CRIMINAL LAW FINAL EXAM
[STUDY GUIDE]
(2019-2020)
How to answer Criminal Law problem question?
, 1- State the defendant and the action that is under question
2- State the offence that may have been done, if more than one apply then start with
most serious.
Unit 1:
There are three components to a criminal offence:
1- Actus Reus: the guilty conduct of the defendant.
For example, actus reus of criminal damage would be, destruction or damage of property,
which belongs to someone other than defendant.
* State of affairs: Actus reus could be fulfilled in circumstances defendant has no control
over and certain state of affairs, for example R v Larsonneur, deported from Ireland to
England against will, convicted of being illegally in UK. Actus reus established when
defendant was “found:
2- Mens Rea: The guilty state of mind of the defendant
3- A lack of a valid defence
Actus Reus:
a) An act or sometimes failure to act by defendant
b) The existence of certain circumstances at time of defendant’s conduct
c) Consequences arise from the conduct of the defendant
Liability for Omissions:
- It is possible to be criminally liable for an omission to act. Failing to stop at a red
light for example. The general law in England is that there is no general duty to
intervene and help someone in trouble, general principle is that there is no
criminal liability for failing to act.
4 situations where person can commit actus reus of crime by failing to act:
, 1- Special Relationship: family ties, duty towards victim, there could be a
liability for failure to act. If it was the person’s child statutory duty imposed s
1(2)(a) Children and Young Person’s act 1933, duty to protect.
R v Stone and Dobinson defendants took in sister who was anorexic and
eccentric to live with them, she died as lack of care, they were under a duty to
help her. So this case tells us that a failure to act can create actus reus for a
crime in special relationship when there is duty on part of defendant. One
forms special relationship if he assumes a duty to care for victim.
2- Contractual Duty to Act: R v Pitwood, person responsible for opening
railway gate, failed to close once and person killed. Convicted for
manslaughter. Liable for failure to act, his contractual duty to act was
breached. Emergency services teams have this, lifeguards etc.
3- Statutory Duty to Act: for example as a car driver, you know you have to stop
at signs or traffic lights. Legislative provision basically. These usually consist
of a fine.
4- The defendant who creates a dangerous situation: if a person creates a
dangerous situation, the law imposes a duty on hi to take action to remove
the danger he created. Failing to act will create liability to a crime. R v Miller,
defendant squatter smokes cig, sleeps. House caught fire, as he simply moved
to other room. Charged with criminal damage. People not expected to be
heroes, but shld take reasonable steps to remedy dangerous situation they
created.
Voluntary Acts: the conduct of defendant has to be voluntary, it cannot be a
reflex action or something over which person has no control. Hill v Baxter,
person attacked by swarm of bees while driving, person would not commit actus
reus of reckless driving. If person this thinks applies, he can apply for defense of
automatism, which is only if he is blameless.
Mens Rea:
- It has to be proven that the defendant had a guilty mind at the time of carrying
out of the guilty conduct. It has to be shown that defendant intended for the
conduct to occur or was reckless as to certain circumstances would exist or
consequences would arise because of his conduct.
- Sometimes though defendant could be guilty not for what mind was, but what it
should have been at the time of guilty conduct.
1) Intention:
Direct Intent:
, - According to dictionary definition it the aim of an action. He defendant intended
for something to happen basically. This is what the courts call direct intent.
Indirect Intent:
- This is used in cases where defendant argues something was their not main
intention, outcome was unfortunate result of what he wanted to achieve.
- R v woolin Test:
1- was consequence certain to occur as result of defendant’s act or omission?
2- Did the defendant foresee the consequences that were certain to occur?
if answers to both are yes than indirect intention is found.
Ulterior Intent, basic intent and specific intent:
- When ulterior intent term used, it means extra element of mens rea has to be
proven against defendant for conviction to take place. Prosecution has to prove
that defendant intended to produce some consequence that went beyond actus
reus of crime, even if he didn’t actually produce it.
- Burglary: entering a building as trespasser with intent to commit theft or inflict
BGH or criminal damage. Actus reus is entering building as trespasser, mens rea
must know he is trespasser entering, or most foresee risk that he may be. Extra
element of mens rea, ulterior intent, to steal, cause GBH. Criminal damage.
2) Recklessness:
R V G, Cunningham test, the test is whether the defendant foresaw a risk and went to take it,
and the risk is unjustified. Justification of risk is based on standards of reasonable person.
Transferred Malice:
- x wants to kill y, he think he sees y in her bedroom, shoots bullet, thinks he killed
y but killed z by accident. When x goes to trial, says he had no intention to kill z.
- The doctrine of transferred malice, if person commits a crime against one
person, mens rea of original victim transferred and coupled with actus reus of
another victim. Ex. X had mens rea to kill y, this mens rea transferred and
coupled to actus reus of killing z. R v Latimer.
- R v Pembliton: the doctrine is limited to crimes of the same type only. The actus
reus of the crime has to match that of the other that occurred mistakenly.
[STUDY GUIDE]
(2019-2020)
How to answer Criminal Law problem question?
, 1- State the defendant and the action that is under question
2- State the offence that may have been done, if more than one apply then start with
most serious.
Unit 1:
There are three components to a criminal offence:
1- Actus Reus: the guilty conduct of the defendant.
For example, actus reus of criminal damage would be, destruction or damage of property,
which belongs to someone other than defendant.
* State of affairs: Actus reus could be fulfilled in circumstances defendant has no control
over and certain state of affairs, for example R v Larsonneur, deported from Ireland to
England against will, convicted of being illegally in UK. Actus reus established when
defendant was “found:
2- Mens Rea: The guilty state of mind of the defendant
3- A lack of a valid defence
Actus Reus:
a) An act or sometimes failure to act by defendant
b) The existence of certain circumstances at time of defendant’s conduct
c) Consequences arise from the conduct of the defendant
Liability for Omissions:
- It is possible to be criminally liable for an omission to act. Failing to stop at a red
light for example. The general law in England is that there is no general duty to
intervene and help someone in trouble, general principle is that there is no
criminal liability for failing to act.
4 situations where person can commit actus reus of crime by failing to act:
, 1- Special Relationship: family ties, duty towards victim, there could be a
liability for failure to act. If it was the person’s child statutory duty imposed s
1(2)(a) Children and Young Person’s act 1933, duty to protect.
R v Stone and Dobinson defendants took in sister who was anorexic and
eccentric to live with them, she died as lack of care, they were under a duty to
help her. So this case tells us that a failure to act can create actus reus for a
crime in special relationship when there is duty on part of defendant. One
forms special relationship if he assumes a duty to care for victim.
2- Contractual Duty to Act: R v Pitwood, person responsible for opening
railway gate, failed to close once and person killed. Convicted for
manslaughter. Liable for failure to act, his contractual duty to act was
breached. Emergency services teams have this, lifeguards etc.
3- Statutory Duty to Act: for example as a car driver, you know you have to stop
at signs or traffic lights. Legislative provision basically. These usually consist
of a fine.
4- The defendant who creates a dangerous situation: if a person creates a
dangerous situation, the law imposes a duty on hi to take action to remove
the danger he created. Failing to act will create liability to a crime. R v Miller,
defendant squatter smokes cig, sleeps. House caught fire, as he simply moved
to other room. Charged with criminal damage. People not expected to be
heroes, but shld take reasonable steps to remedy dangerous situation they
created.
Voluntary Acts: the conduct of defendant has to be voluntary, it cannot be a
reflex action or something over which person has no control. Hill v Baxter,
person attacked by swarm of bees while driving, person would not commit actus
reus of reckless driving. If person this thinks applies, he can apply for defense of
automatism, which is only if he is blameless.
Mens Rea:
- It has to be proven that the defendant had a guilty mind at the time of carrying
out of the guilty conduct. It has to be shown that defendant intended for the
conduct to occur or was reckless as to certain circumstances would exist or
consequences would arise because of his conduct.
- Sometimes though defendant could be guilty not for what mind was, but what it
should have been at the time of guilty conduct.
1) Intention:
Direct Intent:
, - According to dictionary definition it the aim of an action. He defendant intended
for something to happen basically. This is what the courts call direct intent.
Indirect Intent:
- This is used in cases where defendant argues something was their not main
intention, outcome was unfortunate result of what he wanted to achieve.
- R v woolin Test:
1- was consequence certain to occur as result of defendant’s act or omission?
2- Did the defendant foresee the consequences that were certain to occur?
if answers to both are yes than indirect intention is found.
Ulterior Intent, basic intent and specific intent:
- When ulterior intent term used, it means extra element of mens rea has to be
proven against defendant for conviction to take place. Prosecution has to prove
that defendant intended to produce some consequence that went beyond actus
reus of crime, even if he didn’t actually produce it.
- Burglary: entering a building as trespasser with intent to commit theft or inflict
BGH or criminal damage. Actus reus is entering building as trespasser, mens rea
must know he is trespasser entering, or most foresee risk that he may be. Extra
element of mens rea, ulterior intent, to steal, cause GBH. Criminal damage.
2) Recklessness:
R V G, Cunningham test, the test is whether the defendant foresaw a risk and went to take it,
and the risk is unjustified. Justification of risk is based on standards of reasonable person.
Transferred Malice:
- x wants to kill y, he think he sees y in her bedroom, shoots bullet, thinks he killed
y but killed z by accident. When x goes to trial, says he had no intention to kill z.
- The doctrine of transferred malice, if person commits a crime against one
person, mens rea of original victim transferred and coupled with actus reus of
another victim. Ex. X had mens rea to kill y, this mens rea transferred and
coupled to actus reus of killing z. R v Latimer.
- R v Pembliton: the doctrine is limited to crimes of the same type only. The actus
reus of the crime has to match that of the other that occurred mistakenly.
