Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LW508 Criminal Module Outline 2017-18
LW508 Criminal Module Outline 2017-18
LW508
2017-18
This module outline contains information without which you will not be
able to participate effectively in the module it is essential that you
familiarise yourself with its content at the start of the course.
Number of credits: 30
PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. TEACHING STAFF 3
3. LEARNING OUTCOMES 4
4. TEACHING ARRANGEMENTS 5
5. TEACHING SCHEDULE 6
6. READING 7
8. ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE 12
2
1. INTRODUCTION
This course aims to introduce many of the core principles of criminal law and to aid you
to think critically about the subject, contextualising it and recognising its place in and
impact on society. This year we will also guide you through some of the more topical
aspects of criminal law though we cannot even begin to cover all the criminal offences
which exist in England and Wales.
Curriculum Synopsis
Introduction to the concept of crime, the structure of criminal justice and the general
principles of liability
Harm and the boundaries of criminal law
Murder: the problem of causation and omissions and intent to kill
Defences to murder: loss of control and diminished responsibility
General defences: self-defence, insanity, automatism and others
Manslaughter: unlawful act, recklessness and gross negligence
Non-fatal offences against the person
Sexual offences
Property offences: Theft Act 1968, the Fraud Act 2006 and criminal damage
Inchoate offences: conspiracy, attempts, Serious Crime Act 2007
Accessorial Liability: Joint enterprise and Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
3
3. LEARNING OUTCOMES
Learning outcomes:
Subject specific learning outcomes:
4
4. TEACHING ARRANGEMENTS
There will be two lectures per week during the first two terms (excluding reading
& writing weeks). These lectures are available to students on the criminal law
Moodle page. Power-points used in lectures throughout the course are also
available on the Moodle page, generally in advance of the lecture and students
may find it useful to print these out before the lecture.
There is one seminar per week during the first two terms (excluding reading &
writing weeks). Seminars are a crucial element of our learning and teaching
strategy and are designed to ensure that all students who come prepared
benefit from attendance. Seminar attendance is COMPULSORY, is monitored
and performance in seminars is used by staff in preparing references. Students
are expected to prepare fully for seminars and to contribute to discussions. As
a last resort, seminar leaders have the discretion to ask a student to leave a
seminar if, in their view, the student's presence is impeding the learning
experience of other students in the seminar. In some circumstances this may
include students who fail to meet the requirement to prepare.
There are podcasts of lectures on academic skills on the KLS Skills Hub Moodle page,
and other sessions will be run by the Skills Hub throughout the year. These can help you
to get the best out of your classes and assessments.
Note: KLS also has 'Skills Hub weekly drop-in hours where students can go to ask for
guidance on study-related issues. More details (including opening times) can be found
on the Skills Hub Moodle page.
You are welcome to discuss your understanding of the module content with seminar
leaders during their office hours. However, seminar leaders will not read/correct any draft
work or plans.
The Student Learning Advisory Service also offers workshops, online study guides, and
one-to-one appointments to help with study skills, including essay writing and referencing:
http://www.kent.ac.uk/uelt/about/slas.html
5
5. TEACHING SCHEDULE
WINTER BREAK
Week 14 OAPA Reforms (JT) Oral Presentations (JT) 11. OAPA - offences
Week 15 Sexual Offences (JT) Sexual offences (JT) 12. OAPA essay reforms
Week 16 Sexual abuse (AP)*** Public Order (DW) 13. Sexual offences
6
Reading & Writing Weeks:
The Reading week is the same for all modules but Writing weeks can differ so make
sure you are aware of the writing week for each of your modules and do not assume
they are the same. These are the dates for LW508:
Autumn Term: Reading week: 23rd October 27th October 2017 (week 5)
Writing week: 11th December 15th December 2017 (week 12)
Spring Term: Reading week: 12th February 16th February 2018 (week 17)
Writing week: 2nd April 6th April 2018 (week 24)
6. READING
The following text is required for the course and you weekly reading will be taken from this
book
Herring, J Criminal Law, Texts, Cases & Materials 7th edition, OUP, 2016
You should also purchase a Statute book for Criminal Law (if you do not buy the
bundle) you will be able to take this statute book into the examination provided
you have not annotated the book.
In previous years, the Blackwells bookshop on campus has done bundle option for
purchase of the textbook with a statute book which would save a bit of money worth
checking to see if they are doing the same thing this year. If buying separately, please
buy the statute book as early as possible as Blackwells will not re-order near the exam
period.
Recommended text:
The Library will have copies of other textbooks to allow you to read more broadly and it
always worth having a look at another authors viewpoint on a particular area of law.
Ashworth, Andrew and Horder, Jeremy (2016) Principles of Criminal Law, (8th
Edition, Oxford University Press)
Ormerod, David, (2015) Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law, (14th edition, Oxford
University Press)
Padfield, Nicola, (2016) Criminal Law, (10th edition Oxford University Press)
Wilson, William, (2017) Criminal Law, (6th Edition, Pearson)
However, these are only a selection of textbooks there are many more. Wider reading
is essential for assessments.
7
Information Technology
Information technology is used in a variety of ways in KLS, and you should familiarise yourself
with the pages for undergraduates on the KLS website.
This enables you not only to read all the course handouts, including lecture outlines and
seminar worksheets, reading materials and assessment details, but also to download them. In
addition to handouts, the page will contain a selection of web links, audio files of the lectures,
announcements, and links to further resources.
Journal articles, law reports and legislation - with the same text formatting as the originals -
can be obtained via the Internet - see Lawlinks (http://www.kent.ac.uk/lawlinks/) for the
gateway to these web resources. There are self-help tutorials built in to the library website to
help you do this, or the law library staff can help you: Theresa Thurston will be the main point
of contact for law library enquiries.
Note that searching the Internet (e.g. with Google) will not pick up the datasets in which most
electronic versions of primary and secondary legal sources are held. Sites like Wikipedia are
not authoritative sources of legal information and at best provide only a starting point for your
research.
8
7. ASSESSMENT METHODS AND CRITERIA
You need only submit this assessment on Turnitin you do NOT need to submit
hardcopy as well.
Assessment 2 will take place during Spring term. You will be provided with the timing
of your group presentation early in Spring term, and it will be in the period week 19-
week 23.
Important note: As part of the assessment students are required to present at least
one slide (or an A4 handout) making use of statistical data. The statistics must be
used to further the arguments made about the proposition under debate. (See
information sheet on Moodle headed Statistical data in oral assessments). This is a
crucial element for marking your presentation and must be adhered to.
9
Candidates are provided with a case list of the cases covered in the course and
you are permitted to take a statute book into the exam provided that it has not
been annotated
The examination takes the form of two sections A and B. You must answer
one question in section A and two questions in section B.
Section A takes the form of a case note (from a choice which will be put up on
Moodle during Spring term). All students must choose a case note from the list
and prepare a critical case note to be written in the examination
Section B takes the form of three problem questions and three essay questions
and students must answer their choice of two questions.
10
ideas or concepts
theories
opinion or analysis
More information is available in the Law Student Guide and at the Academic Integrity
website: www.kent.ac.uk/ai.
Ensure that you understand word limits (the word count includes quotations and footnotes).
Exceeding or substantially falling short of word limits will result in a penalty (see KLSs Word
Count Policy, available in the Law Student Guide on Moodle).
You should also familiarise yourself with the categorical marking scheme. The Universitys
guidance can be found (by scrolling down the page to Changes to the Universitys Marking
Scale) at http://www.kent.ac.uk/teaching/qa/guidance/changesclassificationug.html.
Please note that assessment deadlines are strictly enforced (see the Deadlines and Extensions
section in the Law Student Guide). This means that if you submit an assessment late, it will not
count unless:
b) the work is handed in before others work is returned or the assessment is discussed in
seminars and
c) an extension has been approved by the relevant Stage Chief Examiner (see below).
Staff will not accept coursework submitted after the deadline except in concessionary
circumstances and as authorised by the chief examiner for the appropriate Stage. Concessions
applications requesting an extension for coursework must be submitted using the appropriate Late
Coursework Submission Form (available at the Student Advice Office or the Law Student Guide
on Moodle). Individual seminar leaders cannot grant extensions. Concessions applications will
be considered only if submitted with a clear and concise account of the concessionary
circumstances and the impact on the students studies and with all necessary documentary
evidence.
11
8. ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
Please note that seminar leaders will mark your written work (assessment 1) online
via Turnitin, so your feedback will be available to view there. You will always have
feedback available on your written assessments, which is found on Turnitin.
Please read your feedback as this will be helpful for your case note in the exam and
all assessments in other modules. Feedback is a useful tool for future personal and
academic development so read it!
You will have a copy of the seminar leaders report on your group oral presentation
(assessment 2) after all the presentations are completed.
If you have questions at any point in the year there are a variety of ways in which these
may be answered. First and foremost, questions can be put to your seminar leader in
class; this is particularly helpful, as it gives us the chance to discuss any points that may
arise.
Secondly, questions can be asked in lectures where time permits. Alternatively, you
may email the relevant lecturer (where the question is topic specific) or the module
convenor (where the question is about the organisation of the module). This may be
answered either by email or in class, dependent on what is deemed appropriate. Staff
also have office hours where you may approach them and ask questions.
12
9. WEEKLY SEMINAR WORK:
Topic areas includes REQUIRED and some additional BACKGROUND reading. The
former is essential for your understanding of lectures and participation in seminars;
the latter provides greater depth which will be helpful in seminars and for assessment
purposes. You are strongly encouraged to undertake independent research.
Week-by-Week Synopsis
Week 1: Induction
Pre-seminar Activity
Find some examples from the recent news of interesting actions by the institutions playing
a role in criminal law e.g. police, prisons, or a recent case decision that you find
interesting for discussion in class.
In the remaining time, you will discuss purposes of criminal law, its sources, and how it
has developed.
Questions
13
Week 3 - Seminar 2: Criminal Justice System
In this seminar, you will have the first chance of reading the case for your first
assessment. However, the discussion for the seminar will be based on the way the
case progresses through the courts, identifying the different courts in the Criminal
Justice System (not the civil court structure in this module). This is crucial not only for
your understanding how judicial precedent works, but is useful for the English Legal
System module (LW327) and the MCT (due in week 8).
Required reading
14
"1.2 Whether the fact that the death of the child is caused solely
as a consequence of injury to the mother rather than as a
consequence of direct injury to the foetus can negative any
liability for murder or manslaughter in the circumstances set out
in question 1.1."
Held:
Wilson, S. et al, English Legal System, (2016) (OUP, 2nd Edition), pp 35 54 (2.4
Criminal law and civil law terminology, differences, and themes & 2.5 Classification of
the courts).
Additional reading
1. Explain the hierarchical structure in the criminal justice system. (Here you
need to understand the terms judicial precedent, ratio, obiter, binding,
persuasive, distinguishing etc). What is the role of each court? How does the
common law operate in England and Wales?
15
Ratio: Essential for the law
Obiter: Not
Binding: Sets new precedent with legal obligation
Persuasive: Not
Distinguishing: In law, to distinguish a case means a court decides the holding or legal
reasoning of a precedent case will not apply due to materially different facts between the
two cases.
2. Explain the decisions from each court in AGs Ref (No.3 of 1994) (1996) 2 All
ER 10 what was the ratio in each decision and who made it?
16
3. Find at least 2 articles/journals/cases that this case was discussed or had an
impact on?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/premature-babys-death-not-murder-
but-manslaughter-1233310.html
Required Reading:
Herring pp 19 (from 6.2 The Harm Principle) 41 (up to 10 Criminal Law and the Human
Rights Act 1998 and p 70 (Concluding Thoughts).
R v Brown (1993) 2 All E.R 75; [1994]1 A C 212 (HL) [contrast Lord Templemans speech
with that of Lord Mustill]
Additional Reading:
Herring pp 41 (remainder) 69
Cases
Except where indicated you need to read these cases in their entirety for discussion
For discussion find some examples of acts that you think should be criminalised
that are not, or perhaps some actions that are criminalised that you think ought
not to be you need to provide good solid argument as to why you think your
position is correct.
17
1. What is harm and how does the criminal law view harm how do you think the
criminal law should view harm?
2. Thinking about the case of Brown - how does the Criminal Law view the ideas of
harm, morality and the public interest?
Please note: there is a lot of material to read for the upcoming weeks for actus
reus and mens rea.
This is the beginning where we focus on the substantive criminal law. We will explore the
elements which are needed to prove criminal liability by the prosecution. The Latin
maxim, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, is fundamental to criminal liability. It
means an act does not make a man guilty of a crime unless his mind be also guilty.
Criminal offences are made up of 2 main elements: actus reus (AR) and mens rea (MR).
Actus Reus, literally translated, means guilty act. Mens Rea, literally translated, means
guilty mind. You will come across these terms throughout this module when examining
criminal offences, therefore, you must understand these principles fully.
18
Furthermore, this seminar will seek to analyse the circumstances in which a failure to act
may give rise to criminal liability.
Required Reading:
Omission Herring pp 73 - 86
Evans (Gemma) [2009] EWCA Crim 65
Additional Reading
Causation
Omissions
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) 1 All ER 821; [1983] 2 WLR 316
Fagan (1968) 3 All ER 442; [1969] 1 QB 439
Lowe (1973) 1 All ER 805
Miller (1983) 1 All ER 978; [1983] 2 AC 161
Stone and Dobinson (1977) 2 All ER 341; [1977] QB 354
Smith [1879] Crim LR 251
Gibbons and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134
Ruffell [2003] EWCA Crim 122
Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37
Dytham [1979] QB 722
A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment) (No. 1) [2001] 2 WLR 480
(also for defences of self-defence and necessity)
19
BACKGROUND
A and B are fighting and B is knocked to the ground bleeding and unconscious.
A leaves the scene. When B regains consciousness, he goes to the hospital
where he is told he needs a blood transfusion. Because of his religious beliefs, he
refuses this and goes home, where he slips into a coma and dies.
A stabs B, his pregnant girlfriend. B recovers from her wounds but her baby is
delivered prematurely. Doctors say the baby is fit and well. The baby dies and it
is discovered that the baby was injured in utero by the stab wound.
Toyah stabbed John in the arm whilst they were arguing in the street. Toyah ran
off. His injury was not serious but he needed stitches, so a passerby took John
to hospital in his car, but on the way, the car crashed and John sustained a head
injury, from which he dies.
Lily decides to kill her partner, Betty. She takes a shotgun and loads it. She waits
until Betty goes bed and falls asleep. Lily goes into the bedroom and shoots Betty
in the head. Unknown to her, Betty dies from a drug overdose 20 minutes before
she shot her.
20
A is walking past a lake when he sees B drowning. He drags B to the shore and
sees that breathing has stopped, but he is afraid that if he gives mouth-to-mouth
resuscitation he will catch a disease. He immediately calls an ambulance but
when they arrive B is dead.
A intends to poison her husband B. She is serving him with a poisoned casserole
when C, her 5-year old daughter comes in and B gives her a spoon of casserole.
A throws a pan at C to try to stop her eating it but it hits B, who dies from the blow.
C dies from the poison.
By addressing mens rea in respect of homicide offences, this seminar builds upon the
previous two seminars concerning the actus reus. It is, however, crucial to be aware that
the mens rea for murder is different from those for attempted murder.
Required Reading:
Additional Reading
Cases
Mohan [1976] QB 1
R v G and another [2003] UKHL 50
Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
AGs Ref (No3 of 1994) (1996) 2All E.R 10 (can be used for causation too)
Smith (1960) 3 All ER 161; [1961] AC 290
Hyam v DPP [1975] 1 AC 55
Moloney (1985) AC 905
Hancock and Shankland [1986] AC 455
Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025
Woollin (1998) Crim LR 890; [1999] 1 AC 82
Matthews and Alleyne [2003] 2 Cr App R 30
Background
21
Mens Rea: R v Woollin, (1997) Crim LR 519 - 520
Simester, A. & Chan, Intention Thus Far, (1997) Crim LR 704 - 719
Norrie, A., After Woollin, (1999) Crim LR 532
Tadros, The Homicide Ladder (2006) MLR 601
Coffey, G., Codifying the Meaning of Intention in the Criminal Law, (2009) 73 JCL 394
Kaverny, M.C., Inferring Intention from Foresight, (2004) 120 LQR 81
Pedain, A., Intention & the Terrorist Example, (2003) Crim LR Sept 579 - 593
Consider the following legal problem only in terms of Kens mentes reae (the
plural of mens rea): -
The fire catches hold. Norma smells the smoke and tries to leave. The office fire
escape door has been locked by mistake. Rather than phone the fire brigade and
wait for rescue, Norma chooses to go down the main stairs although she can see
that this is very dangerous. Halfway down, she suffers a massive heart attack
from an inherent defect that neither she nor her doctor were aware of and dies.
Ken is charged with her murder.
b) As above but Ken decides before leaving that he will wait fifteen minutes and
then call the fire brigade, believing they will arrive in time to save Norma.
22
Week 8 - Seminar 6 - Homicide 1 murder: actus reus and mens rea
Homicide is an umbrella term which encompasses both lawful and unlawful killings.
Lawful if it was justified ie in self-defence. Unlawful acts include offences of murder,
manslaughter, death by dangerous driving and infanticide. It the first two that we will
be focusing on in this module. Murder is the most serious offence; manslaughter the
less serious offence of homicide. We will be dealing with murder this week.
Required Reading:
Additional Reading:
Cases
Woollin (1998) Crim LR 890; [1999] 1 AC 82
Malcharek; Steel [1981] 1 WLR 690
Enoch (1830) 5 C & P 539
DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 (on the definition of GBH only)
Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846
Background
Law Commission Report, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide, (Law Com. No 304),
Nov 2006
Ashworth, A, Principles, Pragmatism and the Law Commissions Recommendations
on Homicide Law Reform, [2007] Crim LR 333
Ruth had been in an on-off relationship with David for about two years. He was physically
violent to, and emotionally abusive of her for most of that time. About six weeks after
Ruth and David broke up for the last time, she asked her friend Esmond for a gun, and
he supplies it to her. Esmond did not ask why she wanted it, but he was aware of the
nature of her relationship with David.
Two days later Ruth waited for David to emerge from a public house where he had been
drinking with friends. When he came out of the public house she simply called out his
name and, when he turned towards her, shot at him three or four times. David was hit at
23
least twice, but he managed to crawl behind a parked car. Ruth walked around the car
and shot him again at close range. She then surrendered the gun and herself to an off-
duty police officer who happened to be drinking in the same public house.
An ambulance was called to the scene. The paramedics examined David and formed
the mistaken view that he was dead. They took him to the hospital where the emergency
staff discovered that David was still alive. However, despite their best efforts to stabilize
him, David died. The pathologist later reported that David had died from multiple gunshot
wounds, but noted that had he been given oxygen by the paramedics there was an
outside chance that he might have survived.
There are 2 different types of manslaughter: voluntary MS and involuntary MS. You
need to distinguish between the both. This week, we will be looking at voluntary MS
to determine whether this is applicable in a scenario, you need to establish an
intention to kill or cause GBH (the mens rea for murder). If MR for murder is present,
then D can put forward a special or partial defence: loss of control and/or diminished
responsibility. If MR is absent for murder, then D may be charged of involuntary MS.
Here, we will be looking at loss of control and diminished responsibility. Suicide pact
will not be discussed.
Required Reading:
Additional Reading:
24
The main cases for the 2 partial defences are listed below it is sufficient for you
to read about the main ones in the textbook. You do not need to read the cases in
their entirety.
a) Loss of control
The Court of Appeal considered the defence of loss of control in the appeals of two
young offenders (G and K) who appealed against their convictions for murder. Both
appeals were refused.
Details
G, aged 14 at the time of the offence, had stabbed another 14-year-old boy during
a fight. K, 17 at the time, had stabbed a 24-year-old man during a clash between
two groups of young men in a shopping centre.
This judgment explored the extent of the new partial defence of loss of control
(section 54 and 55 Coroners and Justice Act (CJA) 2009), which replaced the
defence of provocation (with effect from 4 October 2010).
The judgment suggests the evidential hurdle is a relatively high one. The three
principal elements of the defence under section 54(1) CJA are: (a) the killing had
to have resulted from the defendants loss of self-control; (b) the loss of self-control
had a qualifying trigger; and (c) a person of the defendants sex and age, with a
normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the
defendant might have reacted in a similar way. The components had to be
analysed sequentially and separately; if a component was absent, the defence
failed (R. v Clinton (Jon-Jacques) [2012] EWCA Crim 2).
In Gs case, there was independent witness evidence that G might have been in
fear of violence. However, the court found there was no evidence that such fear
had resulted in a loss of self-control. In Ks case, the trial judge had found there
was evidence of a qualifying trigger but there was no loss of self-control. The Court
of Appeal found no reason to disagree with the judges analytical assessment.
Commentary
The judgment suggests the evidential hurdle for young defendants seeking to rely
on this defence is a high one. On one view, the court was reluctant to allow the
defence of loss of control to be used in situations where young people carry or
use knives for their own protection.
The defendant, Mark Dawes went to his estranged wifes house and found her asleep on the sofa
with Graham Pethard. He awoke him and started punching him in the face and hitting him with a
bottle. According to the defendant, Pethard took the bottle off him and attacked him. The defendant
then grabbed a knife from the kitchen and fatally stabbed him in the neck. At trial he raised the
defence of self-defence which was not accepted by the jury. The judge held that the defence of loss
of control could not be put to the jury under s.55(6)(a) as he had incited the violence. He was
convicted of murder and appealed contending the defence of loss of control should have been put
to the jury on the grounds that the case of R v Johnson 1989 was still good law and had survived
the legislative provision.
25
Held:
S.55(6)(a) did not overrule R v Johnson. On the facts there was insufficient evidence that it was
Dawes purpose to provide him with an excuse or opportunity to use violence. However, the judge
was correct for not leaving the loss of control defence to the jury as there was insufficient evidence
that he had lost his control
There was some debate about the continuing authority, if any, of Johnson [1989] 89 Cr. App. R
148, decided in the context of the former provocation defence. In that case the court rejected the
submission "that the mere fact that a defendant caused a reaction in others, which in turn led him
to lose his self-control, should result in the issue of provocation being outside a jury's consideration".
In our judgment, for the purposes of the loss of control defence, the impact ofJohnson is now
diminished, but not wholly extinguished by the new statutory provisions. One may wonder (and the
judge would have to consider) how often a defendant who is out to incite violence could be said to
"fear" serious violence; often he may be welcoming it. Similarly, one may wonder how such a
defendant may have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged if he successfully incites someone
else to use violence towards him. Those are legitimate issues for consideration, but as a matter of
statutory construction, the mere fact that in some general way the defendant was behaving badly
and looking for and provoking trouble does not of itself lead to the disapplication of the qualifying
triggers based on s.55(3)(4) and (5) unless his actions were intended to provide him with the excuse
or opportunity to use violence. As Johnson no longer fully reflects the appropriate principle, further
reference to it is inappropriate. The relevant principle is identified in the present judgment.
Old Law
Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932
AG for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23
Mohammed (Faqir) [2005] EWCA Crim 1880
Camplin (1978) A.C. 705
Smith (Morgan) [2001] 1 AC 146
Amelash [2013] 1 Cr App R 33
Morhall (1995) 3 All ER 659; [1996] AC 90
Luc Thiet Thuan (1996) 2 All E.R 1033; [1997] AC 131
Ahluwalia (1993) 96 Cr App R 133
Thornton (1993) 96 Cr App R 112
Thornton (No.2) (1996) 2 All ER 1023
Humphreys (1995) 4 All ER 1008
b) Diminished Responsibility
26
Lloyd (1966) 1 All ER 107; 1 QB 175
Tandy (1988) Crim LR 308; (1991) M.L.R. 869
Gittens (1984) QB 698
Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10
Wood [2008] EWCA Crim 1305
Dowds [2012] 1 WLR 2576
Hobson [1998] 1 Cr App R 31 (battered wife syndrome)
Ahluwalia (1993) 96 Cr App R 133 (depression)
Smith [1982] Crim LR 531 (PMS)
Vinagre (1997) 69 Cr App R 104 (morbid jealousy)
Golds [2016] UKSC 61
Mackay, R., The Abnormality of Mind Factor in Diminished Responsibility [1999] Crim
LR 117
Law Commission, Partial Defences to Murder, (Law Com. No. 290, 2004)
Background reading
Some useful Ministry of Justice publications on reforms to murder, manslaughter and
infanticide Law Com. No. 304, 2006 (as above) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
11232946 BBC short discussion of Kier Starmers (DPP) proposals to change murder
to murder 1 and murder 2.
An interesting case from 2011 which saw a man charged for murder of a man who dies 7
years after attack abolition of year and a day rule - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
england-beds-bucks-herts-15242182
Two useful articles which considered the new version of the defences created by the
2009 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 are
Norrie, A. The Coroners & Justice Act 2009 Partial Defences to Murder (1)
Loss of Control, (2010) Crim LR (4) 275
Mackay, R.D. The Coroners & Justice Act 2009 Partial Defences to Murder
(2) The New Diminished Responsibility Plea, (2010) Crim LR (4) 290
Make sure that you understand how the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 has amended
the law on loss of self-control (formerly provocation) and diminished responsibility.
Prepare an answer to the following problem question: -
Mary has been married to Michael for 5 years. Michael was previously married
and has a 9-year-old child, Max, with his ex-wife. Michael began violently and
emotionally abusing Mary soon after they were married. Michael and Mary are
both heavily dependent on alcohol.
27
In October 2014 Michael was imprisoned for his part in an assault at the local
pub. In March 2015, he is released from prison. On the day of his release he
returns to their apartment at 10am. Mary has been dreading his return. He
immediately commences drinking alcohol. At lunchtime he phones his ex-wife,
belligerently demanding to see his son that weekend. His ex-wife shouts down
the phone, You are not seeing your son when you are like this. Phone me when
you are sober, and hangs up.
Michael is fuming and takes it out on Mary. He complains about the apartment
being messy and questions why Mary didnt make more of an effort for his
return. He taunts her about not being good enough, saying, You havent even
put on make-up for my return, I should go to Suzie down the road for some real
fun. When Mary brings him lunch he complains that it is cold and throws it at
the wall, narrowly missing her head.
When she sees that Michael is now asleep on the couch she goes to the
kitchen, grabs a large knife, returns to the living room and stabs him 12 times.
When she stops shaking and crying, some twenty minutes later, she phones
the emergency services however by the time they arrive Michael is already
dead.
Consider the liability of Mary and any defences she may have.
This is another chance to discuss the structure and technique for writing a case note.
This is your opportunity to familiarise yourself with FIJI again as you used this structure
for your Introduction to Obligations assessment. Using this seminar and your Feedback
from your Obs assessment will help improve your technique and writing skills for your
first criminal assessment.
A case note question will also be a compulsory question for the summer exam.
Required Reading:
28
Sannard, J., Criminal Causation and the Careless Doctor, (1992) MLR 577
Prepare a short case note on this case with 2 other articles (not including those
above)
You need to submit your case note into the Moodle box prior to the
seminar.
Additional Reading:
29
Wacker [2002] EWCA Crim 1944
Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650
Bateman (1925) All E.R 45
Misra [2003] EWCA Crim 2375
Lidar (unreported 11 Nov 1999) reckless MS
Elliott, C., Liability for Manslaughter by Omission: Don't Let the Baby Drown!
Journal of Criminal Law (2010) 74(2) 163
Herring, J. & Palser, E., The Duty of Care in Gross Negligence Manslaughter, [2007]
Crim LR 24
Williams, G., Gross Negligence Manslaughter and the Duty of Care in Drugs Cases:
R v Evans, [2009] Crim LR 631
Woodley, M., Bargaining over Corporate Manslaughter What Price a Life? (2013) 77
JCL 33
Dr Veda and Dr Solo are both surgeons at Alderan Hospital. One night they are
performing a routine operation on a patient, Leia Skywalker. During the course of the
operation Dr Veda, the consultant surgeon, inadvertently cuts through a major artery but
fails to notice this before sewing up the wound. When this has been completed his junior,
Dr Solo, notices a dramatic fall in blood pressure registering on the monitor. Dr Veda tells
him there is nothing to worry about. Ms Skywalker dies and the surgeons realise what
has happened.
Dr Veda asks Dr Solo to remain silent about his error, but Dr Solo refuses and leaves
the operating theatre on his way to inform the Hospital Administrator. A distraught Dr
Veda follows him trying to plead his case. An argument ensues and Dr Veda pushes Dr
Solo who falls against 68-year old Mrs Wookie who is just leaving the premises after a
successful hip operation. Mrs Wookie falls through the plate glass doors and dies.
Discuss the criminal liability of the parties and any defences they may have.
Over the vacation, you should catch up with the additional readings
from Herring as indicated above this will consolidate your
knowledge of the offences and develop your understanding of the
30
key theoretical debates and issues surrounding homicide offences
and defences.
Happy holidays!
WELCOME BACK
31
In this seminar, we will consider the general defences that D might seek to rely upon
in order to escape liability - here, we will focus on insanity and automatism (which may
overlap DR if D is charged with murder).
However, you must know the other general defences too, such as intoxication, duress,
necessity, self-defence and prevention of a crime.
Required Reading:
Additional Reading:
32
Week 14 - Seminar 11: Non-fatal Offences Against the Person
Here, we will be moving on and looking at non-fatal offences. There are many
offences under this heading but we will be concentrating on 5 offences for this module.
They are wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent, maliciously
wounding or inflicting GBH, assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), assault and
battery.
One concept to think about whilst studying OAP is consent this will involve the
exceptions that we considered at the beginning of this module in the case of Brown.
Im sure you will remember that case!
Required Reading:
Additional reading:
Jefferson, M., Offences Against the Person: Into the 21st Century, (2012) 76 JCL 472
Padfield, N., Reform of Offences Against the Person, [2015] Crim LR 175
Reed, A., Offences Against the Person: The Need for Reform, (1995) 59 JCL 187
Ryan, S. Reckless Transmission of HIV: Knowledge and Culpability, [2006] Crim LR 981
Withey, C., Biological GBH: Overruling Clarence? (2003) 153 NLJ 1698
Other sources
Law Commission Report, Reform of Offences Against the Person, (Law Com. No. 361
2015)
Cases
33
DPP v K [1990] 1 WLR 1067
Thomas (1985) 81 Cr App R 331
Haystead v CC of Derbyshire [2000] 2 Cr App R 339
S. 47 - ABH
Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95
Chan-Fook [1994] 2 All ER 552; [1994] 1 WLR 689
T v DPP [2003] EWHC 266 (Admin)
DPP v Smith [2006] 1 WLR 1571
In the first half of this seminar, we will examine how the three main offences in the
OAPA 1861 are structured, alongside common assault and battery. We can also
explore problems created by the statutory wording and how the courts have attempted
to overcome them in the light of changing social norms by looking at a typical essay
question.
1. The non-fatal offences against the person are conventionally divided into four
categories. How are they distinguished from each other?
In the second half of the seminar, make sure you read the scenario before the
seminar. Identify the offences in the scenario and any issues that may arise and
be prepared to explain your reasons.
Harry and Ron, two PT instructors, are on their way to watch a charity football match
organised by their local pub. In their rush to catch the bus to the match, they push
other passengers in the queue, causing them to lose their balance. When they arrive
at the football stadium, Harry and Ron start chanting abusive songs, scaring
Hermione, who is sat in the row behind.
During the match, one of the football players goes to tackle the centre forward. He
misses the ball, so he kicks the centre forward in the head in anger, knocking him
unconscious.
34
After the match, Harry and Ron go to the pub where they become embroiled in an
argument Malfoy, who is a rival PT instructor. Malfoy throws his drink over Harry, but
the glass slips out of his hand and breaks, cutting Ron. Later that evening, Ron sends
Malfoy an Instagram picture of himself holding a knife with a message which reads,
this isnt over.
Please prepare an essay plan for the following question (one A4 page ONLY) and
submit into the box set up on Moodle under the OAPA box. Please ensure that you
use resources to support your points.
The provisions of the OAPA 1861 are out of date and no longer
correspond with the application of the law in practice. To what extent do
you agree with this statement? Discuss with reference to case law.
This seminar will discuss the legislation and case law on sexual offences, with
particular reference to the offence of rape, assault by penetration, sexual assault and
intentionally causing a person to engage in sexual activity.
There are a number of important cases relating to the law of sexual offences and you
need to research and identify which are the important cases. This can be done by using
your core text book and listening to the lectures. This will also help to develop your skills
on research and independent learning.
Required Reading
Additional Reading
Background
Rumney, P. and Fenton, R., Intoxicated Consent in Rape: Bree and Juror Decision-
Making (2008) 71 MLR 279
Temkin, J. and Ashworth, A., The Sexual Offences Act 2003: Rape, Sexual Assaults and
the Problem of Consent, [2004] Crim LR 328
35
Herring, J., Mistaken Sex, [2005] Crim LR 511
Laird, K., Rapist or Rogue? Deception, Consent and the Sexual Offences Act 2003,
[2014] Crim LR 492
Wallerstein, S., A Drunken Consent is Still Consent Or is it? A Critical Analysis of the
Law on a Drunken Consent to Sex following Bree, (2009) 71 JCL 54
1. You should prepare a list of the important cases relating to the law of rape and
the precedent they provide perhaps starting back in 1991 with the case of R v
R (1984) Cr App R 334.
a) Martina has a shoe fetish. She strokes Carries shoes. Is Martina guilty of any
offence?
b) Ben persuades Patricia to have sexual intercourse with him by persuading her
that he is a famous footballer. Is Ben guilty of rape?
c) Beth and Morgan go out on a girls night out. Joseph places a sedative in
Morgans drink. Neil sees this and rescues Morgan from Joseph. Neil then
takes Morgan home and has sex with her including oral sex. Discuss Neils
liability.
d) Jeff has sexual intercourse with Kevin, who is extremely intoxicated at the time.
Discuss Jeffs liability.
Please revisit OAPA and sexual offences for the next seminar.
Please note that there is a lot of required reading for Inchoate Offences and
Accessorial Liability so make use of your reading week!
36
Week 18 - Seminar 14: Exam Q - Unseen PQ covering OAPA and
Sexual Offences
Over the last 3 seminars, we have covered OAPA and sexual offences. In preparation
for this seminar, you need to make sure that you have read and listened to any lectures
you may have missed. Use this week to make sure that you understand how the
offences work and what issues may arise from the facts. This is typical question that
will be asked in the exam so this is good practice.
In the seminar, you will be attempting to answer the following unseen problem question
taken from an exam paper.
Theft is one of the many offences against the person which is found under the Theft
Act 1968. We will also examine robbery, burglary and criminal damage (which is found
in the Criminal Damage Act 1971). The offence of fraud is found in the Fraud Act
2006.
The provisions of the Theft Act 1968 have been subject to much judicial analysis and
interpretation, resulting in a vase mass of complicated case law which is argued to be
in urgent need of reform.
Required Reading:
Additional Reading:
Cases
There are hundreds of cases decided under the Theft Act 1968. The cases shown below
represent a selection of the more interesting ones which need to be known at least at a
case-name/principle level.
The relevant statutory provision is indicated for each component part of the crime of theft.
37
1. Appropriation s3 TA 1968
2. Property s4 TA 1968
4. Dishonestly s2 TA 1968
38
a) Identifying if all five elements of theft are present
b) Identifying any tricky customers
c) Identifying cases relevant to the facts.
a. Would your answer to question 1 change in any material way if you knew
that A made the decision to sell the book one week after he borrowed the
book from B?
b. Would your answer to question 1 change in any material way if you knew
that A made the decision to sell the book before he borrowed the book
from B?
2. C borrows a season ticket from D that is still valid for 4 more football matches.
D allows C to borrow the card for one match only. C returns the card, in perfect
condition, the day after the last football match for which the card is valid.
a. Would your answer to question 2 alter in any material way if C returned the
card when there was still one match left for which the card was valid?
Week 20 - Seminar 16: Robbery (s.8 TA 1968) & Burglary (s.9 TA 1968)
Robbery and burglary are more serious offences that not only seek to protect property
and economic interests but also provide protection to the well-being of the individual.
For instance, robbery requires the use or threat of force and burglary may include the
infliction of GBH or attempted GBH.
Robbery can be found in s.8 of TA 1968 and burglary can be found under s.9(1)(a)
and s.9(1)(b). You need to be aware of the difference between the two offences under
burglary.
Required Reading:
Additional Reading:
Background
39
Laird, K., Conceptualising the Interpretation of Dwelling in Section 9 of the Theft Act
1968, [2013] Crim LR 656
Cases
(a) Robbery
(b) Burglary
Consider whether the parties may be guilty of s.9(1)(a) or s.9(1)(b) of the Theft Act in the
following scenarios:
c) E advertised his car for sale. F turned up as a potential buyer but assaulted E,
took the car and the next day phoned E to offer to return it if E paid him 500.
40
Prepare a solution for the following problem question:
d) Arthur has recently been dismissed from the employment of Lord Botham.
He is very unhappy as he believes that he is owed 500 salary by Lord
Botham who disagrees. Arthur knows that Lord Botham is going away on
business for a week so Arthur asks Lord Bothams butler, Charlie, to disable
the alarm system while Lord Botham is away. Charlie is unhappy working
for Lord Botham so agrees to help. He tells Arthur where Lord Bothams
safe is located and the combination to open the safe.
The evening Lord Botham leaves, Charlie turns off the alarm and goes
home. Meanwhile, Arthur breaks into the house and goes to the safe
intending to take 500. Unfortunately for Arthur, Lord Botham had changed
the combination to the safe and he is unable to open it. In a fury, Arthur
looks around the room and sees a bracelet belonging to Lady Botham on
the dresser. He decides that it is probably worth about 250 and so decides
to take it. He then finds 250 cash in Lord Bothams study and takes that
to make up the 500 he believes he is owed.
He climbs out of the window and runs down the long sweeping drive but
accidentally runs into the housekeeper, Denise, who is returning to work for
the evening. Arthur panics and punches Denise to the ground and runs
away. Denise lies in the driveway until she is found an hour later. The
police called and Denise identifies Arthur as the person who punched her.
Discuss the liability of the parties involved and any defences they may have.
There are three offences of destroying or damaging property under the Criminal
Damage Act 1971 there is simple and an aggravated form of criminal damage, and
then there is arson. You need to understand the elements of each to decide which
relevant offence is to be charged.
Required Reading:
Additional Reading:
Background Reading
41
Elliott, D.W., Endangering Life by Destroying or Damaging Property, [1997] Crim LR
382
Cases:
Gayford v Chouler [1898] 1 QB 316
A (a juvenile) v R [1978] Crim LR 689
Roe v Kingerlee [1986] Crim LR 735
Hardman v CC of Avon & Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330
Cox v Riley (1986) 83 Cr App R 54
Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 2384
Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] QB 527
Hill; Hall [1989] Crim LR 136
Kellner [2003] EWCA Crim 3525
Smith [1974] QB 354
Merrick [1996] 1 Cr App R 130
Dudley [1989] Crim LR 57
Asquith, Webster and Seamans; Warwick (1995) 1 Cr App R 492
Wenton [2010] EWCA Crim 2361
1. What constitutes damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971? Cite
authorities to support your answer.
2. Fred was attending Kung Fu lessons. He decided to show off his skills to his
friends after going down the pub one night. He told his friends that he could
kick towards the laundrette window and exercise enough control to stop just
before the glass. Unfortunately, he did not stop just before the glass and
completely shattered the whole window.
3. Mark was walking home late one night after watching a football match where
his team lost. He passed a bus shelter and took a can of spray paint out of his
pocket and painted Rovers Rule! on it. He then kicked in the side of the bus
shelter causing extensive damage.
4. Charlotte was incensed that a cosmetic company in her town was using animals
in testing their products. In protest, she sprayed Murdered animals make your
lipstick. She then decides to take it further and set fire to the head office. She
sees the light on in the reception but does not see anyone at the desk.
Unbeknown to Charlotte, Pete, the night security guard, is having a nap on the
sofa opposite the reception desk. She throws a petrol bomb through the
window towards the reception area which explodes and the building catches
fire. Pete escapes but suffers severe burns.
42
Week 22 - Seminar 18: Fraud
This seminar explores the offence of fraud, which was created by the Fraud Act 2006.
The Act replaced the complicated deception offences (found in the Theft Acts of 1968
and 1978) and although it has vastly improved the law, the subject of fraud has been,
and is, subject to criticism. We will also be looking at s.3(1) Theft Act 1978 making
off without payment which is an offence of dishonesty which involves D obtaining
goods or services but failing to pay for them.
Required reading:
Additional reading:
Collins, J. Fraud by abuse of position: Theorising section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 [2011]
Crim. L.R. 7, 513-523
Withey, C., The Fraud Act 2006 - some early observations and comparisons with the
former law, (2007) 71 JCL 220
Ormerod, D., The Fraud Act 2006--Criminalising Lying? [2007] Crim LR 193
Cases:
43
For the seminar:
William and Trudy are twins who want to spend a year travelling the world
before going to University, but do not have the money to do so. The send an
email to their Great Aunt Valerie asking her for 1500 in order to pay for an
operation for William. Unfortunately, although Great Aunt Valerie does have an
email account she rarely uses it and so does not see the email. They also
discover that their father, John, has received a new credit card in the post so
they take it and start ordering useful equipment for their trip totalling 500.
Trudy knows that her mother, Shirley, secretly saves 2 coins in a jar for
emergencies, so she takes a quarter of the coins totalling 60 hoping her
mother will not immediately notice they have disappeared. William then takes
his mothers debit card from her handbag and books 2 round the world airline
tickets over the internet costing 1000. Before the purchase of the tickets
Shirleys bank account is 200 in credit but she does have a 500 overdraft
facility.
Once the tickets and goods have arrived the twins head off for the airport and
sit in the airport restaurant waiting for their flight to be called. They both order
meals but while they are eating they notice 3 policemen searching through the
departure lounge obviously looking for someone. Worried that the police are
looking for them they quietly sneak out of the restaurant before finishing their
meal and proceed straight to the departure gate.
The police are indeed looking for the twins and arrest them as they try to board
the plane.
Plus, we will be looking at the law relating to accessorial liability or parties to crime. It
is important to know who is the principal and who is the secondary party (also known
as the accessory). We will look briefly at liability under s.8 Accessories and Abettors
Act 1861, the Serious Crime Act 2007 and the doctrine of joint enterprise. Please
note, that the law relating to joint enterprise has been considerably altered since Jogee
[2016).
44
Required Reading:
Additional Reading:
Spencer, J.R., & Virgo, G., Encouraging and assisting crime: Legislate in haste, repent
at leisure (2008) 9 Archbold News 7
Mirfield, P., Intention and Criminal Attempts, [2015] Crim LR 142
Krebs, B. Joint Criminal Enterprise, (2010) 73 MLR 578
Virgo, G., Joint Enterprise Liability is Dead: Long Live Accessorial Liability, [2012] Crim
LR 850
Ormerod, D. & Laird, K., Jogee: not the end of a legal saga but the start of one? [2016]
Crim LR 8 543
https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/the-world-post-jogee
The cases below need only be known in outline and it will be sufficient in this
instance to summarise the cases from textbooks and lecture notes.
45
Anderson (1985) 2 All ER 961
Saik [2006] UKHL 18
Goddard & Another [2012] EWCA Crim 1756
Siracusa (1990) 90 Cr App R 340
Yip Chiu Cheung v R [1994] 1 AC 111
Taylor [2002] Crim LR 205
Jane, Ravi and Monika are sitting in Seans kitchen one morning, chatting about how
great it would be to pull off a big diamond heist which would allow them to emigrate to
a tropical island and retire. Ravi suggests they go to the Tower of London to steal the
Crown Jewels. The others immediately agree to carry out the plan in two days time,
except Sean, who says, you guys go ahead you can borrow my van if you like, but
Im staying at home. Monika, who is a pacifist, says, Im in, as long as we dont hurt
anyone. The next day, Jane is knocked off her bike by a passing truck and ends up
in hospital with a broken leg.
The following day Ravi and Monika begin to execute the plan. They arrive at the Tower
of London just before closing time, park Seans van outside, buy tickets, and enter.
The two agree to hide in different places and come out after all the visitors have gone.
After the Tower has closed to visitors, Ravi and Monika, who had been hiding in the
toilets, come out and go to the room where the Crown Jewels are displayed. When
they get to the display case and open it, picking up the Imperial Crown they notice that
in fact its a fake made of plastic.
Disappointed they throw it away and make for the exit. At the exit, Ravi and Monika
encounter the night security guard, Mirko. With a swift kick, Monika floors Mirko and
grabs his swipe card. With this they are able to leave the Tower and drive off in the
van. Mirko suffers a large bruise on his head. When they drive off, Ravi says to Monika,
did you have to do that? I thought you were a pacifist!
Advise Jane, Ravi, Monika and Sean regarding their criminal liability.
46