(eBook PDF) Complete Criminal Law:

Text, Cases and Materials 7th Edition

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-complete-criminal-law-text-cases-and-ma
terials-7th-edition/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

(eBook PDF) Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials

9th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-criminal-law-text-cases-
and-materials-9th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Land Law: Text, Cases & Materials (Text,

Cases, and Materials) 4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-land-law-text-cases-
materials-text-cases-and-materials-4th-edition/

(eBook PDF) EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials 7th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-eu-law-text-cases-and-
materials-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Smith, Hogan, & Ormerod's Text, Cases, &

Materials on Criminal Law 13th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-smith-hogan-ormerods-
text-cases-materials-on-criminal-law-13th-edition/
(eBook PDF) Jones & Sufrin's EU Competition Law: Text,
Cases, and Materials 7th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-jones-sufrins-eu-
competition-law-text-cases-and-materials-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Medical Law: Text, Cases, and Materials 5th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-medical-law-text-cases-
and-materials-5th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials 4th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-public-law-text-cases-
and-materials-4th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials

9th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-contract-law-text-cases-
and-materials-9th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Commercial Law: Text, Cases, and Materials

4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-commercial-law-text-
cases-and-materials-4th-edition/
Preface
This book offers you a fascinating insight into the world of criminal law, a world with which you may
already be familiar. Crime thrillers, films or novels can tell us a good deal about criminal minds and
detective work. Television dramas may follow the day-to-day lives of busy barristers and solicitors.
Some real-life criminal trials have been televised and investigations have been undertaken into how
juries work. Rarely a day passes without a criminal news story, whether international, national or
local. Crime is always in the public domain. But the detail of the criminal law itself receives little
attention. Strangely, despite our familiarity with the world of criminal justice, the law itself can be a
mystery.
In this book you will find the law clearly explained, so that you can get to know what lies be-
hind the news, novels and dramas. You’ll be amazed at the diverse ways people find to break the
law, and the arguments they use to defend themselves. During your studies, you will discover
the principles and structure of criminal law, what you have to do to commit a crime, with what
state of mind, and when you might be entitled to a defence. You will also be guided on how to
apply the law to typical criminal law questions so that you can be ready for that final assessment
which comes around all too soon.
The book takes the form of most criminal law courses: fundamental principles such as the
conduct and mental element (known as actus reus and mens rea) followed by defences and then
the major offences. One diversion occurs in that homicide is placed in the middle of fundamen-
tal principles so that at an early stage you can understand this important offence which is the
focus of so many of the central principles of criminal liability. The law is explained on a step-by-
step basis so that by the end of each chapter you will have fully understood the structure and law
of each topic. This gradual progression is achieved through:
■ Clear and straightforward narrative
■ Explanation of all legal concepts
■ Extracts from leading cases and a selection of academic articles
■ Point-by-point explanation of judgments in the ‘note’ section
■ Explanation and straightforward questions on academic articles where relevant
■ Development of case analysis in the text
■ Examples of complex legal points
■ Diagrams
■ Summaries of the law
■ Explanation and regular updating of the law on the accompanying website.

Without further explanation, the book would appear to be a rather remote mass of informa-
tion interspersed with many curious cases. But criminal law is relevant to all of our lives in many
different ways. Therefore, discussion of the context in which the law operates is a special feature
of the book. Law does not exist in isolation from you or your social, moral, economic, historical
or political environment. Rather, it is a product of them. By relating underlying legal principles
to the world in which we live you will acquire a deeper understanding of the reason for law being
the way it is.
A significant part of the study of any law is to be able to step back and ask whether it is logical
or is fit for its intended purpose. The criminal law is no different. Does this case or that principle
viii Preface

make sense? Is it consistent with developments in that or other areas? Consideration of academic
opinion and reform proposals published by the Law Commission can be particularly helpful
in this respect. Being alive to relevant contradictions and adopting a critical and questioning
attitude to your studies will foster greater interest and depth of understanding. If you follow the
guidance offered in these pages, there is no reason why criminal law should be as daunting and
formidable as it is to those who find themselves caught up in the criminal justice system!
You will find new cases referred to in this edition as well as some new extracts from academic
books and journals. As always, several aspects of the book have been thoroughly revised.
We have enjoyed writing our second edition as joint authors. Janet, our much-missed friend
and colleague, sadly passed away in 2016. Her practical and contextual approach to teaching
criminal law was well known to her colleagues and students and we are sure it will be appreciated
by readers of this book. We are proud to follow in her footsteps and have tried to preserve her
original approach as far as possible.
Our special thanks to our editor, Jessica Lehmani, and to the whole OUP production team
who have made working on this seventh edition such a pleasure. Responsibility for all errors and
omissions are ours alone.
We hope you enjoy your study of criminal law and bear it in mind for your future careers. As
criminal offences continue to grow in number and complexity, never has there been such a need
for good criminal lawyers who, incidentally, are never likely to be short of work.
The law is correct as at November 2019.

Caroline Derry and Mischa Allen

New to this edition
Adebolajo and Another [2014] All ER (D) 37 (Dec) (Queen’s Peace)
BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560 (offences against the person: consent)
Bowditch 2017, unreported (duty of care in omissions liability)
Cheeseman [2019] EWCA Crim 149; Wilkinson [2018] EWCA Crim 2154 (self-defence)
D [2019] EWCA Crim 209 (fraud—duty to disclose)
Darroux [2018] EWCA Crim 2009; R v Gimbert [2019] Crim LR 258-260 (appropriation and
property in theft); DPP v Patterson [2017] EWHC 2820 (Admin) and Hayes [2018] EWCA Crim
1944 Cr App R 10 (dishonesty in theft)
R v Eletu and R v White [2018] EWCA Crim 599 (aggravated burglary)
Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd v CPS [2018] EWHC 3122; Lane and Letts [2018] UKSC 36
(Admin) (strict liability)
Loake v Crown Prosecution Service [2017] EWHC 2855 (insanity)
MK v R and Gega v R [2018] EWCA Crim 667 (modern slavery: compulsion)
Offensive Weapons Act 2019 (corrosive substances offences)
Petgrave [2018] EWCA Crim 1397 (duress of circumstances)
Pogmore (Nigel) [2017] EWCA Crim 925 (blackmail)
R (on the application of ‘Monica’) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] EWHC 3469 (QB)
(sexual offences: consent)
Taj [2018] EWCA Crim 1743 (intoxicated mistake and self-defence)
Wallace (Berlinah) [2018] EWCA Crim 690 (causation)
Serious Crime Act 2015 (coercive control)
Tas [2018] EWCA Crim 2603; Crilly [2018] EWCA Crim 168; Dreszer [2018] EWCA Crim 454;
Harper [2019] EWCA Crim 343 (secondary liability)
Voyeurism Offences Act 2019 (upskirting)
 This section will help you to understand the true extent of criminal offences committed and the
ways in which certain groups of people such as ethnic minorities and women are treated by the
criminal justice system.

INTRODUCTION

Guide to using the book

This chapter provides an overview of the criminal justice system, and considers the practical and procedural context in which
it operates. It discusses key theoretical views underpinning the criminal law, and challenges to these views. Finally, it assess-
es approaches to criminality and punishment.

Complete Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials includes a number of different features that have been carefully
designed to enrich your learning and help you along as you develop your understanding of criminal law.
1.1 What is Crime?
1.1.1 Traditional Theory: Harm to Others
1.1.2 Harm to Oneself
1.1.3 Politicisation
1.1.4 Contemporary Theories of Criminal Law
1.1.5 The Need for Minimal Criminalisation—Are There Too Many Crimes?
1.1.6 Punishment

KEY CASES Key cases Helpful lists of the really key cases at the begin-
DPP v Woolmington [1935] AC 462—the burden of proof is on the prosecution. ning of each topic highlight those extracts that you should pay
special
Any criminal law textbook will explain the principles and structure of criminal law attention to.
and examine
the major offences. This book is no different. We hope, though, that by relating the law to its
broader context wherever possible, you will understand how the law ‘lives and breathes’ and that
it is not an abstract concept.
Some of the questions thrown up by the case law in these pages concern matters which might
affect any of us. For example, do you commit a crime by failing to rescue a stranger in danger?
Should you? Is it a crime to exaggerate your qualifications when seeking employment? Do you
commit a crime by lying to obtain your partner’s consent to sex? What if you conceal the fact
that you have HIV? Can you steal something that has been lawfully given to you? When will
medical accidents result in manslaughter? Will you be guilty of murder if you are in a group fight
and someone suddenly kills? If you are in a gun-fight (we sincerely hope you never will be), and
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND THE BURDEN WHATOF PROOF
IS CRIME? 13
7
your opponent kills a passer-by, will you be convicted of murder? Do you commit a crime by
consensually branding your partner’s bottom with your initials and infection sets in? (This is an
actual case, not
LCour
THINKING
Lord Sankey imagination!)
in thePOINT
House 1.1
Thinking points Why was a certain decision reached in
You may think you would never end up at the wrong end of
of Lords:
a particular case? Is D guilty of murder or manslaughter in
the criminal law but look at the following cases which have occurred in recent years.
If at any period of a trial it was permissible for the judge to rule that the prosecution had established
Do
■itsyou
Acasethink
schoolboythethe
and that lawonus
agedshould
14was be
sent aconcerned
naked
shifted withofwhat
image
on the prisoner we do
himself,
to prove with
taken
that our
hein
washisown bodies
bedroom,
not guilty, andor with
tothat,
a girl at the following examples? Regular thinking points throughout
whom?
unless he discharged
school by mobilethat onus, theShe
telephone. prosecution
saved itwas
on entitled to succeed,
her mobile it would
and sent it onbetoenabling the The
her friends.
judge
Should
in such
offence
the law ofamaking
case to say
prohibitand
thatdistributing
the jury mustainself-generated
self-harm?
law find the prisonerexplicitguiltyimage the text encourage you to pause and reflect on the key issues.
and sosent
make tothe judge
other people
decide the case and not the jury, which is not the common law. It would be an entirely different case
Shouldover
from those
the internet
law exceptional was
play a role instances then recorded
in the enforcement against him
of morality?
of special verdicts
by the police ­Guidance on answering each one of these questions can be
(contrary to
where a judge asks the jury to find certain facts
s1 Protection
of Children Act 1978 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988). It was not well-known that this
and directs
What
was an
of such
them that
is the point
offence.
special
of an onunenforceable
such facts the prosecution
law?
(www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34136388,
verdicts shows that it is not till the end of the evidence 3 September found in the online resources.
is entitled to succeed. Indeed, a consideration
2015). can properly
that a verdict
WHAT IS CRIME? 5
Isbe
it morally right to disobey laws which infringe
found and that at the end of the evidence it is not for the our privacy?
prisoner to establish his innocence, but
one has to ask whether it is essential that regulatory standards be enforced by the criminal law
for the prosecution to establish his guilt. Just as there is evidence on behalf of the prosecution so
as opposed to civil law orders, injunctions and awards of compensation. This is particularly so in
there may be evidence on behalf of the prisoner which may cause a doubt as to his guilt. In either
view case,
of J.S.heMill’s requirement
is entitled to the benefit thatofharm needs
the doubt. Buttowhile
be serious before criminal
the prosecution must prove sanctions
the guilt ofshould
the be
imposed.
prisoner,
The theories However,
there
of criminalthesuch
is no notion
lawburden thatlaid
discussed regulatory
on
inthe offences
prisoner
1.1.4 seek to are not
toprove ‘real that
his innocence,
demonstrate crimes’andsometimes
harm it is
issufficient
a socially,involves
formor-
aally
value-laden
him to raisejudgement:
and politically a doubt as to his guilt; he is not bound to satisfy the jury of his innocence . . .
relative concept.
Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen –that it is the
duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence
EXAMPLEand subject Examples Short, fictional examples of how the law would be
1.1.4 Contemporary Theories of Criminal Law
of insanity 1.1 also to any statutory exception. 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 prisoner, as to
whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out applied in certain situations illustrate the practical application
Feminist
You
the might
critique
case andassume thatisan employer who pays her cleaner in charge
cash to or avoid paying £50
VAT, a critique
white-collar
the prisoner
crime,
entitled
should
to an acquittal. No matter what the
of what you are learning.
where the trial, the
principle
Feminist that theofprosecution
the criminal lawbehas
must prove able
the toofget
guilt
focused theonawaythewith
prisoner it.
is part
fact ofBut
that the few
common
the would
cultural,law doubt
of England
historical thatand
and no
the arena
cleanerattempt to whittle it down can be entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown
moral in who
which steals
law £50 fromisher
operates employer
male. The law’s should be prosecuted
underlying values and in court. Do you are
assumptions
must prove
agree? Why?and (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) malice of the accused. It
therefore male are not gender-neutral or pluralistic. It is in the realm of violence and defenc-
may prove malice either expressly or by implication. For malice may be implied where death occurs
es that
as we
the see
resultthisof most acutely.
a voluntary actK.of O’Donovan,
the accused which ‘Defences for Battered
is (i) intentional andWomen Who Kill’
(ii) unprovoked. When, (1991)
18 Journal
evidence of ofLaw & Society
death and malice 219: has been given (this is a question for the jury) the accused is entitled
Moralism
to show by evidence or by examination of the circumstances adduced by the Crown that the act
Violence and fear have a relationship to gender. When these matters come to court other cultural
on his part which caused death was either unintentional or provoked. If the jury are either satisfied
factors
Should withtheenter in through
his criminal
explanation law the
or, law. aDefinitions
control
upon individual
review of defences
of all morality?
the areItinformed
evidence, is true
are byreasonable
left into the
say past
thathistory
doubtof
mainstream homicide
whether, moral
andeven
attitudes its are
character
generally
if his as primarily
explanation upheld be not a male
by act. There
the law.
accepted, The
the gender
actis was aspects
a view, are rarely
however,
unintentional that
or articulated.
the courts
provoked, theLaws
shouldare retain
prisoner made
is a CROSS-REFERENCE
by entitled
residualjudges
powerand
to be legislators
to control moral
acquitted. who
Appeal are mainly
issues by drawn
allowed. the fromadded.]
criminal
[Emphasis one
law,gender
physicalandharm whoseorexperience
not. Moralism is limited.
there- For a discussion of the
When
fore womenthe
challenges do kill after experiencing
limitations of the harm violence they enter
principle. Both an alien culture
approaches arewhich
apparentlacksinanrelation
under- to defence of consent see
thestanding
defenceofofthe contextconcerning
consent of their act. violent
They encounter
offences.legal categories that do not accommodate their Chapter 10, 10.6.
behaviour
The and are
moralistic ‘tried and
approach is sentenced by courts
more explicitly that ignore
applied to theorcommon
misunderstand their actions
law offence and
of outraging
NOTE
motivations’ . 1.1
public decency. But the courts’ role as custodians of public morality was less disguised 30 or so
Notes Figuring out exactly what the significance of a long
years
Until ago. Conspiracy
relatively recently, to many
corrupt public were
defences morals and on
based conspiracy to outrage man’
what a ‘reasonable publiccase
decency
might report That or judgment is can be tricky. These short bullet-
do. were
judicially created
1. Thehasstandard offences
of proof inonthethe
1970s
the to criminalise
to prosecution and censure
is to‘person’
prove guilt publications
but, ‘beyond all see, concerning
reasonable isdoubt’ pros-
. CROSS-REFERENCE
language
titution (Shaw
sometimes
v DPP
yielded reasonable as we shall
v DPP [1973] point
there stillsections
some follow the longer extracts in the book, and pull
way toIngo other
to say that it[1962]
words, the HL AC 220)
magistrates
comprehensively andmust
or jury homosexuality
includes be sure
the (Knuller
of the
reasonable defendant’s
woman. guilt. AC 435) at a Article 7 ECHR on retro-
time2. when
You The neither
maydefendant
remember activity
the was
does not against
have
appointment theoflaw.
to prove This
innocence
Lady would
Justice andnow be contrary
is entitled
Hale, then thetoonly outjudge
tofemale
Article
a presumption 7 the
ECHR
of inin-keyon points
the spectivity is that
discussedyou need to take from your reading of
the grounds
nocence of retrospectivity.
until proven ButIn
guilty. the moralistic
other words, approach
the continues
defendant hasin to
the be2017.
evident,
benefit ofShe
theparticularly
repeat- in 1.6. See 1.1.2 for
doubt.
Supreme
in relation
Court,
to
as the
harm
first woman
cases involving
President
self-harm.
of the
One
Supreme
might
Court
put the
July
example of the
the extract.
has
14-year-old harm cases involving
edly emphasised the need for greater diversity in the judiciary (www.bbc.co.uk):
sexting schoolboy described at the beginning into this category. self-harm.
I do not think I am alone in thinking that diversity of many kinds on the bench is important for a great
Flowing from the presumption of innocence are several other important constitutional protec-
many reasons, but most of all because in a democracy which values everyone equally, and not just the
The
tions Wolfenden
for the defendant: Committee Report
the right to silence onprivilege
and the Prostitution
against self-incrimination. These are
privileged and the powerful, it is important that their rights and responsibilities should be decided by
and
now Homosexual
protected by ArticleOffences
6(2) ECHR1957 which embodies fundamental fair trial rights.
a judiciary which is more reflective of the society as a whole, and not just a very small section of it.
The right to silence implies that the accused does not need to assist the state to prove its case. It
Shaw
has
While onlyKnuller
and
symbolic 32 perfollowed
cent ofinacourt
significance major review
confirming
judges inofpresumption
the prostitution
England and ofand homosexuality
innocence
Wales by the
and placing
are women, that theWolfenden
riseslegal bur-
to about
Committee
den
half of
of proof which
on the
all judges took the
theview
prosecution.
under that
50;thebut
It defines
age of criminal
the 7 law
per had
balance
only centno
betweenarerole
theinstate
from the enforcement
and
a black the ofminori-
moral-
individual
or ethnic and
ity.
is Its function
ty abackground was
vital protection to maintain
for protecting
(Ministry public
of Justice, order
theJudicial
innocent,and decency,
especially
Diversity to protect
suspects
Statistics 2019,whothe public from what
are vulnerable because
https://www.judiciary.uk/was
offensive
of or injurious and to protect the vulnerable from exploitation. But given the
age, mental disorder or learning disability. It was qualified by s34 Criminal Justice and Public
publications/judicial-diversity-statistics-2019-2/). vagueness
of what qualifies as indecent, offensive, injurious, or even exploitation, it is little surprise that this
 differences
common in Crown Court
characteristic and nosentencing
common in the Midlands
function. are the
Grouping typical. The overrepresentation
doctrines of black
as actus reus or as mens rea
people
is in prison
problematic is explained
because in the
it obscures thefollowing way: 70
fact that there areper cent ofdoctrines
different the differential
at workresulted from black
and it misleadingly
overrepresentation
suggests among persons
that the doctrines appearingcharacteristic
share a common for sentenceor. . function.
.; 10 per cent was attributable to offence
seriousness and criminal history . . .; 13 per cent was attributable to case processing differences . . .;
Despite theoretical criticisms, the AR/MR distinction has practical advantages, and continues to
GUIDE TO USING THE BOOK xi
and 7 per cent was not explained.
be a useful tool for analysis of criminal liability.
In 2017, the Lammy Review, commissioned in 2016 by Prime Minister David Cameron and
84 CHAPTER 2 ledREUS:
ACTUS by David Lammy MP,
ACTS, OMISSIONS ANDconcluded
CAUSATION that BAME defendants were disproportionately likely to
SECTION SUMMARY
receive prison sentences for drug offences, even when other factors were taken Section summaries Short summaries appear throughout
into account;
while
A
■ Theyouth
crime AR offending
must
consists be and reoffending
of proved.
AR (conduct) overall has decreased in the last decade,the
and MR (blameworthiness/fault). book of
the numbers at the end of key sections to reinforce your
BAME
■ ItAR
mustoffenders
be has increased;
MRvoluntary willed.byand
ordefined themany
crime.BAME defendants lacked trust in the court and prison
■
systems
■
■ ItThe
and are always
(www.gov.uk/government/publications/lammy-review-final-report).
canARinclude
must bea mental element.
voluntary or willed.
k
­ nowledge. You should use these to reflect on what you
■ ItYou
■ cancannot
consistbeofconvicted
a state ofofaffairs:
a crimestatus
merely for having guilty thoughts.
offences. have just learnt.
■ ItThe
■ canARbemust be proved.
negated by some defences.
1.8 Conclusion
■ It can include a mental element.
Omissions
■ It can consist of a state of affairs: status offences.
■WeIthave
Omissions
can beexamined
liability
negated thesome
social,
concerns
by the moral and political
commission
defences. of the ARinfluences on through
of an offence the decision
failingtotocriminalise, and
act where there
isthe reality
a duty of crime
to act. Dutiesincan
England and Wales
arise through today.
statute Throughout
(failure this
to act) or in book
five we will
common lawtouch upon these
duty situations:
issues as we consider the rules and principles underlying the criminal law of England and Wales.
■ assumption of responsibility;
■ close/special relationship;
■ creation of a dangerous situation;
■ withdrawal of medical treatment where there is a continuing obligation to preserve life;
■ contract, statute or official position.
SUMMARY Chapter summaries Each chapter ends with a concise sum-
Causation
■ The reasons for criminalising conduct.
Causation is the name given to the search for the legal cause of a result where there is more than one
mary allowing you to check your understanding and return to
■ The standard and burden of proof in criminal proceedings.
potential cause. any areas that aren’t yet completely clear.
■ The exceptions to the prosecution bearing the burden of proof.
■ Factual causation: but for D’s act the result would not have happened.
■ The classification of crimes and the criminal court structure.
■ Legal causation: the chain of causation will be broken by a novus actus interveniens which must be
■ The sources of the criminal law.
voluntary: free, deliberate and informed, that is: self-injection with drugs leading to death.
■ The four theories of punishment.
■ An intervening act will not break the chain where it is performed:
■ Crime in England and Wales Today. FURTHER READING 85
in self-preservation or in the course of duty;
in pollution cases unless it is extraordinary;
in medical cases where D’s actVisjumps
substantial and operating;
Doctor
by V in pursuance of even an unforeseeable abnormality—take your victim as you find her;
by V’s reasonably foreseeable, but not unreasonable or daft, escape from danger.
D V’s death

Diagram
PROBLEM2.5SOLVING Problem solving The questions at the end of each chapter
Causation answer diagram
1. D is driving his 15-year-old daughter, A, to school. As D approaches the school crossing A, who provide the ideal opportunity for you to test your understand-
loves to make her father laugh, suddenly tickles D under his arm. He loses control of the steering
Remember:
wheel and the car rolls on to the foot of the lollipop man. D dislikes the man and leaves the car ing of a topic. They challenge you to apply your knowledge—
■ I:there
Issue—identify
for a couplethe relevant whilst
of minutes issue(s)he scolds A.
either by preparing a full answer to a question, or by debating
2. R:
■ Rule—explain
The following week,
the D’s wife gives birth to a baby. It is severely mentally and physically disabled,
rule(s)
■ A: requiring 24-hour care.the
Application—apply Thelaw
babyto becomes
the facts critically ill. After several days the baby’s heart stopsthe issues with your fellow students. Again, guidance on how to
■ C: beating. The doctors do not resuscitate and withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration on the
Conclusion
basis that the baby is never going to recover.
approach these questions can be found in the online resources.
It is important to realise that there is no single correct answer. The point of any problem question is to
3. That night A threatens V, her unusually nervous 9-year-old brother, by breaking into his room and
allow you to explore the legal and factual issues developing an ability to formulate different arguments
shouting. V jumps out of an upper window and breaks his arm. He is taken to hospital where a
leading to a particular conclusion. Remember, however, that your conclusion on guilt is less important
junior doctor fails to detect the complexity of the break. The arm is not set properly. It fails to heal
than your explanation, and your detailed application of the law to the facts.
and V dies from an infection.
See the online
Discuss resources
the criminal for further
liability of D, theguidance on solving
doctors and A for thethis problem:
harm www.oup.com/he/loveless7e.
in each scenario.
A useful technique for answering questions involving causation (ie: 3) is to draw a chain of causation
marked with potential interventions (see Diagram 2.5):
FURTHER READING Further reading These suggestions for additional reading
Actus reus have been carefully selected to highlight key areas and to help
A. Lynch, ‘The Mental Element in the Actus Reus’ (1982) 98 LQR 127 deepen your knowledge of the subject.
Discusses whether the conduct element of a crime also contains by implication a mental element.

Omissions
A. Ashworth, ‘A New Generation of Omissions Offences’ [2018] 5 Crim LR 354–64
Considers the expansion of criminalisation to include ‘preventive’ criminal responsibility in the context of a ‘new generation’ of
omissions liability.
A. Ashworth, ‘Manslaughter by Omission and the Rule of Law’ [2015] Crim LR 563
Considers the extent to which the law should impose criminal liability on people failing to assist a friend or a member of their
family where the result is death
A. Ashworth, ‘Positive Duties, Regulation and the Criminal Sanction’ (2017) 133 LQR 606–30
Considers existing duties to act under the criminal law especially crime prevention.
C. Crosby, ‘Gross Negligence Manslaughter by Omission’ (2018) 82(2) JCL 127–37
Considers the basis for the duty of care and criminal liability established in the recent unreported case of R v Bowditch and argues
that there is a lack of clarity in the law.
C. Elliott, ‘Liability for Manslaughter by Omission: Don’t Let the Baby Drown’ (2010) 74(2) JCL
163–79
Considers the potential confusion between a duty to act and a duty of care in this area of law and argues that the law should
follow the approach in R v Adomako.
B. Hogan, ‘Omissions and the Duty Myth’, in P. Smith (ed.) Criminal Law: Essays in Honour of J.C.
Smith, Butterworths, 1968
Argues that the act/omissions distinction is unhelpful and that liability for omissions should instead be based on causation.
28
Guide to the online resources
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Essay questions
Examinations tend to include a mix of essay and problem questions. An essay question will ask you to
examine/analyse/compare and contrast a particular area/s of law in depth rather than to advise on a

The online resources that accompany this book provide students and lecturers with ready-to-use teaching and learn-
particular set of facts. Here you would be required to engage in a far more detailed examination of a
narrower area of law than with a problem question. Usually the area of law will be controversial or at

ing material. They are free of charge, and are designed to complement the book and maximise the teaching and
least the subject of debate. Again, you should support your answers with cases and statutory defini-
tions. Greater reference to academic articles would be expected. You may need to compare different
points of view and you will need to offer your own critical analysis.
learning experience.
FURTHER READING

Crime in England and Wales (for statistics and research): www.ons.gov.uk.

A. Ashworth, ‘A Decade of Human Rights in Criminal Justice’ [2014] 5 Crim LR 325 Regular updates The authors regularly update this section
Considers the impact of the ECHR and Human Rights Act 1988 on criminal law.
F. Gerry and L. Harris,COMPLETE
Women in prison: is the justice system fit for purpose? (2016) of the site to account for recent cases and developments in
criminal law that have occurred since publication of the book.
www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
CRIMINAL LAW
Brings together the most recent research and makes recommendations for improvement.
D. Husak, ‘The Criminal Law as Last Resort’ (2004) 24 OJLS 207
TEXT, CASES, AND MATERIALS
Takes a critical look at increasing criminalisation and asks if it should be a last resort. These updates are accompanied by page references to the
G. Lamond, ‘What Is a Crime?’ (2007) 27 OJLS 609
Considers what distinguishes criminal liability from civil liability and considers crimes as public wrongs. textbook, so you can easily see how the new developments
C.C. Murphy, ‘The Principle of Legality in Criminal Law under the European Convention on Human
Rights’ (2010) 2 EHRLR 192
relate to the existing law.
Discusses case law on Article 7 ECHR (the right to certainty in criminal law and the prohibition of retrospective application).

WEBSITES Web links Links to useful websites enable you to instantly

look at reliable sources of online information, and efficiently
www.parliament.uk—Bills and Hansard
www.lawcom.gov.uk—Law Commission publications
www.police.uk—news and information on crime and policing
direct your online study.
www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights—general information regarding police powers
www.ons.gov.uk—criminal justice statistics
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice—website of the Ministry of Justice with
gateways to legislation, reports, research, statistics and data
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk—for sentencing guidelines
www.cps.gov.uk—Code for Crown Prosecutors and legal guidance on prosecutions.

PROBLEM qUESTIONS 27

How to answer examination questions

At the end of each chapter of this book is an examination-style question for you to attempt before Guidance on answering the problem questions and
looking at the answer outline on the online resources: www.oup.com/he/loveless7e
thinking points Here is where you can find guidance on
PROBLEM QUESTIONS

A useful tool to bear in mind when structuring your answer to problem questions is the following:
how to correctly answer all the thinking points and problem
■ I: Issue—identify the relevant issue(s)
■ R: Rule—explain the rule(s) questions posed throughout the book.
■ A: Application—apply the law to the facts
■ C: Conclusion

Identify the relevant issues PROBLEM qUESTIONS 27

This means that you will need to work out in general terms what area(s) of criminal law the question
How to answer examination questions
is about. You will need to identify which criminal offences arise in the question in relation to each de-
At the end of each chapter of this book is an examination-style question for you to attempt before
fendant. It is best to deal with each defendant separately. You then need to break this down into the
looking at the answer outline on the online resources: www.oup.com/he/loveless7e
actus reus (AR) and mens rea (MR) of each offence, and the elements of any defence which applies.
Most issues arising in a problem question will concern a particular area of the AR (eg causation) or MR
(intention).
PROBLEMThe facts of a problem question will rarely fall squarely into a particular decided case or
QUESTIONS
legal rule so you will need to consider a range of cases or rules to answer the question adequately and
A useful tool to bear in mind when structuring your answer to problem questions is the following:
Exam-style questions and guidance Revise for exams and
highlight these at the outset for further discussion. You will probably find it helpful to deal with each
■ I: Issue—identify
element—AR, the relevant issue(s)
MR, defences—in
■ R: Rule—explain the rule(s)
turn, using the IRAC structure to discuss each one.
test your knowledge by answering these exam-style questions.
Explain the rule(s)
■ A: Application—apply

Accompanying guidance helps you to assess how you did.

the law to the facts
Having identified the issues, you will need to set out the legal definitions or main elements of all rel-
■ C: Conclusion
evant offences/defences. These come from the common law or statute which defines the offence. No
Identify the relevant issues
prosecution lawyer would go into court without first knowing what offence he had to prove; nor would
This means that you will need to work out in general terms what area(s) of criminal law the question
a defence lawyer be much good without knowing the elements of his client’s defence. Defences should
is about. You will need to identify which criminal offences arise in the question in relation to each de-
generally be explained once the main offence has been explained. Sometimes the rules are uncertain
fendant. It is best to deal with each defendant separately. You then need to break this down into the
because there are conflicting cases. You can include academic articles here or other discussion to en-
actus reus (AR) and mens rea (MR) of each offence, and the elements of any defence which applies.
hance your arising
Most issues answerinora problem
to support a particular
question point aofparticular
will concern view. Doarea
not of
concentrate on the facts
the AR (eg causation) or of
MRcases, but
rather the legal
(intention). pointofwhich
The facts a case
a problem makeswill
question (therarely
ratiofall
decidendi).
squarely into a particular decided case or
legal rule so you will need to consider a range of cases or rules to answer the question adequately and
Apply the
highlight lawatto
these the
the facts
outset for further discussion. You will probably find it helpful to deal with each
element—AR,
Once you have MR, defences—in
fully explainedturn, using
the law the IRAC
relating tostructure to discuss
each issue, each one.
you should then apply the law to the facts
of the question. This involves identifying the key parts of the authority (the ratio of the case or the stat-
Explain the rule(s)
utory provision) and explaining why it is relevant, bearing in mind the facts of the problem. It is best
Having identified the issues, you will need to set out the legal definitions or main elements of all rel-
to deal with each defendant separately. You will need to bear in mind that there is not one single right
evant offences/defences. These come from the common law or statute which defines the offence. No
answer. The questions are not designed to enable you to say, ‘Of course, D is guilty because this case
prosecution lawyer would go into court without first knowing what offence he had to prove; nor would
says so!’ They
a defence arebenever
lawyer muchthat
goodclear-cut. You willthe
without knowing need to examine
elements the law
of his client’s and then
defence. argue
Defences for or against
should
Test bank Containing 150 multiple-choice questions with
answers and feedback, this is the perfect resource to test your
guilt or innocence
generally in the
be explained light
once theof your
main preceding
offence discussion.
has been explained.A clear and authoritative
Sometimes the rules are explanation
uncertain of the
law and there
because a coherent argument/application
are conflicting to theacademic
cases. You can include facts is fararticles
more here
important
or otherthan thinking
discussion that there is
to en-
necessarily one correct
hance your answer answer.a particular point of view. Do not concentrate on the facts of cases, but
or to support
rather the legal point which a case makes (the ratio decidendi).
Conclusion
Apply the law to the facts
knowledge.
This is where you consolidate your arguments to determine whether the defendant is likely to be guilty
Once you have fully explained the law relating to each issue, you should then apply the law to the facts
or not guilty. Do any defences make a difference to this likely outcome? You will be expected to exam-
of the question. This involves identifying the key parts of the authority (the ratio of the case or the stat-
ine the law from the point of view of both prosecution and defence. It should be possible for you to
utory provision) and explaining why it is relevant, bearing in mind the facts of the problem. It is best
construct an argument for both by referring to different cases or to different arguments within some
to deal with each defendant separately. You will need to bear in mind that there is not one single right
of the judgments.
answer. The questions are not designed to enable you to say, ‘Of course, D is guilty because this case
says so!’ They are never that clear-cut. You will need to examine the law and then argue for or against
guilt or innocence in the light of your preceding discussion. A clear and authoritative explanation of the
law and a coherent argument/application to the facts is far more important than thinking that there is
necessarily one correct answer.

Conclusion
This is where you consolidate your arguments to determine whether the defendant is likely to be guilty
or not guilty. Do any defences make a difference to this likely outcome? You will be expected to exam-
ine the law from the point of view of both prosecution and defence. It should be possible for you to
construct an argument for both by referring to different cases or to different arguments within some
of the judgments.
Contents in brief
Acknowledgements  xxii
Table of cases  xxiii
Table of legislation  xxxv

1 Introduction and general principles  1

2 Actus reus: acts, omissions and causation  29
3 Mens rea: intention, recklessness, negligence and gross negligence  87
4 Strict, vicarious and corporate liability  139
5 Secondary participation: parties to a crime  184
6 Homicide 1: murder  227
7 Homicide 2: voluntary and involuntary manslaughter  248
8 Defences of incapacity and mental conditions  324
9 Defences of compulsion  380
10 Non-fatal offences against the person  452
11 Sexual offences  515
12 Property offences 1: theft, robbery and handling  556
13 Property offences 2: fraud and making off without payment  625
14 Property offences 3: burglary, blackmail and criminal damage  645
15 I nchoate offences: attempt, conspiracy and assisting and encouraging
under the Serious Crime Act 2007  681

Index  719
Detailed contents
Acknowledgements  xxii
Table of cases  xxiii
Table of legislation  xxxv

1 Introduction and general principles 1

1.1 What is Crime? 2
1.1.1 Traditional Theory: Harm to Others 3
1.1.2 Harm to Oneself 6
1.1.3 Politicisation 6
1.1.4 Contemporary Theories of Criminal Law 7
1.1.5 The Need for Minimal Criminalisation—Are There Too Many Crimes? 8
1.1.6 Punishment 10
1.2 Presumption of Innocence and the Burden of Proof 12
1.2.1 The General Principle 12
1.2.2 Exceptions to the Prosecution Bearing the Burden of Proof 14
1.3 Classification of Crimes and Courts 16
1.3.1 Classification of Crimes 16
1.3.2 The Courts 17
1.4 Procedure and Fair Trial Rights 18
1.4.1 Procedure 18
1.4.2 Fair Trial Rights 20
1.5 Police Powers, Miscarriages of Justice and Victims 20
1.5.1 Police Powers 20
1.5.2 Miscarriages of Justice 20
1.5.3 Victims 21
1.6 Sources of the Criminal Law including the ECHR 21
1.6.1 Statute and Common Law 22
1.6.2 The Draft Criminal Code 1989 22
1.6.3 The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) 22
1.7 Crime in England and Wales Today 24
1.7.1 Women 24
1.7.2 Black and Ethnic Minorities 26
1.8 Conclusion 26
2 Actus reus: acts, omissions and causation 29
2.1 Acts 30
2.1.1 What does Actus Reus Mean? 30
2.1.2 Coincidence/Correspondence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea 37
 Detailed contents xv

2.2 Omissions: Liability for Failing to Act in Breach of Duty 41

2.2.1 Introduction: Acts and Omissions 41
2.2.2 Statutory Offences of Failing to Act in Breach of Duty: Conduct Crimes 42
2.2.3 Common Law Offences: Commission by Omission—Result Crimes
and the Five Duty Situations 42
2.2.4 Criticisms of Omissions Liability 57
2.2.5 Evaluation 61
2.2.6 Reform 62
2.3 Causation 62
2.3.1 Introduction 63
2.3.2 Factual Causation 63
2.3.3 Legal Causation 64
2.3.4 Conclusion 82
2.3.5 Reform 83
3 Mens rea: intention, recklessness, negligence and gross negligence 87
3.1 Intention 88
3.1.1 Introduction 88
3.1.2 Context: Intention and Murder 90
3.1.3 Intention: Ordinary Meaning 90
3.1.4 Legal Meaning: Type 1—Direct Intent 90
3.1.5 Type 2—Oblique or indirect intent: foresight of a virtual certainty 91
3.1.6 Oblique Intent is a Flexible Concept 100
3.1.7 The Distinction between Motive and Intention 102
3.1.8 Mercy Killings 104
3.1.9 Doctors, Palliative Care and Double Effect 104
3.1.10 Evaluation  105
3.1.11 Reform  107
3.1.12 Transferred Malice 109
3.2 Recklessness 112
3.2.1 Introduction 113
3.2.2 The Ordinary Meaning of Recklessness 114
3.2.3 The Current Legal Definition: Subjective Recklessness 114
3.2.4 Caldwell Recklessness: 1982–2003 118
3.2.5 Subjective Recklessness Restored: 2003 Onwards 120
3.2.6 Was the House of Lords in R v G right to reverse Caldwell? 125
3.2.7 How to Distinguish Recklessness from Intention 126
3.2.8 How to Distinguish Recklessness from Negligence 126
3.2.9 Reform 126
3.2.10 Evaluation and Conclusion  127
3.3 Negligence and Gross Negligence 128
3.3.1 Negligence 129
3.3.2 Negligent Mistake 129
xvi Detailed contents

3.3.3 The Distinction between Negligence and Recklessness 130

3.3.4 Should Negligence be a Basis of Fault? 130
3.3.5 Gross Negligence 130
3.3.6 Reform 134
4 Strict, vicarious and corporate liability 139
4.1 Strict Liability 140
4.1.1 Introduction 140
4.1.2 Strict v Absolute Liability 140
4.1.3 The Statutory Context: The Presumption of Mens Rea 142
4.1.4 The Exceptions to Mens Rea 148
4.1.5 Strict Liability and the ECHR 162
4.1.6 Evaluation: Arguments for and against Strict Liability 164
4.2 Corporate Liability 166
4.2.1 Introduction: What is a Corporation? 167
4.2.2 Vicarious Liability 167
4.2.3 Direct Corporate Liability 169
4.2.4 Evaluation of the 2007 Act 179
5 Secondary participation: parties to a crime 184
5.1 Definition of Parties 185
5.2 Accessories: Conditions for Liability 185
5.2.1 Actus Reus 186
5.2.2 Mens Rea 195
5.3 Where P Goes Beyond the Joint Plan to Commit Another Offence 202
5.3.1 Definition 202
5.3.2 ‘Joint Enterprise’ Before Jogee 204
5.3.3 The Law After Jogee 206
5.3.4 Is the Law After Jogee Satisfactory? 213
5.4 Liability of A can be Higher than that of P 216
5.4.1 Liability of A can be Higher 217
5.4.2 Accessories and Justificatory Defences 218
5.5 Defences to Secondary Participation: Withdrawal from a Joint Venture 218
5.5.1 Planned Enterprises: There must be Timely, Unequivocal
Communication of Withdrawal where Practical and Reasonable 219
5.5.2 Spontaneous Enterprises: Withdrawal without Communication may
be Effective 220
5.5.3 Joint Venture Going beyond the Agreed Plan 221
5.5.4 Reform of Withdrawal 222
5.6 Can Victims be Accessories? 222
5.7 Reform 223
5.8 Evaluation 225
6 Homicide 1: murder 227
6.1 Actus Reus 230
6.1.1 Unlawful Killing 230
6.1.2 Killing and Causation 230
 Detailed contents xvii

6.1.3 A Human Being 231

6.1.4 Under the Queen’s Peace 238
6.1.5 The ‘Death Within a Year and a Day’ Rule No Longer Applies 239
6.2 Mens Rea 239
6.2.1 Background: Malice Aforethought 239
6.2.2 Criticisms of Intention 241
6.2.3 Intention to Commit GBH/Serious Harm 241
6.3 The Sentence for Murder 243
6.4 Criticism 244
6.5 Reform 245
7 Homicide 2: voluntary and involuntary manslaughter 248
7.1 Voluntary Manslaughter 249
7.1.1 Introduction to Voluntary Manslaughter 249
7.1.2 Diminished Responsibility 249
7.1.3 Loss of Control 264
7.1.4 Suicide Pacts 285
7.2 Involuntary Manslaughter: Unintentional Killings 285
7.2.1 Introduction 286
7.2.2 Reckless Manslaughter 286
7.2.3 Manslaughter by Gross Negligence 288
7.2.4 Unlawful and Dangerous Act (Constructive) Manslaughter 299
7.3 Homicide-related Offences 318
7.3.1 Causing Death by Dangerous Driving 318
7.3.2 Causing Death by Careless or Inconsiderate Driving 318
7.3.3 Causing Death by Driving While Unlicensed, Disqualified or Uninsured 319
7.3.4 Infanticide 319
7.3.5 Infant and Child Killing 319
8 Defences of incapacity and mental conditions 324
8.1 Insanity 326
8.1.1 Introduction 326
8.1.2 The Relationship between Insanity, Automatism and Diminished
Responsibility 327
8.1.3 The Test for Insanity: The M’Naghten Rules 328
8.1.4 Burden of Proof 339
8.1.5 The Verdict and Disposal Provisions 339
8.1.6 Criticisms of Insanity 340
8.1.7 Reform 341
8.2 Automatism 343
8.2.1 Introduction 344
8.2.2 Definition 344
8.2.3 Burden of Proof 344
8.2.4 External Causes of Involuntary Action 345
8.2.5 Self-induced Automatism is No Defence 346
xviii Detailed contents

8.2.6 Automatism Requires Total Destruction of Voluntary

Control/Consciousness in Driving Cases 351
8.2.7 Criticisms of the Defence 351
8.2.8 Reform 352
8.3 Intoxication 353
8.3.1 Introduction 353
8.3.2 Crimes of Basic and Specific Intent 354
8.3.3 Intoxication is not a ‘Defence’ but a Denial of MR 356
8.3.4 Voluntary Intoxication: The Majewski Rule 357
8.3.5 Dutch Courage 360
8.3.6 Involuntary Intoxication 361
8.3.7 Dangerous Drugs 364
8.3.8 Voluntary Intoxication and Defences: Drunken Mistake 366
8.3.9 Criticisms of Majewski 371
8.3.10 Reform 373
8.4 Infancy 374
8.4.1 The Age of Criminal Responsibility: Doli Incapax 374
8.4.2 Criticism: Was it Right to Abolish the Presumption? 375
8.4.3 Innocent Agents 376
9 Defences of compulsion 380
9.1 Duress and Duress of Circumstances 381
9.1.1 Introduction 382
9.1.2 The Test for Duress 383
9.1.3 Limitations on the Defence: Voluntary Association with Criminals:
R v Hasan 394
9.1.4 Limitations on the Defence: Murder, Attempted Murder and Treason 397
9.1.5 Duress of Circumstances 404
9.1.6 Compulsion 408
9.1.7 Reform 409
9.2 Necessity 410
9.2.1 Introduction 410
9.2.2 The Test for Necessity 411
9.2.3 Medical Cases 411
9.2.4 Non-medical Cases: Self-help and Direct Action 419
9.2.5 Reform 421
9.3 Public and Private Defence 421
9.3.1 Introduction 422
9.3.2 The Necessity for Force: A Subjective Test 424
9.3.3 The Degree of Force Must be Reasonable: An Objective Test: s76(7) 438
9.3.4 Lethal Force and the ECHR 443
9.3.5 Reform 446
9.4 Mistake 446
9.4.1 Introduction 447
9.4.2 Relevant Mistakes 448
 Detailed contents xix

9.4.3 Mistake and Strict Liability 449

9.4.4 Mistake and Offences of Negligence 449
9.4.5 Irrelevant Mistakes 449
10 Non-fatal offences against the person 452
10.1 Assault 455
10.1.1 Definition 456
10.1.2 Actus Reus 456
10.1.3 Mens Rea 464
10.2 Battery 464
10.2.1 Definition 464
10.2.2 Actus Reus 464
10.2.3 Mens Rea of Assault and Battery 466
10.3 Aggravated Assaults: Actual Bodily Harm, s47 OAPA 1861 467
10.3.1 Definition 467
10.3.2 Actus Reus 468
10.3.3 Mens Rea 471
10.4 Malicious Wounding and Grievous Bodily Harm: s20 OAPA 1861 471
10.4.1 Definition 472
10.4.2 Actus Reus 472
10.4.3 Mens Rea 475
10.5 Causing Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent: s18 OAPA 1861 477
10.5.1 Definition 477
10.5.2 Actus Reus 478
10.5.3 Mens Rea 478
10.5.4 Acid-throwing 479
10.6 Defences to Assault: Consent 480
10.6.1 The Public Interest 480
10.6.2 ‘Public Interest Exceptions’: Consent Provides a Defence 481
10.6.3 Consent Induced by Fraud is No Defence 493
10.6.4 Capacity to Consent 500
10.6.5 D’s Mistaken Belief in Consent 500
10.7 Defences to Assault: Lawful Chastisement 501
10.7.1 Parents 501
10.7.2 Teachers 501
10.8 Racially and Religiously Aggravated Assaults 501
10.8.1 Racial and Religious Aggravated Offences 501
10.8.2 Section 28 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 502
10.8.3 Section 28(1)(a): Demonstration of Racial/Religious Hostility 502
10.8.4 Section 28(1)(b): Racial/Religious Motivation 503
10.8.5 Section 28(4): ‘Racial Group’ 503
10.9 The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 505
10.9.1 Introduction 506
10.9.2 Actus Reus: Harassment 507
10.9.3 Mens Rea 508
10.9.4 Stalking 508
xx Detailed contents

10.10 Coercive control 509

10.10.1 Introduction 509
10.10.2 Actus reus 510
10.10.3 Mens rea 510
10.10.4 Evaluation 511
10.11 Reform 511
10.11.1 Offences Against the Person 511
10.11.2 Consent 512
11 Sexual offences 515
11.1 The Sexual Offences Act 2003 517
11.2 Rape 518
11.2.1 Definition of Rape 518
11.2.2 Actus Reus 520
11.2.3 Mens Rea 540
11.2.4 Marital Rape 544
11.2.5 The Rationale of Rape 544
11.2.6 Why is Rape so Controversial? The Justice Gap 545
11.3 Assault by Penetration 549
11.4 Sexual Assault 550
11.4.1 Section 78: ‘Sexual’ 551
11.5 Causing Sexual Activity without Consent 553
12 Property offences 1: theft, robbery and handling 556
12.1 Theft 558
12.1.1 Introduction 558
12.1.2 Actus Reus 559
12.1.3 Mens Rea 590
12.2 Robbery 608
12.2.1 Introduction 609
12.2.2 Actus Reus 610
12.2.3 Mens Rea 614
12.3 Handling 615
12.3.1 Introduction 615
12.3.2 Actus Reus 616
12.3.3 Mens Rea 621
13 Property offences 2: fraud and making off without payment 625
13.1 Fraud 626
13.1.1 The Fraud Act 2006 626
13.1.2 Section 2: Fraud by False Representation 627
13.1.3 Section 3: Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information 635
13.1.4 Section 4: Fraud by Abuse of Position 636
13.1.5 Section 11: Obtaining Services Dishonestly 638
13.2 Making off Without Payment 641
13.2.1 Actus Reus 641
13.2.2 Mens Rea 642
 Detailed contents xxi

14 Property offences 3: burglary, blackmail and criminal damage 645

14.1 Burglary 646
14.1.1 Introduction 646
14.1.2 Actus Reus of Both Offences 648
14.1.3 Mens Rea 655
14.1.4 Aggravated Burglary 656
14.2 Blackmail 658
14.2.1 Introduction 658
14.2.2 Actus Reus 659
14.2.3 Mens Rea 664
14.3 Criminal Damage 664
14.3.1 Introduction 664
14.3.2 Actus Reus 665
14.3.3 Mens Rea 673
14.3.4 Racially or Religiously Aggravated Criminal Damage 675
14.3.5 Criminal Damage with Intent or Recklessness as to Endangering Life 675
14.3.6 Arson 678
15 Inchoate offences: attempt, conspiracy and assisting and encouraging
under the Serious Crime Act 2007 681
15.1 Attempt 682
15.1.1 Definition 682
15.1.2 Actus Reus 683
15.1.3 Mens Rea 689
15.1.4 Impossibility 692
15.1.5 Reform 695
15.2 Conspiracy 695
15.2.1 Introduction 696
15.2.2 Actus Reus 697
15.2.3 Impossibility 704
15.2.4 Conspiracy to Defraud 705
15.2.5 Conspiracy to Corrupt Public Morals and Conspiracy to Outrage
Public Decency 707
15.2.6 Reform 708
15.3 The Serious Crime Act 2007: Encouragement and Assistance 709
15.3.1 Introduction 709
15.3.2 Problems with the Old Law of Incitement 710
15.3.3 Section 44: Intending to Assist or Encourage 710
15.3.4 Section 45: Assisting or Encouraging Believing an Offence will be
Committed 711
15.3.5 Section 46: Encouraging or Assisting Offences Believing
One or More will be Committed 712
15.3.6 Defences 715
15.3.7 Conclusion  716
Index  719
Acknowledgements
Grateful acknowledgement is made to all the authors and publishers of copyright material which
appears in this book, and in particular to the following for permission to reprint material from
the sources indicated:
Extracts from unreported case reports, Law Commission Reports, consultation papers, and
Home Office reports and statistics are Crown copyright material and are reproduced under
Class Licence Number C2006010631 with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the
Queen’s Printer. Extracts from House of Lords case reports are Parliamentary copyright and are
reproduced by permission of the Controller of HMSO on behalf of Parliament.
Cambridge University Press and the author for extracts from A. Norrie: Crime, Reason and
History: A Critical Introduction to Criminal Law (Cambridge, 1993); and G. Williams: ‘The Un-
resolved Problem of Recklessness’, 8 Legal Studies 74 (1988).
Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for extracts from the Law Reports: Appeal Cases
(AC), Family Division (FAM), Queen’s Bench Division (QB), and Weekly Law Reports (WLR).
SAGE Publishing for extract from S. Parsons, ‘Joint Enterprise Murder: R v Jogee’ [2016]
Journal of Criminal Law 173.
Sweet & Maxwell Ltd for extracts from the Criminal Appeal Reports (Cr App R), Criminal
Law Review (Crim LR), and Law Quarterly Review (LQR).
Web Journal of Current Legal Issues and author for extract from C. Walsh: ‘Irrational Pre-
sumptions of Rationality and Comprehension’, 3 Web JCLI (1998).
Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd for extracts from M. Giles: ‘R v Brown: Consensual Harm
and Public Interest’ 57 Modern Law Review 101 (1994); and A. Norrie: ‘Critique of Criminal
Causation’ 64 Modern Law Review 684 (1991).
Every effort has been made to trace and contact copyright holders prior to publication but this
has not been possible in every case. If notified, the publisher will undertake to rectify any errors
or omissions at the earliest opportunity.
Table of cases
Where cases are dealt with in detail the relevant page numbers are shown in bold.
A [2011] QB 841 . . . 210
A [2012] EWCA Crim 434 . . . 547
A, B, C, D [2010] EWCA Crim 1622 . . . 207
A v R [1978] Crim LR 689 . . . 666
A v UK (1999) 27 EHRR 611 (ECtHR) . . . 501
A v UK (2009) 49 EHRR 29; [2009] All ER (D) 203
(ECtHR) . . . 23
A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation),
Re [2000] 4 All ER 961; [2001] 2 WLR 480; [2001]
Fam 147 (CA) . . . 56, 105, 230, 233, 237, 238, 410,
414–17, 418, 421, 437, 445, 451
A (G) [2014] EWCA Crim 299 . . . 527
Abbott [1955] 2 QB 497 . . . 192
Abbott v R [1976] 3 All ER 140 (PC) . . . 398
Abdul-Hussain and Others [1999] Crim LR 570
(CA) . . . 386, 388
Acott [1997] 1 All ER 706 (HL) . . . 282
Adams [1957] Crim LR 365 . . . 64, 104, 105
Adaye (2004) The Times, 10 January . . . 499
Adebolajo and Another [2014] All ER (D) 37
(Dec) . . . ix, 238
Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 (HL) . . . 51, 85, 119, 128,
131–2, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 173, 176, 285, 286,
287, 288, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 299, 318
Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889 (CA) . . . 249, 254,
271, 280
Ahmad (1986) 84 Cr App R 64 . . . 41
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789; [1993]
2 WLR 316; [1993] 1 All ER 821 (HL) . . . 41, 50,
53–6, 57, 73, 233, 235, 238, 415
Aitken [1992] 1 WLR 1066 . . . 482
Alexander [2008] EWCA Crim 2834 . . . 653
Allen [1985] AC 1029 . . . 643
Allen [1988] Crim LR 698 (CA) . . . 357
Allen v Whitehead [1930] 1 KB 211 . . . 168
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824
(HL) . . . 70, 152–3, 161, 168
Alstom Network UK Ltd [2019] EWCA
Crim 1318 . . . 171
Anderson [1972] 1 QB 304 . . . 707
Anderson (William Ronald) [1986] AC 27
(HL) . . . 701–2, 703
Anderson and Morris [1966] 2 All ER 644; [1966]
2 QB 110 . . . 205, 206, 211
Anderton v Ryan [1985] AC 560 (HL) . . . 693, 694
Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576; [1937] 2 All
ER 552 . . . 132, 288, 293, 305
Arrowsmith v Jenkins [1963] 2 QB 561 . . . 160
Arthur (Doctor) [1981] 12 BMLR 1; [1985] Crim
LR 705 . . . 55, 417, 418
Ashcroft [2003] EWCA Crim 2365 . . . 565
Ashford & Smith [1988] Crim LR 682 (CA) . . . 672
Asmelash [2013] EWCA Crim 157 . . . 264, 283
Asquith and Others [1995] 1 Cr App R (S) 492 . . . 678
Assange v Swedish Judicial Authority [2011] EWHC
2849 . . . 517, 523, 524, 525, 526, 536
Atakpu [1994] QB 69 . . . 565
Atkinson [1985] Crim LR 314 . . . 256, 257
Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 All
ER 1 (PC) . . . 587
Attorney-General for Jersey v Holley, sub nom R v
Holley [2005] UKPC 23 . . . 264, 281, 282, 283
Attorney-General for Northern Ireland Reference
(No 1 of 1975) [1976] 2 All ER 937 (HL) . . . 441, 442
Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
[1963] AC 349; [1961] 3 All ER 299 . . . 353, 360,
364, 371
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1974) [1974]
QB 744 (CA) . . . 615, 617–18
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975) [1975]
QB 773 (CA) . . . 193–4
Attorney-General’s Reference (Nos 1 and 2 of 1979)
[1980] QB 180; [1979] 3 WLR 577; [1979] 3 All ER
143 (CA) . . . 608
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 4 of 1980) [1981]
2 All ER 617 (CA) . . . 40
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 6 of 1980) [1981]
QB 715; [1981] 2 All ER 1057 (CA) . . . 481, 487,
491, 499
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1982) [1984]
QB 624 . . . 567
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1985]
QB 182 . . . 590
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1983) [1984]
QB 456 (CA) . . . 433, 434
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1985) [1986]
QB 491 . . . 587
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1994]
QB 91; [1993] 4 All ER 683 . . . 349, 351
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1992) [1994]
1 WLR 409 . . . 690
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1997]
UKHL 31; [1997] 3 All ER 936; [1998] AC
245 . . . 110–11, 229, 231–2, 240, 242
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1998) [1999] 3
WLR 1994 . . . 339
xxiv Table of cases
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1999) [2000] 3
All ER 182; [2000] QB 796; [2000] Crim LR
475; [2000] 2 Cr App R 207 (CA) . . . 167, 174,
176, 295–6
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 4 of 2002) [2004]
UKHL 43; [2005] 1 AC 264 . . . 15
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2004]
EWCA Crim 868 . . . 124
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2004) see
Quayle; AG’s Reference (No 2 of 2004)
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 4 of 2004) [2005]
EWCA Crim 889; [2005] 1 WLR 2810 . . . 504
Augunas [2013] EWCA Crim 2046 . . . 629
Austin [2011] EWCA Crim 345 . . . 697
Ayliffe v DPP [2005] EWHC 684; [2005] Crim LR
959 (CA) . . . 673
Aziz [1993] Crim LR 708 . . . 642
B [2006] EWCA Crim 2945 . . . 517, 555
B [2013] EWCA Crim 3 . . . 517, 541
B (A Minor), Re, (1991) 20 May (Fam) . . . 414
B (A Minor) v DPP [2000] 1 All ER 833; [2000] 2 AC
428; [2000] Crim LR 403 . . . 140, 142, 143–4, 145,
146, 147, 148, 151, 156, 158, 166, 448
B (Consent to Treatment: Capacity), Re [2002] 2 All
ER 449; (2002) The Times, 26 March . . . 237
B, R v DPP [2007] EWHC 739 (Admin)
(QBD) . . . 609, 612–13
Bailey [1983] 2 All ER 503 (CA) . . . 344, 348, 349, 351
Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129 (CA) . . . 200
Baker [1994] Crim LR 444 . . . 221
Baker and Ward [1999] 2 Cr App R 335 . . . 394, 395
Baker and Wilkins [1997] Crim LR 497 (CA) . . . 384
Baldessare (1930) 22 Cr App R 70 . . . 191
Banfield [2013] EWCA Crim 1394 . . . 191–2
Barber v Superior Court of State of California, 195
Cal. Rptr. 484 . . . 54
Barnes [2005] 1 WLR 910 (CA) . . . 489–90, 493, 498
Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8 (CCA) . . . 128, 130,
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 288, 293, 294, 296, 297
Bawa-Garba [2016] EWCA Crim 1841 . . . 298
Becerra and Cooper (1975) 62 Cr App R
212 (CA) . . . 220
Beckford v R [1987] 3 All ER 425; (1987) 85 Cr App R
378; [1988] AC 130 (PC) . . . 390, 397, 427, 430–1
Bedder [1954] 2 All ER 801 . . . 280
Beecham (1851) 5 Cox CC 181 . . . 606
Bentley (Deceased) [1998] EWCA Crim 2516 . . . 186
Bevans (1988) 87 Cr App R 64 (CA) . . . 663
Bilton (2005) The Guardian, 20 December . . . 333
Bingham [2013] EWCA Crim 823 . . . 537
Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816 (CA) . . . 436
Bisla (1992) The Telegraph, 30 January . . . 266
Blackshaw and Sutcliffe [2011] EWCA
Crim 2312 . . . 709, 713, 714
Blakely and Sutton v Chief Constable of West Mercia
[1991] Crim LR 763; [1991] RTR 405 . . . 194,
197, 199
Blaue [1975] 3 All ER 446; [1975] 1 WLR 1411
(CA) . . . 76–7, 81
Bloxham [1982] 1 All ER 582 (HL) . . . 620
BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560 . . . ix, 491–2
Bolton (Engineering) Co Ltd v T J Graham & Sons Ltd
[1957] 1 QB 159 . . . 169
Boshears (1961) The Times, 8 February . . . 332
Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615 (CCC) . . . 412
Bourne (1952) 36 Cr App R 125 . . . 217
Bowditch (2017) (unreported) . . . ix, 52, 85
Bowen [1996] 2 Cr App R 157; [1996] Crim LR
576 (CA) . . . 391, 394, 408
Bowler [2015] EWCA Crim 849 . . . 290
Boyea [1992] Crim LR 574 (CA) . . . 482, 499
Bradish (1990) 90 Cr App R 271 . . . 154
Brady [2007] EWCA Crim 2413; [2007]
Crim LR 564 . . . 476
Brandford [2016] EWCA Crim 1794 . . . 389
Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland
[1963] AC 386; [1963] 3 All ER 523 (HL) . . . 30, 33,
326, 330, 332, 333, 335, 341, 344, 345–6, 364
Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 256 . . . 517, 528–9, 533, 555
Brennan [2014] EWCA Crim 2387 . . . 249, 252, 253,
258, 259–60
Bristow [2013] EWCA Crim 1540 . . . 300, 303, 308–9
Brooks and Brooks (1982) 76 Cr App R
66 (CA) . . . 641
Brown [1968] SASR 467 . . . 186
Brown [1985] Crim LR 611 . . . 650
Brown [1994] 1 AC 212; [1993] 2 All ER 75; [1993] 2
WLR 556 (HL) . . . 6, 222, 455, 482–4, 485–6, 487,
488, 491, 492, 493, 495, 496, 499, 514
Brown [2003] EWCA Crim 2637 . . . 420
Brown [2012] 2 CAR(S) 27 . . . 258
Brown [2014] EWCA Crim 2176 . . . 478
Brown (Robert) [2011] EWCA Crim 2796 . . . 258
Bryce [2004] EWCA Crim 1231; Crim
LR 936 . . . 197–8, 199
Bubbins v UK [2005] All ER (D) 290 . . . 445
Buckoke v GLC [1971] 2 All ER 254 . . . 405, 411
Bunch [2013] EWCA Crim 2498 . . . 253
Burgess [1991] 2 All ER 769 (CA) . . . 330,
332–3, 344
Burns [2010] EWHC 1604 . . . 422, 437
Burstow [1997] 1 Cr App R 144 (CA) 478 see also
Ireland; R v Burstow [1997]
Buxton [2011] 4 Crim LR 332 . . . 507
Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396 (CA) . . . 249, 252, 253
C [2007] EWCA Crim 1862 . . . 351
C [2009] UKHL 42 . . . 526
C [2012] EWCA Crim 2034 . . . 523, 525
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SANE
MEN OF SATAN ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.