A collection of notes for the Criminal Law module on the PGDL course at University of Law. I took the online course in 2023/2024, and achieved a 79% using these notes.
unit 1: actus reus and mens rea
Created @March 1, 2022 12:36 PM
Tags complete
1. The rule of law
2. Classification of offences (s17 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980)
2.1 Summary Only Offences
2.2 Either-way Offences
2.3 Indictable Only Offences
3. Burden of proof and standard of proof
4. Key components of a criminal offence
4.1 Actus reus
4.2 Conduct crimes and result crimes
4.3 States of affairs
5. Liability for omissions
5.1 Special relationships
Release from duties to act
5.2 A contractual duty to act
5.3 A statutory duty to act
5.4 The defendant who creates a dangerous situation
6. Voluntary acts
7. Mens rea
7.1 Direct intent
7.2 Indirect or oblique intent
7.3 Ulterior intent, basic intent and specific intent
8. Recklessness
8.1 Justification of risk
8.2 Subjective recklessness
9. Transferred malice
10. Negligence
11. Strict liability offences
12. Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
13. Ignorance of the law
14. Mistake of fact
unit 1: actus reus and mens rea 1
, 1. The rule of law
Any ambiguity should be interpreted in favour of the defendant.
There should be no criminal liability except for conduct specifically prescribed by law.
Offences should not be created to have retrospective effects.
There can be no criminal liability unless the defendant is convicted following a proper
trial according to the law and the penalty on conviction must be within the limits
prescribed by law.
2. Classification of offences (s17
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980)
2.1 Summary Only Offences
Summary only offences are less serious crimes which have to be tried in the
magistrates’ court and cannot be tried in the Crown Court.
Cases are usually heard by three lay magistrates who usually have no legal
qualifications. They rely on their legal adviser to advise them on points of law.
Alternatively, the matter could be dealt with by a district judge (magistrates’ court)
who is a qualified solicitor or barrister.
Quicker and less expensive than a Crown Court trial.
Examples:
Driving a motor vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs
Threatening to inflict violence on another individual (assault)
Driving without due care and attention to other road users
Taking another person’s vehicle without their consent (”joyriding”)
Causing criminal damage to property where the cost of the damage is up to
$5,000 (NOTE: Criminal damage is actually an either-way offence, but where the
value of damage is less than $5,000 it can only be dealt womith in the
magistrates’ court).
2.2 Either-way Offences
unit 1: actus reus and mens rea 2
, Either-way offences are the middle range of offences which could be tried in the
magistrates’ court or in the Crown Court.
Examples:
Theft (other than low-value shoplifting)
Dangerous driving
Burglary
Certain types of assault
The final venue for the trial of either way offences is laid down by sections 18-22 of
the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
The final venue for the trial will depend initially on whether the magistrates’ court
is prepared to deal with the case and whether their sentencing powers would be
adequate if the defendant was found guilty.
The maximum sentence that a magistrate can impose is six months’
imprisonment for any on offence.
If the magistrates feel that the offence would merit a higher sentence than they
could impose, then they will decline jurisdiction and send the case to be dealt
with in the Crown Court.
If the magistrates are prepared to deal with the matter, the defendant can decide
whether he wants to be tried by the magistrates or whether he wants to go to the
Crown Court for trial.
The defendant may opt for a Crown Court trial, as members of a jury will be
more sympathetic to a defendant’s case than the magistrates would be.
In the Crown Court, the judge will decide all issues of law, but a jury will decide
the facts of a case; whereas in the magistrates’ court, the magistrates decide all
issues of law and fact.
2.3 Indictable Only Offences
Indictable only offences are the most serious crimes that have to be tried in the
Crown Court before a judge and jury.
Examples:
Murder
Rape
unit 1: actus reus and mens rea 3
, Robbery
3. Burden of proof and standard of proof
The burden of proving that a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence normally rests
with the prosecution (Woolmington v DPP). The prosecution has to satisfy the court
beyond reasonable doubt.
The defendant has to prove the defence on which he seeks to rely. He need only do
so on a balance of probabilities. An evidential burden is imposed on the defendant.
Any legal burden on proof placed on the defence could be challenged under the
Human Rights Act 1998 on the basis that such a requirement is contrary to Article
6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a
fair trial. This argument has succeeded in R v Lambert.
4. Key components of a criminal offence
There are three key components to securing a conviction for a criminal offence:
1. Actus reus;
2. Mens rea; and
3. Absence of any valid defence.
4.1 Actus reus
The actus reus of an offence will consist of one or more of the following components:
1. An act (or sometimes a failure to act) by the defendant;
2. The existence of certain circumstances at the time of the defendant’s conduct;
3. Certain consequences flowing from the defendant’s conduct.
4.2 Conduct crimes and result crimes
‘Conduct crimes’: The defendant has to behave in a certain way and certain
circumstances need to exist before the actus reus of the offence is established. E.g.
rape.
‘Result crimes’: It is not enough that the defendant acts in a particular way; certain
consequences must follow from that behaviour before the actus reus of the offence
is established.
unit 1: actus reus and mens rea 4
, 4.3 States of affairs
There are some offences which can be established if a certain state of affairs exists
(e.g. R v Larsonneur). Such crimes are known as offences of absolute liability.
5. Liability for omissions
The general principle is that there can be no criminal liability for failing to act.
Exceptions: There are four recognised types of situations where a person can
commit the actus reus of a crime by failing to act.
5.1 Special relationships
Where there is a special relationship between the defendant and the victim either by
reason of family ties or because the defendant has assumed a duty towards the
victim (R v Gibbins and Proctor; R v Stone and Dobinson), the defendant could incur
criminal liability for failing to act.
A parent has a duty to act to protect his or her child (s1(2)(a) Children and Young
Persons Act 1933; R v Gibbins and Proctor).
R v Gibbins and Proctor:
- Gibbins, as the child’s father, had a duty to care for his child. He
committed the actus reus of murder by his omission to feed his child.
- Proctor, though not the child’s mother, had assumed a duty towards the
child by choosing to live with the father and by receiving house-
keeping money from him. There was a close relationship with the child
which placed a duty on her to act to care for the child. Her failure to do so
established the actus reus of murder.
unit 1: actus reus and mens rea 5
, R v Stone and Dobinson
- Stone was under a duty because Fanny was his sister.
- Dobinson was liable because she had assumed a duty towards Fanny by
allowing her to live with them.
The judgement of Lane LJ suggests that the defendants in Stone and
Dobinson might have escaped liability if they had done nothing at all to
help Fanny. It seems to suggest that there is no general liability towards
one’s relatives or towards persons staying at your home: it would seem
that it was the assumption of a duty towards Fanny by both defendants by
their ineffectual attempts to care for her that led to criminal liability when
they failed to give her adequate assistance.
R v Ruffell
- A defendant who assumed a duty of trying to revive a friend who took
drugs, was correctly convicted of manslaughter of that friend when he
failed to care for him properly.
Release from duties to act
R v Smith
- The wife instructed her husband not to seek medical attention and he
had respected her wishes. By the time the wife changed her mind and the
defendant called the doctor, it was too late to save her life.
- This case suggests that if the victim is capable of deciding his or her own
fate, the defendant should be able to be released from any duty to act
established by the common law.
- Note: The apparent acceptance that there is a special relationship
between husband and wife.
- Note: Smith is only a first-instance decision and the higher courts have
not ruled on this issue.
unit 1: actus reus and mens rea 6
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ulawstudentpgdlandbpc. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $15.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
