#17255 - Criminal Notes - GDL Criminal Law

Mens Rea – guilty mind (MR)
Actus Rea – guilty act (AR)
Burden of Proof: Woolmington v DPP (1935)
- Set out the golden thread of the burden of proof is always on the prosecution.
- Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that defendant committed the actus reus and mens rea.

Conduct and Fault must come together: R v Deller (1952)
- Cannot be prosecuted own a guilty mind alone if there is no actus rea.
Unknown justification: R v Dadson (1850)
- Police officer fired a shot at a trespasser, was charged with GBH. But Larceny Act (1827) stated it was justifiable to fire on an escaping felon. PO did not know that victim was a felon. Police officer was convicted.
  - G Williams argues that this was decided wrongly, as the was lawful justification even if the police officer did not know of it.
  - Smith and Hogan disagree arguing that we cannot rely on such an unknown justification – view upheld in the law
- Lanham argues we ought to break down crime into three elements: fault, mens rea, and the defence itself.
Comission vs Omission
- R v Smith (1826) – Railway watchman took a break during which a man was hit by train. Held: Generally no liability for omission
  - Williams, G: We punish misfeasance, we don’t punish non-feasance
- Ashworth argues that society demands more: in different areas we have and should develop areas of societal responsibility
  - That reasonable steps should be taken to prevent harm
- Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]
  - ‘Pulling the plug’ on Hillsborough victim in PVS
  - Obiter Lord Bland:
    - if an interloper got into the hospital and pulled out the tubes then that would be murder as an act of commission.
    - It is different when done by a Dr, as this should be viewed as an omission to continue the treatment.
    - Distinguishes ending life, and not continuing life.
Six Exceptions including Liability for Commission
- 1) Statutory Liabilities, e.g. failing to provide a breathalyser.
- 2) Contractual Liabilities
  - R v Pittwood (1902) 19 T.L.R. 37
    - A crossing keeper left the gate open when off for lunch – someone was hit crossing tracks in their cart. Was liable to everyone who used the crossing.
- 3) Parental and Familial Liabilities
  - A grey area as to when they begin and end, and how far they extend.
  - Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
    - Gibbon’s daughter who was starved to death in the household. Gibbons as father had an obligation to his daughter. Proctor was also liable as she lived under the same roof
  - But only applies in cases of a special relationship. Not brother and sister.
- 4) Assumption of a Duty of Care
  - R v Stone and Dobinson (1997) Q.B. 354
    - This precedent has not been followed in 43 years.
    - S and D took in S’s sister and agreed to care for her. She was mentally ill and vulnerable. Found dead in dreadful conditions.
    - This was a voluntary assumption and a preclusion of others which led to liability for omission.
    - The high water mark of liability.
  - R v Ruffell (2003)
    - Appelant court found one friend liable for gross negligence manslaughter for not looking after friend while high
- 5) Creation of a Dangerous Situation (supervening fault)
  - Where you created the harm you have a duty to counteract it to protect life limb or property, hence supervening fault.
  - Fagan v MPC (1968)
    - D accidentally drove onto policeman’s foot. Refused to move off. Argued he had no coincidence of actus and mens. As a continuing act held laible.
  - R v Miller (1983)
    - Squatter fell asleep with lit cigarette, awoke to see smouldering mattress, got up and went to another room and went back to sleep.
    - Lord Diplock established principle of supervening fault.
  - DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2004]
    - The defendant, Santa-Bermudez, had lied about the presence of sharp objects in his pocket when being searched by a female police constable and the constable was injured.
    - His failure to warn her of the danger constituted the actus reus of the crime.
  - R v Evans (2009)
    - Generally, no murder liability for heroin dealers as break in causation.
    - Evans accused of supplying a syringe to her half-sister as she came out of rehab. Did not phone for help as they were worried they would get into trouble with the authorities.
- 6) Public Office
  - R v Dytham (1979)
    - The defendant was a police officer. He stood by whilst a bouncer kicked a man to death.
    - He was charged with the offence of misconduct in a public officer.
The Doctrine of Transferred Malice.
- When the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible.
- D’s MR against third party is ‘transferred’ to join with the AR committed against third party.
- R v Latimer (1886)
  - A aims belt at B, hits person C. Liability transferred from B to C
- R v Pembliton [1874]
  - The AR and transferred MR must be for the same offence.
  - A threw stone to harm person B, hit and shattered a window. This was not within the same crime, so the malice could not be transferred from the person to the property damage.
- R v Mitchell (1983)
  - D hit a man who challenged him as he queue jumped. The man fell back onto an old lady who broke leg and later died. Under transferred malice held guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.
- A-G’s Ref (No. 3 of 1994) [1998]
  - Defendant stabbed his six-month pregnant girlfriend – child was born and survived for 121-days. Child died due to premature birth and stabbing.
  - Lord Taylor in CA argued it was clearly murder due to transfer of malice with intention to commit GBH – double transfer from mother to the foetus and from the foetus to the child.
  - Lord Mustill was hostile to the very idea of a doctrine of transferred malice: “an historical anachronism…a legal fiction with no basis in law.”
    - Guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.
- R v Gnango (2011)
  - Defendant was shot at by ‘bandana man’, returned fire. Bandana man’s responsive shot hit a passer by. The defendant was charged and convicted of murder under the joint enterprise rules.
  - By firing back he encouraged attempted murder against himself, and this transferred malice could be moved onto the actual (as opposed to attempted) murder of victim.
The Coincidence of AR and MR
- There must be a coincidence of AR and MR for liability.
- Where the AR is a continuing act it is sufficient for there to be MR at any point in the continuing act: Fagan v DPP; R v Miller, R v Santana-Bermudez, and R v Evans)
Two theories of liability
- One Transaction Theory: categorise the actions of the accused as a series of acts, making up one transaction. In certain circumstances it is enough for the defendant to have the mens rea at some time during that transaction.
  - R v Thabo Meli [1954]
    - Defendant lured to mountain hut and violently hit around the head with a metal bar, then rolled down the hill and left at the bottom. Victim didn’t die from injuries but from exposure – thus no obvious coincidence.
  - But Lord Reid argued there was liability for murder because of one transaction theory. There is liability here due to the fact we can see a series of transaction looked on as one single transaction upon which we can superimpose fault.
- Causation Theory: the act done with the mens rea (the first act) as causing subsequent acts.
  - R v Church [1966]
    - Mr Church and the victim were in a van for sexual purposes. The victim started mocking him and a fight ensued. He knocked the victim semi-conscious. Thinking her dead, he threw her in the river (no MR at the tiem). Died of drowning.
    - Edmund Davis LJ comes up with the concept of dangerousness – an act that “a reasonable people would inevitably recognize must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm”
- Masilela [1968]
  - South African Case
  - Defendant throttled victim, thought he was dead, subsequently set the house on fire to cover up the evidence. The victim died of carbon monoxide poising. Guilty under one transaction theory
- R v Le Brun [1992]
  - Argument, man hit wife over the head, unlawful battery, he removed her from the scene in order to cover up the unlawful act
  - During this process he accidentally dropped her, she hit her head, fractured her skull and later died.
- A-G’s Reference (No. 4 of 1980) [1981]
  - Prosecution alleged that the defendant had pushed the victim over a handrail on the first floor. A rope was placed around the victim’s neck. The victim was dragged upstairs by the rope. The body was cut up in the bath. They were distributed across England – too little left for a forensic examination.
    - Had to establish fault at each step.
    - court said that it was unnecessary to prove...

#17255 - Criminal Notes - GDL Criminal Law

About Oxbridge

More GDL Criminal Law Samples