 1 Cr App R 257
Symonds [1998] Crim LR 280
Beckford v The Queen (1988] AC 130
Devlin v Armstrong [ 19711 NI 13 Duffy [1967] 1 QB 63
Julien [1969] 1 WLR 839
Bird [198511 WLR 816
Balogun [1999] All ER (D) 916, unreported in printed form
Palmer v The Queen [1971] AC 814
Shannon (1980) 71 Cr App R 192
Whyte 1198713 All ER 416
Scarlett [199314 All ER 629
Owino [1996] 2 Cr App R 128
DPP v Armstrong-Braun [1999] Crim LR 417
Andronicou v Cyprus (1998) 25 EHRR 491
Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482
Williams 1198713 All ER 411
Beckford
O’Grady 119871 QB 995
O’ Connor [ 1991 ] Crim LR 135
Dadson (1850) 2 Den CC 35
DURESS OF THREATS & CIRCUMSTANCES
Duress of Threats
DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] AC 653
Graham 11982] 1 WLR 294
Baker [ 1997] Crim LR 497
Steane [1947] KB 997
Ortiz (1986) 83 Cr App R 173
Howe [19871 AC 417
DPP v Rogers [ 1998] Crim LR 202
Bowen [1997] 1 WLR 372
Home [1994] Crim LR 584
Hegarty [1994] Crim LR 353
Flatt [1996] Crim LR 576
Hurst [1995] 1 Cr App R 82
Hudson [197112 QB 202
Abdul-Hussain [1999] Crim LR 570
Gotts [199212 AC 412
Sharp [19871 QB 853
Shepherd (1987) 86 Cr App R 47
Ali [1995] Crim LR 303
Baker [1999] 2 Cr App R 335
Heath (1999) The Times, 15 October 1999
Necessity
Dudley (1884) 14 QBD 273
Buckoke v Greater London Council [ 1971 ] Ch 655
F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1990] 2 AC 1
Bourne [1939] 1 KB 687
Perka (1984) 13 DLR r
Dburess of Circumstances
Pommell 1199512 Cr App R 607
Willer (1986) 83 Cr App R 607
Cole [1994] Crim LR 582
Conway [19891 QB 290
DPP v Harris [1995] 1 Cr App R 170
Backshall [199811 WLR 1506
Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652
Rodger [1998] 1 Cr App R 143
DPP v Bell [1992] RTR 335
DPP v Jones [1990] RTR 33
DPP v Davis [1994] Crim LR 600
Pommell
Abdul-Hussain
DPP v Rogers [1998] Crim LR 202
Cairns [199912 Cr App R 137
Adams [1993] crim LR 525
Brooks (1982) 86 Cr Apr R 66
McDavitt [1981] Crim LR 843
Allen [1985] AC 1029
MISTAKE
DPP v Morgan (1976] AC 182
S (Satnam) (1983) 78 Cr App R 149
Reid
Merrick
Tolsora (1889) 23 QBD 168
B (A Minor) [1999] 3 WLR 116
Lamb
Smith [1974] QB 354
A-G’s Ref (No 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91
Hill v Baxter [195811 QB 277
Bailey [198311 WLR 760
Kingston (199512 AC 355
DPP v Beard [1920] AC 479
DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 433
Lipman
Jaggard v Dickinson (1981] QB 527
Criminal Damage Act (1971), Section 5(2)
Richardson [1999] 1 Cr App R 392
A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963) AC 349
SECONDARY PARTIES
Accessories & Abettors Act (1861), Section 8
Taylor [1998] Crim LR 582
A-G’s Ref (No 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773
Calhaem [1985] QB 808
A-G v Able [ 1984] QB 795
Mohan v The Queen [1967] 2 AC 187
Johnson v Youden [1950] 1 KB 544
Callow v Tillstone (1900) 83 LT 411
Blakely v DPP [1991] Crim LR 663
National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11
DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch (1975] AC 653
Bainbridge 1196011 QB 129
Maxwell [197811 WLR 1363
Anderson 1196612 QB 110
Mahmood [1995] RTR 48
Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] AC 168
Slack [1989] QB 775
Hyde [199111 QB 134
HuiChi Ming [199211 AC 34
Powell [199713 WLR 959
English [1997] 3 WLR 959
Uddin [1999] QB 431
Greatrex [1998] Crim LR 733
Lovesey [1970] 1 QB 352
Wan [1995] Crim LR 296
Perman [1995] Crim LR 736
Stewart [199513 All ER 159; for critical analysis see Smith, J. C. [1995] Crim LR 296 & 422
Bourne (1952) 36 Cr App R 125
Cogan [1976] QB 217
Hui Chi Ming
Jefferson [ 1994] 1 All ER 270
Wilcox v Jeffery [ 1951 ] 1 All ER 464
Beccarra (1975) 62 Cr App R 212
Baker [1994] Crim LR 444.
Rook [1993] WLR 1005
Bentley [1999] Crim LR 330
Mitchell (1999) 163 JP 75
Tyrrell [1894] 1 QB 710
Pickford [1995] QB 203
INCITEMENT & CONSPIRACY
Incitement
Race Relations Board v Applin [1973) QB 815
Evans [ 1986] Crim LR 470
Invicta plastics Ltd v Clare [1976] RTR 251
Ransford (1874) 13 Cox CC
Curr [1968] 2 QB 944
DPP v Armstrong [1999] All ER (D) 1228, unreported in printed form
Fitzmaurice [1983] QB 1083
DPP v Nock [1978] AC 979
Pickford [1995] QB 203
Common Law Conspiracy
Criminal Law Conspiracy
Act (1977), Section 5(2)
Shaw v DPP [1962) AC 220
Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd v DPP [1973] AC 435
Statutory Conspiracy
Criminal Law Act (1977), Section 1
Roberts [ 1998] 1 Cr App R 441
Walker [1962] C rim LR 458
Griffiths [1966] 1 QB 589
Barrat [ 1996] Crim LR 495
DPP v Shannon [1975] AC 717
Hollinshead [1985] AC 975
Reed [1982] Crim LR 819
Jackson [ 1985] Crim LR 442
Yip Chieu-Chung v The Queen [199511 AC 111
Anderson [ 1986] AC 27
Churchill v Walton [1967] 2 AC 224
Broad [ 1997] Crim LR 666
Khan 1199011 WLR 813
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The Pinochet dictatorship has been in power for almost 20 years. It is now facing considerable problems of rising crime, poverty and drug abuse. Offences against the person, such as rape and murder, have increased by 33% in the last year, while offences against property, such as theft and deception, have increased by a staggering 67%. General Pinochet believes that subversive forces within his country are responsible for the current problems. He has drawn up the following list of proposals which he has been advised is essential to regaining some semblance of social order. However, he wishes to retire soon and is mindful of not upsetting the British government too much since he wishes to spend much of his retirement in what he affectionately calls “The Mother of Freedom, Democracy and Order”. He, therefore, seeks your advice on the following set of proposals:
1. All government members and agents of the state (eg. police, army, judges) cannot be tried for crimes committed in the course of their duties.
2. The prosecution will be able to alter the charge laid against a defendant at any point before or during the trial of a defendant.
3. The maximum penalty for rape will be 6 months imprisonment.
4. The maximum penalty for murder will be 8 months imprisonment.
5. A husband cannot be convicted of raping his wife.
6. All opponents of the Pinochet government can have their sentences for any conviction increased at any point after conviction.
7. All these rules will have retroactive effect.
8. There will continue to be jury trials for an,,– offence the Dictator feels warrants it.
9. In all other cases trial by jury will be abolished.
10. Only those earning four times the national average income and who voted for Pinochet in the last uncontested “election rehearsal” may serve on a jury
11. Freedom of speech will be allowed except where its practice causes harm. The definition of `harm’ will be determined by the Dictator before the trial of defendants transgressing this rule. The maximum punishment will be death, the precise mode to be left to be determined by the defendant.
12. Defendants will bear the burden of proving their innocence. The aim of this rule is to make the trial process more democratic.
13. Defendants who wish to be legally represented must seek permission from the Dictator.
14. The evidence of government witnesses will raise a rebut table presumption in relation to whatever matter they give evidence.
15. The government will be permitted to use humane forms of torture as punishment and an evidence gathering device.
16. All citizens must become practising Christians or otherwise face eternal damnation.
17. The Dictator loves his people but he loves his country more. All citizens must love their Dictator.
Pinochet is hopeful that you find his proposals acceptable. He has tried to ensure that they accord, as far as possible, with the world famous principles of British decency and fairplay.
QUESTIONS
Divide up into groups of 3-4.
Consider each of the following questions.
Each group will then be asked to provide answers and explain the reasoning.
(a) Which, if any, of the proposals should the government accept?
(b) Is the CLA correct in its assumption that the criminal justice system is weighted in favour of the defendant?
If this assumption is correct, is this desirable?
(c) Distinguish between the standard and burden of proof.
What, if any, changes should be made to these in the context of a criminal trial? AUTOMATISM
1. What is the distinction between a plea of automatism and one of insanity?
2. What are the requirements for a successful plea of automatism?
3. (a) What is meant by self-induced automatism?
(b) What consequences follow from a finding that automatism was self-induced?
4. Jimmy was staying at the Dam Hotel when in the middle of the night he rose, in his pyjamas, left his bedroom and attacked Sinbad, the night porter, whom he encountered in the hotel lounge. Jimmy has been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (contrary to S.47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861).
Consider Jimmy’s criminal liability in each of the following scenarios: (i) Jimmy was sleep-walking at the time.
(ii) Jimmy had for the first time taken a prescribed dose of Prozac. It had caused him to act involuntarily.
(iii) Jimmy was a diabetic who was acting automatically because he had failed to take his insulin.
5. Explain in what sense is Automatism a defence.
CAUSATION/MISTAKE
1. What is the correct approach to determining causation in a criminal trial?
2. What is meant by “substantial and operating cause” in the context of causation?
3. Intending to cause gbh, A attacked B with a sharp knife, stabbed him and left B lying bleeding on the pavement. This occurred just outside a large hospital where B was admitted only a matter of minutes later.
Advise A whether he is criminally liable for B’s death.
(i) if an immediate blood transfusion would have saved B’s life, was offered to B but was refused by B (on religious grounds) who fully appreciated the implications of his refusal;
(ii) if, after a careful examination had shown to the doctor that B had severe haemorrhage in his lung, the doctor gave B artificial respiration. But for this treatment B would most certainly have survived and recovered;
(iii) if B dies in a fire caused by a flash of lightning.
(iv) if because of national cuts in hospital funding, B was neglected for 15 hours before a doctor examined him.
4. (i) What is the meaning of “specific” and “basic– intent?
(ii) What is the significance of this distinction in relation to Intoxication as a defence?
5. Zebedee met Florence at a party and invited her back to his flat for coffee. He decided he would like to have sex with her. He had been told by some friends, who claimed to know her very well, that
“…the more she screams and fights the more she likes it”.
Zebedee ignored Florence’s genuine and violent protests and had sex with her. Should he be guilty of rape?
6. Noddy hated Big Ears and decided to kill him. He loaded his gun and went out to find Big Ears. Whilst walking down the lane he saw the most enormous duck he had ever seen in his life and thought it would make a wonderful dinner for him and the Wobbly Man: He shot and killed the duck which turned out to be Big Ears who, unknown to Noddy, was just returning home from Mr Plod’s fancy dress party for which he had dressed up as a duck.
Is Noddy guilty of murder?
Now would your answer differ to each of the above if, at the relevant time, the defendant had consumed
(i) L.S.D.;
(ii) Some Valium (prescribed for his girlfriend); (iii) A Bottle of Wine.
7. In what sense, if any, is Intoxication a species of the Automatism defence?
HOMICIDE (MENS REA, MISTAKE, CAUSATION1
1. Mr. Sifter drives buses for Supernova Travel. liability in the following alternative scenarios:
(i) Aiming to return home on time, Mr. Sifte: :to the bus depot. Unfortunately, he forgets that his bus Pass under a low iron bridge. The bus crashes into the Should Mr. Sifter be charged with intentional damage?
(ii) Would Mr. Sifter be liable for causing CRIMINAL DAMAGE – (either intentionally or recklessly) if he had thought about the : bus under the bridge but concluded (albeit erroneous it: was sufficiently high to avoid damage?
(iii) On one occasion, Mr. Sifter drove his: Bungalow Bill, who was standing at a bus stop. His Bungalow Bill. Unfortunately, Mr. Sifter was unable to into the bus stop killing Bungalow Bill. Mr Sifter was a chance that he may not he able to stop.
Consider Mr. Sifter’s liability for
– Murder
-Gross negligence manslaughter
How would your answer differ if Mr. sifter had been on cocaine and alcohol?
2. Lucifer Sam lives with Lucy Diamond in a house they have named “Bike”.
Consider Lucifer’s criminal liability in the following alternative scenarios:
(i) Lucifer kidnaps the postman as a ties him up, blindfolds him and points a gun at him, telling his (falsely) that it is loaded. He removes the blindfold and pulls the trigger. The postman dies of a heart attack. Assume that the postman was 60 years old and that Lucifer know that he had a week heart.
(ii) How would your answer differ in 2(i) above of Lucifer did not know of the postman’s weak heart?
(iii) How would your answer differ if Lucifer had kidnapped his next door neighbour, a 110 year old woman?
(iv) Lucifer was fed up with his (council) house, Bike as it was in a very had state of repair. He had repeatedly requested the local authority to rehouse him but nothing bad been done. He thought that if he set fire to the front door he would have to be rehoused. Thinking that Lucy was out picking daisies, he set the front door alight.
The fire spread quickly and Lucy, who was in the house was killed.
3. Ringo, angry at Noel for refusing to allow him a ride in his Rolls Royce, vowed to avenge Noel’s ‘rudeness’. He planned to drop a concrete block onto Noel’s car so as to scare him, and waited for him on a bridge near Abbey Road studios.
As Noel’s car passed under the bridge, Ringo threw the block, hitting the car windscreen and causing Noel to lose control. Unfortunately, Noel ploughed into an innocent bystander, killing him.
Ringo knew that Noel was still a `learner driver’ and liable to over react; he did not however think about the effect on bystanders.
How would your answer be different if Ringo had got into a state of intoxication through the involuntary consumption of LSD (having attended Liam’s wedding reception, where his cake was laced with LSD)?
4. Grant had received threats from David. Frightened, in case David attacked him, he decided to carry a carving knife with him when he went out. He took a knife from the drawer and his brother, Phil, who knew what was going on, tried to persuade him to leave it at home. Grant refused and Phil tried to take it from him. In the struggle which followed, Phil was stabbed.
In the Queen Vic Hospital, Phil was treated by a newly qualified doctor, who unfortunately administered the wrong anti-dote. Phil died within 20 minutes of the treatment.
Consider Grant’s criminal liability.
5. Suppose that unknown to the accused in Elliot v C there had been a hedgehog hibernating under the shed which had been horribly burnt in the fire and killed. Assuming that there are such statutory offences, would the accused have been guilty of
(i) – “maliciously burning a hedgehog”
(ii) – “recklessly burning a hedgehog”
6. Mozzer and Liam decided to play football in Gazza’s back garden. Liam was worried that they might damage Gazza’s new greenhouse, which took up at least half of the garden. Mozzer reassured Liam, saying that there should be no problem as the glass on the greenhouse was unbreakable.
Unfortunately both Liam and Mozzer struck the greenhouse. both smashing a pave of glass each.
Discuss Liam and Mozzer’s criminal liability.
How would your answer differ if Liam had failed (due to his low intelligence) to even think about the risk of damage?
HOMICIDE (MURDERIMANSLAUGHTER)
1. What is the significance of the abolition of the `year and a day rule’ by the Law Reform (Year and A Day Rule) Act 1996?
Consider, in particular, the role of the Attorney General.
2. (a) What, for the purposes of homicide, is a human being?
(b) What is homicide? List 6 types of homicide.
3. What is the effect of R -v- Moloney
R -v- Hancock and Shank land R -v- Nedrick
on the `meaning’ of intention?
4. How would a judge direct a jury on the meaning of `intention’ in a criminal trial? (Consider also, whether a `Nedrick type direction’ would be given
– only in murder trials
or – in all criminal trials where intention must be proved of the mens rea?
5. Why does the Criminal Law need the mechanism of inferring intention?
6. Is the accused guilty of murder in the following situations?
(i) During a bank robbery, X sprays bullets indiscriminately around the bank. One strikes a metal part of the till, ricochets and kills a customer.
(ii) X throws a bomb into a crowded public house and at the same time shouts a warning which he hopes will suffice to clear the pub, but which he realises might be too short.
Several customers are killed.
7. John and Paul were playing about with a revolver which, because the one remaini.ng bullet was not opposite the firing pin, they believed would not be fired if they pulled the trigger. John grabbed the gun and said:
“Happiness is a warm gun. Stick `em up”, to Paul.
Paul just laughed so John pulled the trigger. The chamber on the gun revolved and the bullet was expelled. It hit Paul, seriously injuring him. He was rushed to hospital. Whilst he was being treated he was administered penicillin to which he was allergic. Paul died some days later.
Discuss John’s liability for homicide.
MENS REA, NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON, SELF DEFENCE, MINORS LIABILITY
1. John and Paul were playing cricket in John’s back garden. Paul, who is 13 years old, said to John, “don’t you think there is any chance the ball might go through a wi