LECTURE 1:

INTRODUCING TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATIONS

ELEMENTS OF A CRIME: ACTUS REUS

1 What are the differences between criminal and civil law?

Terminology: Crown v (state bringing the action)

What’s the purpose of crim law? – sometimes must ask should the courts be
intervening? E.g. crown v brown sadomasochism private sex lives. Question was
isn’t it a private matter?
Sometimes there is an attorney generals’ reference. Where its been appealed on
a point of law to see what the principle is. See what the right test should be. To bind
lower courts with.
Court structure. Crown court -> court of appeal -> criminal -> supreme court.
Burden of proof – on the prosecution – must prove beyond all reasonable doubt
(evidential burden – insanity etc)
Standard of proof – beyond all reasonable doubt

2 Ways of classifying offences

 By source
 Common law
 Statutory
o Need to substantiate your points effectively
o When cases contradict say e.g., courts may have decided this to be the
precedent but actually there is conflicting case law on this. Or distinguish
the facts from our case with the case – similar? Refer to case laws to
backup argument.

 By subject matter
 Offences against person, property, mixed (criminal damage) and state.

 By fault base
 What’s level of fault? Do u need intent, recklessness? Negligence?

 By reference to trial mode

 Mens rea, negligence, strict liability
o Subjective or objective approach

3 Criminal court structure

Magistrates’ Court (as court of trial or committal) lay magistrates and District judges
Crown Court (as court of trial or appeal)
Judge decides law; jury decides facts. Hears appeals against conviction and/or
sentence from Magistrates’ Court.

Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division (as court of appeal) hears appeals on
point of law from Magistrates’ and Crown Courts (case stated)

Court of Appeal Criminal Division (as court of appeal)

Defence may appeal against conviction or sentence from Crown Court
AG References allow referral on point of law
Prosecution can appeal against acquittal and authorizing retrial

Supreme Court (as court of appeal) hears appeals of public importance

Note the weight of the courts and the relevance of their judgments as precedents

ELEMENTS OF A CRIME: ACTUS REUS

INTRODUCTION

Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462

The burden of proving the elements of a crime is on the prosecution to prove beyond
all reasonable doubt.

The defence has an evidential burden to discharge in respect of defences, but the
burden of proof normally remains with the prosecution.

The general principle of criminal law is: 'Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea'.

Actus reus - guilty act. Mens rea - guilty mind.

ACTUS REUS

An act, omission or other event indicated in the definition of the crime, with any
surrounding circumstances (other than D's state of mind) and any required
consequences of the act – SMITH, HOGAN AND ORMERODS CRIM LAW

1. Voluntariness

Automatism and involuntary conduct

Broom – if someone swerves off the road bc there are bees in the car bc they cant
control what they were doing then it was an accident involuntarily. h/e if u can still
grip wheal with bees stinging u then u still have some control. Then u not acting
involuntarily. If u aren’t in control of ur muscles u cant control. Sleep walking =
insane. Only voluntarily acts being blamed.

2. Act

RAPE: A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with
his penis, B does not consent to the penetration and A does not reasonably believe
that B consents (s1 Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Act: penetrates
Mens rea: intentionally, a doesn’t reasonably believe they consent.

S1 Sexual Offences Act 2003

3. Omission
Direct liability: omission = AR as defined by statute
e.g. where a person believes another has committed an offence (of terrorism) and
the person commits an offence if he does not disclose to a constable as soon as
reasonable practical a) his belief// b) the info on which it is based: s19 terrorism act

Derivative Liability: Omission = AR

 If courts construe crime as capable of being committed by omission and
 If there was a duty to act and
 There was a breach of the duty

Ashworth, A. ‘The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions’ (1989) 105 LQR 424
Williams, G. ‘Criminal Omissions – The Conventional View’ (1991) 107 LQR 88
Monaghan: Criminal Law, Directions - Conventional View vs Social Responsibility

Distinguish between:

Direct liability: Crimes defined as omissions

and

Derivative liability: Crimes that can be committed by act or omission.

- Not all crimes can be committed by omission

- Liability only arises for a failure to act if D was under a duty to act
Case where child went into water quarry and child couldn’t swim drowning. 2
community support officers saw n didn’t go in to save kid. Called for help proper
police to deal w situation. Meantime kid died. – unless there is a duty imposed upon
u u have a moral duty but no duty to rescue even if it is easy to do so. Police officer
might have a statutory duty or public duty. h/e if its ur child then u do bc parental
resp.

Debate should be in answer. = COULD SAY JUDGEMENT IS WRONG, MAY BE

DISTINGUISHED IN A DIFF CASE. DIFF RESULTS. Cases sometimes contradicts.
Go with precedent.

Derivative liability and the duty to act: - TEXTBOOKS

 Contract: Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37, Instan [1893] 1 QB 450 – resp to look
after crossing, didn’t put down train came through and hit someone. Breach of
contract. Duty through contract to ensure gate down.
 Statute: Lowe [1973] QB 702 – wasn’t feed or watering child they died.
 Public duty: Dytham (1979) 69 Cr App R 387 – PO queue nightclub bouncer
beating up rowdy guests PO didn’t intervene. Q was? Should he? Was PO
resp for death? Bc he could’ve stepped in and stopped. – contradicts child
case?
 Relationship: Instan [1893] 1 QB 450, Gibbins v Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R
134, Stone & Dobinson [1977] QB 354; Ruffel [2003] EWCA Crim, 122
o Stone – teen girl had anorexia and couple took her in but one of them
had disabilities. Both had low intelligence and failed to prevent her from
dying bc they didn’t look after her properly. Courts imposed objectively
a duty on them bc they had assumed responsibility. No lower standard
for d’s even tho dumb dumb.
o Ruffel – drug addicts. Someone injecting themselves in ur care and u
fail to call medical help when knowing she was having overdose. Do u
assume resp toward drug addict? Scared of being caught bc supplied
drugs. Even tho supplied she self injected. Court said special
relationship and assumed resp.
 Voluntary Assumption: Stone & Dobinson [1977] QB 354 (also ruffel)
 Creation of Danger: Miller [1982] QB 532; Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650;
Lewin v CPS [2002] EWHC 1049 Admin
o Miller – took too many drugs and was smoking in bed and ended up
setting fire to bedding in his room. Realised but bc he was off his head
on drugs he didn’t react. N walked away. Fire spread and caused
criminal damage and risk of life to others. Have u got duty through
failure to act? Ignoring the danger. Bc u created danger he was aware
he had a duty to avert it. Failure to put out fire creates duty. Problem:
have u got actus reus & mens rea at the same time? Ur not intending
to cause harm initially. Could argue no mens rea damage caused but
ur not thinking about that.
o Evans – guy left someone outside been taking drugs together and one
of the one who took too much collapsed. Tried to help but couldn’t. left
him outside went upstairs. Guy dies of hyperthermia. Held u created
danger, aware of it. Duty to avert the danger.
 o Lewin – contradictory, someone left someone in car, dehydrated in
heat. Not as obvious danger though. No doc.
 Miller principle: if u created danger u have duty to avert it.

Discharge from the duty

Airedale v Bland [1993] A.C. 789

Man in hillsbourough disaster crushed, went hspital and put on life support machine,
vegetable state. Been on machine years Q : do u turn off machine ? positive act to
end his life ? or are u failing to keep him alive ? difficult moral and legal case. Courts
held was no positive act. More of an omission. But no criminal liability bc it was
agreed by parties involved. In mans best interest.

NHS Trust & Others v Y & Another [2018] UKSC 46

Courts said if everyone in agreement, fam + those making decisions on behalf of
person. They dont have to seek court order.

QUESTIONS
How easy is it to classify conduct as either an act or an omission?
What are the consequences of the classification?
Can these be justified?

Compare the facts and decisions of the following cases:

Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439: D accidentally drove onto V’s foot. When D
became aware of the situation, he did nothing to remove the car from the foot.
Police officer stopping him for being involved in potential offence. Reversed onto
officer’s foot, when he was aware he didn’t drive off but stayed on till bad
damage. Court said continuing act.

Miller [1982] QB 532 AND [1983] 1 All ER 978 : D accidentally set fire to a
mattress. Realising what had happened he did nothing to put the fire out.

Which of the above approaches best explains the following decision?

DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908 (Admin)

D assured a policewoman, who was about to search him, that he had no
hypodermic needles in his possession. As she searched him, the police officer
was injured by a needle in D’s pocket. – miller principle – created the danger,
failed to tell someone. Omission.
4. Other event or state of affairs
Just being there. Being on highway will make u resp.

Winzar v CC of Kent [1983] The Times, March 28

And see Larsonneur [1933] 24 Cr App Rep 74

5. Specified circumstances
THEFT - dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to
permanently deprive. (dishonestly)

S1. Theft act 2968

Battery
Intentionally or reckless inflicting unlawful force on another person without
their consent.
Inflicting unlaw force – AR
Without their consent, circumstances – RESULT/CIRCUMSTANCE CRIME
Intentionally or reckless - MR
MUST LINK MR TO RELEVANT AR.

6. Specified consequences
s47 OAPA - assault occasioning actual bodily harm

Note the distinction between result and conduct crimes

Note the importance of causation

- In fact (the ‘but-for’ test see White 1910 below)
- In law (the ‘substantial and operating’ test)

Think point: When is the chain of causation broken?

-What if the victim’s response to the defendant’s action is extreme or the

victim is particularly vunerable?

- What if the actions of the defendant are not the sole cause of harm to the
victim?

We will return to these questions in relation to non-fatal offences against the

person but they are relevant to all crimes.

7
 QUESTIONS
1. Can you identify/highlight the actus reus and mens rea of the following and split
the actus reus into conduct and each circumstance and consequence where
appropriate?

MURDER: conduct causing the death of a human being under the Queen’s
peace with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm

AR: DEATH
MR: don’t have to intend to cause death only GBH.

Think point: Do the actus reus and mens rea correspond here? Does that matter?

CRIMINAL intentionally or recklessly damaging property belonging to another

DAMAGE:

AR: Damage to property belonging to another

MR: intent or recklessness

AGGRAVATED
CRIMINAL DAMAGE: A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages
any property, whether belonging to himself or another—

(a)intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether

any property would be destroyed or damaged; and
(b)intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or
being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered;

shall be guilty of an offence.

(3)An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property

by fire shall be charged as arson.

AR: damage property belonging to another or own property

Only need MR for a&b.

2. Why is it important to identify the constituent elements of an actus reus?

 Missing elements: White [1910] 2 K.B. 124

8
 Poison mother by putting something in tea. She died of heart attack.
Missing AR. But still MR.
 Linking the fault element to the actus reus elements