CRIMINAL LAW REVISION The Ruth Ellis case in 1950 illustrates how societies view can change because

she may not have had the same conviction if she had been tried now. Homicide Act 1957.. Changed law on abortion and added views about suicide. Then there was a new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007 enforced due to pressure from society. Trade unionist put pressure on the judicial system to change certain laws they feel inadequate. (R V KITE + OLL) There are forms of injury that you can consent to such as Sporting Acitivites, Tattoos and Medical Procedures. In criminal cases it is important to identify the defence, how is guilt established and if it will work or not. The age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old. Mens Rea is the state of mind that usually determines whether a person is guilty of a crime. The Actus Rea is the Act or the omission to the act. S1. Theft Act 1968 A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. The person who has committed the actus reus has to be in a certain state of mind. The Mens rea thats is required to convict a person is set out in the definition of every crime. THERE ARE 3 POSSIBLE STATES OF MENS REA: INTENTION- murder- an intention to kill RECKLESSNESS- criminal damage (the most problematic) Negligence gross negligence LORD SIMON DPP V MAJEWSKI 1977 mens rea is the state of mind stigmatised as wrongful by the criminal law which, when compounded with the relevant prohibited conduct, constitutes a particular offence. Definition of murder: Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Kings peace with malice aforethought (intention), either expressed by the party implied by the law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. Die of the wound or hurt etc. Within a year and a day after the same. Year and a day is now abolished uner the Queens peace and the king is replaced by the Queen Capital punishment sanctioned by the state is not unlawful killing, other types of lawful killing can take place in war and self defence. Most definitions of crimes make it clear what mental state is required but sometimes there is more than one possible mental state Criminal Damage Act 1971. Two tests can be used to determine mens rea Subjective + Objective. The definitions stress that the Mens rea is connected with the criminality of the act and not with morality or motive. Mens rea is latin for guilty mind.

MURDER: UNLAWFUL KILLING WITH REQUISITE MR. The mens rea is the intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm. A partial defence to murder is self defence which involves having no mens rea of murder. In order to be guilty of murder you must be a person of sound mind under the Queens peace. The act of murder has to take into consideration when death occurs, for example did the def kill the person or did the doctor kill the person when they were admitted to hospital by turning off the life support, in other words did they break the chain of causation? It used to be clear cut due to the absence of a heart beat but due to medical advances it is now a grey area. MALCHAREK + STEEL 1981- the court preferred it to be when the victim is brain dead. The wife was stabbed by def and taken to hospital where she was put on a life support machine, she suffered heart failure and brain damage when the machine was turned off. This decision DID NOT break the chain of causation. Causation- are the accuseds actions a factual and legal cause of death. The courts are reluctant to accept there is a break in the chain of causation even when death does not immediately follow because people can use it as a scape goat. The death has to be a result of something that has happened in the incident.. Intention Direct intent is purpose intent- the consequences of the persons actions are desired. (specific intent) Oblique intent foresight intent virtually certain not desired. (basic) An example of direct intent is if you decided to blow up an aeroplane as a terrorist knowing the passengers will die and you wish to do this in order to make a political statement it is clear that you have direct intent you want the passengers to die. There is a problem with this however, if you were a terrorist and planted a bomb on a plane because you wanted to causes maximum damage to the plane and the runway to causes a dramatic economic loss to the airport and embarrassment to the government, you know the passengers will die but this is not your desire. This is OBLIQUE INTENTION you do not desire the particular consequences (death of the passengers) but it is inevitable. Mens Rea Direct Intention consequence actually desired Fred shoots at Joe intending to kill him. Oblique intention Fred throws a stone at Joe intending to hit him on the head with it and in doing so breaks a window. Intention is a subjective concept as to what the def was thinking at the time. Intention is very problematic because motive and intention is separate things. The motive can be the mitigating factor not a DECIDING one. R V STEANE 1947 Brit National forced by Nazis to make broadcasts he was coerced. He was charged with doing acts likely to assist the enemy with the intent to assist the enemy this is what he actually did.. but the Brit National says he did it because they threatened that they would kill his family if he didnt but this is all to do with the motive not the intention.

Recklessness is an unjustified risk and the legal definition has been subject to change because it is such a controversial issue. It is a subjective form of Mens rea.. what was the def thinking? Recklessness- Where the accused had forseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk, this is a subjective test. An objective test has been adopted to determine reckless behaviour found in the Police Comission v Caldwell. He was an ex employee of an hotel and had a grudge against the owner, he started a fire at the hotel while drunk. He pleaded guilty to destroying property S1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 However he pleaded not guilty to the more serious charge of destroying or damaging property intending to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be endangered. S1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971. He argued because he was drunk he did not know there was people in the hotel Lord Diplock said if he does an act which creates obvious risk that property will be destroyed or damaged then he has been reckless. Pat 2 when he does the act has not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or has recognised there was some risk involved. This has been a very controversial issue in the law because the HOUSE OF LORDS dont like overruling themselves so they tinker with the law bit by bit. The Caldwell case extended the law and part 2 has made it an objective test. R V LAWRENCE 1982 The HOL looked at recklessness here within the context of a driving offence, the Caldwell test was applied here although it was changed to a obvious and serious risk. The test was further analysed in R v REID 1990, driving along a busy road Reid tried to overtake a car on the inside lane but the lane narrowed to accommodate a hut. He hit the hut and spun into oncoming traffic, his passenger was killed and he was charged with the old offence of causing death by reckless driving. The HOL tried to follow Caldwell here but adapt it.. by trying to adjust the scope of the word risk and whether ti was obvious or not. The problem with this is who knows whether the risk is obvious or not.. In Elliot v C It showed it was possible to be reckless under Caldwell even where there was evidence of low intelligence and the accused was incapable fo seeing the risk. The def was 14 and a remedial, she was playing with matches and white spirit and set fire to a shed. The objective test in Caldwell was applied. R v R (1991) First case that recognised maritial rape as a crime. The def attempted to argue unsuccessfully that in deciding what was obvious to a reasonable person, that person should have the permanent, relevant characteristics of the accused. The court WOULD NOT accept this argument. R v G softening the objective test.. Two boys went camping without consent and snuck into the back of a shop where they found a pile of newspapers which they set fire to and put under a wheelie bin this caused 1m worth of damage. The HOL overruled the case of Caldwell in this instance because that is a subjective test. They looked at the actual characteristics of the defendant.