INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL LAW

Lecture 6

Learning Outcomes:

Outline the elements of crime;

Understand the different degrees of intent;

Explain what is a strict liability offence;

Outline the burden and standard of proof in criminal law; and

Be able to analyse case law and cite cases in a persuasive manner in an answer.

What is a crime and how is it different from a tort?

Definition of crime: no universally accepted definition!

Lord Tucker 1957: “a crime is an unlawful act...which is an offence against the public and renders the person guilty of the act...liable to legal punishment”

Crime-Public Law; whereas tort falls under the Private (Civil) Law

Remedies: Criminal Law-punishment Tort-compensation (damages)

The elements of crime:

“Actus Reus”- the guilty act: it is the physical element of the offence

“Mens Rea”- the guilty mind or intention: it is the mental element of the offence

Each offence has its own actus reus and mens rea-this will be examined in more detail when we look at the different offences that will be studied on the course

Actus Reus

Actus reus is usually the act of committing an offence. The physical act.

However, the actus reus of an offence can also be an omission.

An omission is the failure to do something. For example, the failure to stop at the traffic light or the failure to wear a seat belt.

CHAIN OF CAUSATION

Chain of causation- there must be a casual link between the D’s act/omission and the consequences

R v Lewis (1970)

R v Smith (1959)

R v Jordan (1956)

Mens Rea

Different levels of mens rea are required for different crimes: for example, the mens rea of murder differs from the mens rea of manslaughter

Specific Intention: this is whereby the defendant has the intention/desire to commit the crime and achieve the desired consequences of his actions. For example, to cause the victim injury or to kill the victim.

R v Mohan (1976)- Court of Appeal held that motive or reason of the defendant for doing the act is not important

Recklessness: here the defendant does not intend to commit the crime but acts in such a reckless way that any reasonable person would realise that a crime would be committed as a result. The defendant takes an unjustifiable risk, aware of the danger that might result.

Strict Liability Offences

No requirement to establish mens rea- the actus reus is enough to hold the D guilty

E.g., drink driving, failure to stop at the traffic light, selling alcohol to anyone under the age of 18 years old etc.

Winzar v Chief Constable for Kent (1983)

Harrow Borough Council v Shah (1999)

What is the standard and burden of proof in criminal law?

Defendant is innocent until proven guilty

Burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable ground that the defendant is guilty of the offence

Burden of proof: who has to prove the defendant guilty of the offence

The Prosecution

Standard of proof: the test/what needs to be proven “prove beyond reasonable doubt” that the defendant is

guilty of the offence (Woolmington v DPP (1935))

“Beyond reasonable doubt”

There must not be any degree of “reasonable doubt”

What amounts to “reasonable doubt” ?

Almost saying that the judge/jury has to be absolutely certain that the defendant is guilty/not guilty of the offence

However.........

The burden of proof will rest on the defence where for example, the defendant, who has been charged with murder ,raises the defence of diminished responsibility

In this situation the defence will have to prove not on the test of “beyond reasonable doubt” but a test based on a “balance of possibilities”, that the defendant has a defence

Preps. For Seminar 5

Hand Out

Reading: Jacqueline Martin, “GCSE Law”, 5th edition, Chapter 21-

Criminal Law: introduction

List of Cases (on Hand Out)