Criminal Law-Course Outline

Criminal Law

Course Outline


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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
Knowledge & Understanding Analysis Synthesis/ Creativity Evaluation











LO4Psycho-motorSelf Appraisal/ Reflection on PracticePlanning &


SolvingCommunication & PresentationInteractive

Group Skills  LO2










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:


Type of assessment Number How  many Length Timing When? Weighting Assessor
Coursework 1 2,000 words maximum November





Tutors and External ExaminersExamination13 hours + 15 mins reading timeJanuary






Tutors and External Examiners


b)         Pass requirements: (e.g. `overall pass’ in module or pass in each component)


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.


There are, essentially two types of questions. These are:

•           the essay question


•           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.


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.


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 …..”


–           “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.


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


Lawrence 119721 AC 626

Morris [19841 AC 320 Gomez 119931 AC 442



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


Cahill [1993] Crim LR 141

Lavender [ 1994] Crim LR 297

Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299


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 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


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


O’Grady 119871 QB 995

O’ Connor [ 1991 ] Crim LR 135

Dadson (1850) 2 Den CC 35


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


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



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


DPP v Morgan (1976] AC 182

S (Satnam) (1983) 78 Cr App R 149



Tolsora (1889) 23 QBD 168

B (A Minor) [1999] 3 WLR 116


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


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


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



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


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.


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.


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?


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?


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 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.


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