Criminal Law

Criminal law governs relationships between the individual and the state. If a person breaches the criminal law, this is viewed as being far more serious than a breach of the civil law, which governs relationships between individuals. Where there has been a breach of the criminal law, the state will intervene and bring in prosecution in a criminal court. If the defendant is found guilty of the crime then that defendant will be punished by the state. N.B That the burden of the proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If it fails to discharge this burden in respect to any element of the offense, the defendant must be acquitted. It is important that you remember that the prosecution must prove every element of an offense before the act can be deemed a crime. It is the opinion of many writers and experts in the field of criminal law that there is no single definition that would be adequate to say what is a crime. However it can be said that it constitutes or consist of wrong doings, which threatens to undermine the security of society and which cannot be left unpunished because of its socially destructive nature. Every criminal offense is made up of a number of offenses, each of a Most offenses are now statutory but a few, including murder and manslaughter remain offenses at common law. Traditionally, criminal offenses are analyzed by references to the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Latin Maxim Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea means the act itself does not constitute guilt unless it was done with a guilty mind. The analysis of criminal offenses is traditionally divided into two parts, namely:

A: Conduct, which is called the Actus Reus (the guilty act) and includes acts of omissions, consequences and surrounding circumstances. These are the physical elements of a crime. B: State of Mind, which is the Mens Rea (guilty mind) and comprises intention, recklessness, negligence and knowledge. Not all crimes have these ingredients, which is why it is important to be familiar with the statute and how each crime is treated. A criminal offense is committed when the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has satisfied, both the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea of the alleged offense. It is established law and practice that an individual is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This general rule was established in the English case, Woolmington ~v~ DPP (1935). In Woolmington ~v~ DPP (1935 the facts are that the appellant shot his wife. At first instance he was convicted of murder and was sentenced to death. He appealed on the grounds that the judge had misdirected the jury by telling them that he was guilty unless he could show that his wifes death was caused by an accident. In summing up to the jury, the learned Judge said The killing of a human being is homicide, however he may be killed, and all homicide is presumed to be malicious and murder unless the contrary appears from the circumstances of alleviation, excuse or justification. The appellants appeal was unsuccessful, the court of criminal appeal relied on sec.4 of the criminal appeal act 1904,UK. Which allows them to deny an appeal if they consider that no substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred.

With leave from the attorney general, the appellant was allowed to appeal to the House of Lords. This was done on the grounds that his appeal was based on a point of law of exceptional public importance, the House found that: In a trial for murder, the crown must prove death as a result of a voluntary act of a prisoner and malice of the prisoner. When evidence of death and malice has been given, the prisoner is entitled to show, by evidence or by examination of the circumstances adduced by the crown, that the act on his part that caused death was either unintentional or provoked. If the jury is either satisfied with this explanation or, upon the review of all the evidence is left within reasonable doubt, even if his explanation be not accepted, the act was unintentional or provoked, the prisoner is entitled to be committed. Viscount Scankay said, Throughout the web of English commonwealth law, one golden thread is always to be seen, that is the duty of the prosecution is to prove the prisoners guilt, subject to the defense of insanity and subject always to any statutory exception.

Criminal Liability may also on occasion be based upon being in position of a prohibited article, e.g. Control Drugs, Extreme Pornography, offensive weapons or articles. These again are Statutory Crimes and are known as crimes of possession. Situational Liability: Simply being in a prohibited situation. E.g. it is a crime to be drunk in a public space or to be drunk in charge of a vehicle, or to be the owner of certain types of dogs, such as a pit bull terrier, or to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public space.

Key Elements of Criminal Liability

To ensure the net of criminal responsibility is not spread too far. They are certain key restrictions on criminal liability in cases of harm caused by omission. To Conduct Element of the crime in question must be capable of commission by omission. Most result crimes can be committed by omission. This incudes theft, murder, criminal damage, fraud and most forms of manslaughter. Some however cannot. The definitions of some offenses specify or imply that only acts are sufficient. Most specify in the statute that, that action is a crime. So in Fairclaugt ~v~ Whippe (1951) It was not an indecent assault when a young girl touched Ds penis at his imputation, as the indecent act was not done by him. Now however, this is an offense under the sexual offenses act of 2003. The circumstances must be such as to create a legal duty to act. Assuming the offense is capable of being committed by omission, a successful prosecution can occur only if the defendants omission was in breech of a legal duty to act.

This is why parents may be guilty of homicide of failing in feeding their children or neglecting them. They are guilty because parents owe a statutory duty of care to their children. The defendants failure to act must be in breech of that duty. Simply because D has failed to act does not mean that they are in breech of duty. E.g. In cases where D has a duty of rescue but fails to rescue someone, they are not liable for a failure to rescue if 1. They did as much as could be expected in the circumstances 2. Performance of the duty was impossible. 3. The failure to act was justified. 4. The defendants failure to act must be voluntary. If Ds failure to act was due to him being unconscious or being restrained, the failure is involuntary and cannot form the subject matter of a criminal offense even though D was under a duty of intervention. 5. The harm must be caused by omission; the prosecution must be able to prove that the defendants breech of duty caused the harm. In R ~v~ Morbi (1882) Apparent failed to call for medical support for their ailing child. The child subsequently died of small pox. The parent was convicted of manslaughter at first instance, but the court for crown cases allowed the appeal since the prosecution could not prove that prompt medical assistance would have saved the child. The prosecution could not prove that the defendants failure to perform his duty had caused the infants death.

Actus Reus, Consequences and Causes

Most crimes require proof of a prescribed consequence that must be caused by the act. In criminal damage the consequence must be that the property is destroyed or damaged. If a person tries to bring about the prescribed consequence but failed to do so, he may still be guilty of the attempt. It may not be possible to bring about the prescribed consequence but guilt can still b In the case R v chivuri, here the defendant was arrested while carrying a package that contained a powdered substance, more of this substance was found at his home. At several police interviews he admitted to having drugs, and under caution, he personally typed a confession that he very deeply suspected that the substance was heroin. But analysis showed that the substance was only vegetable matter, the defendant was charged with to attempting to knowingly deal in a controlled drug, namely heroin. The third element in Actus Reus concerns result crimes only. Some crimes do not require proof of harm, they are known as conduct crimes they require proof of only some form of wrongful conduct. E.g. Dangerous driving, a person can be convicted of dangerous driving, if for example they drive too fast or aggressively ignore traffic signs or road signs, or overtake while driving around a blind corner. A conviction does not require anybody to be hurt or for their to be an accident. Result crimes however require both wrongful conduct and harm. So the crime of causing death by dangerous driving requires both dangerous driving and a death.

Crucially however, the prosecution must also prove causation. In other words it must prove that the victim met their death as a result of the defendant driving dangerously. For all result crimes therefore, the prosecution bares the burden of proving that the defendants conduct caused the prohibited result. In murder and manslaughter, this will be the death; in criminal damage it will be the damage done to property, in malicious wounding, it will be the wound and so on. Causation involves a two part inquiry. The first part concerns how causal sequences begin, while the second part concerns once begun, a causal sequence may come to an end. In short to be held accountable for a consequence involves both the factual cause and also the legal cause of that consequence.

The Factual Cause This is described as an event or act, which makes the
difference between something happening and something not happening. The common way of presenting this is A.) An act is the factual cause if the consequence would not have happened, but for the act. If the consequences would not have happened but for the defendants failure to act as they should have done. In other words, if the consequences would not have happened as it did, in respect to the defendants act or omission, it is not caused by the defendant so, (R~ White1990) White was not accountable for the death of his mother whose drink he had poison, when she died of a heart attack before taking the poison. Nor would White be accountable had his mother swallowed the poison but died of a hearth attack before the poison started to work. However, it would be different if.

In the later case(the one that she drank the poison) the hearth attack was prompted by the initial effect of the poison, In this later case, The but for principle operates because the hearth attack is not independent of the initial act of the defendant and so forms the final link in the casual chain. To be the factual cause of a criminal harm, the consequence must be the consequence not merely of the defendants act but of the wrongful act. If A is charged for causing Bs death by dangerous driving and A does kill B by running him over in her car, while driving dangerously, this does not necessarily mean that A is guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. To be the factual cause of a criminal harm D does not have to start the process leading to the consequence: It is enough that D accelerates it. So in Dyson(1910) A child was admitted to hospital suffering from injuries suffered after his father had beaten him severely. At the time of his hospitalization, the child was suffering from meningitis. The child died of his injuries. Medical evidence was adduced to show that he would have died of meningitis before long. D was charged and convicted of manslaughter. He appealed on the grounds that he was not a but for or factual cause of Vs death since the child would have died soon after of meningitis anyways. The court that it was not necessary to show that D was the sole cause of death so long as his action accelerated the crime when death would other wise occur.