Micky Short Note Center
CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II
Dear readers you are advised to read each provision in line with the note. Since
the content of the original book that directly copied the criminal code provision
are completely removed, except on necessary points
, UNIT-I
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
What is defense?
They are circumstances that relieve an accused from conviction of guilt and its consequent
penalty. These circumstances exempt a criminal from criminal liability or entitle him/her to a
reduced punishment.
Explain different forms of defenses?
Defenses for criminal liability are incorporated in criminal law in different ways.
a. Special defenses: could be non-fulfillment of essential conditions of the crimes provided
in the special part of the Criminal Code. They are defenses that apply in particular crime.
b. General defenses: are those expressly provided by law as defense. They are general
defenses. They are applicable to all crimes. They are excuses and justifications.
o Excuses are defenses that arise because the defendant is not blameworthy for having
acted in a way that would otherwise be criminal. In the cases of the excuses, the focus
is on the individual criminal rather than on the crime committed.
o Justification defenses. Defenses that arise when the defendant has acted in a way that
the law does not seek to prevent are called justification defenses. Justifications, the
focus is on the act rather than on the criminal. Justifications include acts required or
authorized by law, legitimate defense, necessity and professional duty.
Who has the Burden of Proof in Cases of Defenses?
The general rule is that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt and if at
the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt created by the evidence,
given by either the prosecution or the defense, as to whether the accused had committed the
crime or not, the accused is entitled to acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.
It means if an accused pleads defense within the meaning of ‘excusable’ or ‘justifiable’
grounds of defense, there is a presumption against him and the burden to rebut that presumption
is on him.
, General Defenses
1. Criminal Responsibility and Irresponsibility
What is responsibility and irresponsibility?
Responsibility is a person’s mental fitness to answer in a court for his/her action. Responsibility
or irresponsibility is concerned with the criminals’ awareness and their capabilities to control
their action.
Therefore, before ascertaining that the criminals have committed the crime intentionally or by
negligence, it is necessary to assure the responsibility or irresponsibility of the criminals.
What are the circumstances for irresponsibility of the offender?
Irresponsibility may arise in three cases. With regards to adults, it may arise from insanity or
intoxication, and with regards to infants, it may arise from their immaturity.
What is the presumption of the law on the criminal liability of the accused?
Generally, when a person is accused of a crime his/her responsibility is presumed by the Court.
The prosecution need not prove it.
This means that of the important things necessary to make a person liable for punishment within
the meaning of Art.49/1 are established the in the following way:
a. The proof that the act was done by the accused---It is the burden of the prosecutor.
b. The fact that the accused is responsible for his acts—this is presumed by the Court.
When the question of irresponsibility are raised?
However, the question of irresponsibility arises in any of the following two situations:
a. When the accused invokes it, particularly, during the preliminary objections as per Art.
130/2/g of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the first day of the criminal Proceeding.
b. When the Court is doubtful about the mental condition of the accused due to partial or
complete deprivation of mental faculties. The Court may entertain such a doubt at any stage
of the trail from the conduct of the accused on the trial.
1.1.Absolute Responsibility (art 48)
What are the circumstances whereby the accused is in absolute responsibility? (Art 48)
According to Art. 23 (3), cum (Art. 48) the fulfillment of the requirement as to responsibility
is a condition precedent to the fulfillment of the requirement as to guilt.
This is to mean that no person may be convicted of an offence unless, at the time of
commission, he was not irresponsible for his acts.
, In general responsibility could not be defined in a positive, but only in a negative manner, and
this is why most codes including the Ethiopian Criminal Code (2005) do not describe
responsible but irresponsible persons.
A. Insanity
Insanity is a complete defense to a criminal charge. It is based on the assumption that one who
is insane has no mind and hence cannot have the necessary mens rea to commit a crime.
Insanity, according to medical science, is a disease of the mind, which impairs the mental
faculty of man. In law, insanity means a disease of mind, which impairs the cognitive faculty,
namely, the reasoning capacity of a man to such an extent as to render him incapable of
understanding the nature and consequences of his act.
What is the presumption of the law on insanity?
Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be
responsible for his crime, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish
a defense on the ground of insanity.
It must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was
suffering under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as
o Not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing: did not appreciate what
he was doing so that the “act requirement” is not fulfilled
o Does not know the wrongfulness of his or her act: if he could not form the requisite
mens rea).
Explain the tests of insanity?
The major short lived tests are:
1. The irresistible impulse addition to the M’Naghten test: A defendant may be acquitted
if he or she was unable to control the action due to mental illness.
2. The Durham Rule, or “product test” (1954): The defendant must be acquitted if the crime
was the product of mental disease or defect.
3. The Currens Test (1961): The defendant must be acquitted if he or she “lacked substantial
capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law…as a result of mental
disease or defect.”
What are the Essential Conditions to Establish the Defence of Insanity?
CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II
Dear readers you are advised to read each provision in line with the note. Since
the content of the original book that directly copied the criminal code provision
are completely removed, except on necessary points
, UNIT-I
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
What is defense?
They are circumstances that relieve an accused from conviction of guilt and its consequent
penalty. These circumstances exempt a criminal from criminal liability or entitle him/her to a
reduced punishment.
Explain different forms of defenses?
Defenses for criminal liability are incorporated in criminal law in different ways.
a. Special defenses: could be non-fulfillment of essential conditions of the crimes provided
in the special part of the Criminal Code. They are defenses that apply in particular crime.
b. General defenses: are those expressly provided by law as defense. They are general
defenses. They are applicable to all crimes. They are excuses and justifications.
o Excuses are defenses that arise because the defendant is not blameworthy for having
acted in a way that would otherwise be criminal. In the cases of the excuses, the focus
is on the individual criminal rather than on the crime committed.
o Justification defenses. Defenses that arise when the defendant has acted in a way that
the law does not seek to prevent are called justification defenses. Justifications, the
focus is on the act rather than on the criminal. Justifications include acts required or
authorized by law, legitimate defense, necessity and professional duty.
Who has the Burden of Proof in Cases of Defenses?
The general rule is that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt and if at
the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt created by the evidence,
given by either the prosecution or the defense, as to whether the accused had committed the
crime or not, the accused is entitled to acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.
It means if an accused pleads defense within the meaning of ‘excusable’ or ‘justifiable’
grounds of defense, there is a presumption against him and the burden to rebut that presumption
is on him.
, General Defenses
1. Criminal Responsibility and Irresponsibility
What is responsibility and irresponsibility?
Responsibility is a person’s mental fitness to answer in a court for his/her action. Responsibility
or irresponsibility is concerned with the criminals’ awareness and their capabilities to control
their action.
Therefore, before ascertaining that the criminals have committed the crime intentionally or by
negligence, it is necessary to assure the responsibility or irresponsibility of the criminals.
What are the circumstances for irresponsibility of the offender?
Irresponsibility may arise in three cases. With regards to adults, it may arise from insanity or
intoxication, and with regards to infants, it may arise from their immaturity.
What is the presumption of the law on the criminal liability of the accused?
Generally, when a person is accused of a crime his/her responsibility is presumed by the Court.
The prosecution need not prove it.
This means that of the important things necessary to make a person liable for punishment within
the meaning of Art.49/1 are established the in the following way:
a. The proof that the act was done by the accused---It is the burden of the prosecutor.
b. The fact that the accused is responsible for his acts—this is presumed by the Court.
When the question of irresponsibility are raised?
However, the question of irresponsibility arises in any of the following two situations:
a. When the accused invokes it, particularly, during the preliminary objections as per Art.
130/2/g of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the first day of the criminal Proceeding.
b. When the Court is doubtful about the mental condition of the accused due to partial or
complete deprivation of mental faculties. The Court may entertain such a doubt at any stage
of the trail from the conduct of the accused on the trial.
1.1.Absolute Responsibility (art 48)
What are the circumstances whereby the accused is in absolute responsibility? (Art 48)
According to Art. 23 (3), cum (Art. 48) the fulfillment of the requirement as to responsibility
is a condition precedent to the fulfillment of the requirement as to guilt.
This is to mean that no person may be convicted of an offence unless, at the time of
commission, he was not irresponsible for his acts.
, In general responsibility could not be defined in a positive, but only in a negative manner, and
this is why most codes including the Ethiopian Criminal Code (2005) do not describe
responsible but irresponsible persons.
A. Insanity
Insanity is a complete defense to a criminal charge. It is based on the assumption that one who
is insane has no mind and hence cannot have the necessary mens rea to commit a crime.
Insanity, according to medical science, is a disease of the mind, which impairs the mental
faculty of man. In law, insanity means a disease of mind, which impairs the cognitive faculty,
namely, the reasoning capacity of a man to such an extent as to render him incapable of
understanding the nature and consequences of his act.
What is the presumption of the law on insanity?
Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be
responsible for his crime, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish
a defense on the ground of insanity.
It must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was
suffering under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as
o Not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing: did not appreciate what
he was doing so that the “act requirement” is not fulfilled
o Does not know the wrongfulness of his or her act: if he could not form the requisite
mens rea).
Explain the tests of insanity?
The major short lived tests are:
1. The irresistible impulse addition to the M’Naghten test: A defendant may be acquitted
if he or she was unable to control the action due to mental illness.
2. The Durham Rule, or “product test” (1954): The defendant must be acquitted if the crime
was the product of mental disease or defect.
3. The Currens Test (1961): The defendant must be acquitted if he or she “lacked substantial
capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law…as a result of mental
disease or defect.”
What are the Essential Conditions to Establish the Defence of Insanity?
