Products

About

©2018 StudyMode.com

criminal law

Topics: Criminal law, Actus reus, Mens rea Pages: 11 (1011 words) Published: December 27, 2014
2014/10/3

Criminal Law
Hanif Mughal
(麥 嘉 豪 )
Adjunct Associate Professor

(

兼任教授)

Barrister-at-law
(

大律師 )

DLS 2

BRIEF - Lecture 1
(A).General Introduction
(B). What is a crime?
(C). Principles of Criminal Liability
Chapters 1, 2 and 4 of the Workbook
and some additional information
2

(A) General Introduction
1.General Principles.
2. Law regulates conduct in society.
3. Division of Law into civil and criminal law.
4. Civil Law – disputes between individuals.

3

1

2014/10/3

5. Criminal Law
- disputes between the state and individuals.
- it is about proscriptive (prohibited) and
prescriptive (preferred) rules
of conduct.
6. Prosecution by the State of bad conduct.
4

State is generic term.

(B) What is a Crime?
1. Morality and Illegality;
2. A crime is an injury against society.
Harmful conduct against societal interests.
3. Essence is PUNISHMENT

5

4. Criminal Law acts as an instrument of
and aims to

SOCIAL CONTROL
protect interests.

5. By achieving the FUNCTIONS

of

criminal law

(detection, investigation,
prosecution, due process, and sentencing)

6

2

2014/10/3

6. Crimes are called offences.
- created by statute or common law
- summary offences;
- indictable offences;
- offences triable either way;
- arrestable and non-arrestable offences.

7

Basic elements of a crime

Actus Reus

-

guilty act

Mens Rea

-

guilty mind

8

7. Ancient Principles of Criminal Law:
- Nullum Crimen Sine Poena;
- Nulla Poena Sine Lege;
- Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Men Sit Rea;

9

- Lex Prospicit Non Respicit.

3

2014/10/3

8. Examples of Crimes:

- Against state
- treason, sedition, etc.
- aims at protection of national security

10

- Against persons
- e.g. murder, manslaughter, wounding,
rape, assault, etc.
- aims at protection of persons against
violence

- Against property

- e.g. theft, robbery, fraud, forgery, etc.
- aims at protection of private property .

11

- Against public order
- riot, drugs, motor vehicle offences,
possession of offensive weapons, etc
- aims at protection of public order,
peace and safety .

- Against habitation

- e.g. burglary, etc.
- aims at protection of safety & security in
one’s home.

12

- Against public morals
- prostitution, incest, obscenity, sodomy,
gambling, etc
- aims at protection of traditional morality.

4

2014/10/3

- Against administration of justice
- e.g. bribery, resisting arrest, perjury etc.
- aims at protection of efficient / honest
public administration

13

9. Presumption of innocence
- Woolmington v DPP 1935
- Art. 11 BORO Cap. 383; Art. 39 Basic Law
- Accused – the person arrested is presumed
innocent of the offence until proven
guilty.
- Adversarial system
- CX – Inquisitorial system – reverse burden.
14

10. Burden of Proof on prosecution.
- on all elements of offence.
11. Standard of Proof
Proof by evidence of guilt by the prosecution

beyond a reasonable doubt.
Right of Silence by accused.
N.B. In some limited cases accused bears legal burden of
proof:
e.g. – insanity; diminished responsibility.
Accused discharges this on a balance of probabilities
15

5

2014/10/3

(c)

Principles of
Criminal Liability
Basic elements of criminal liability

(1) Actus Reus – result of
accused’s act.
(2) Mens Rea –
guilty mind/
frame of mind
(3) Absence of any defence.
16

(1)

Actus Reus

conduct;
consequences;
circumstances;
causation.

17

(i) refers to all external elements of a crime.
(ii) relates to the facts or all surrounding
circumstances.

(iii) involves a positive act;
(iv) can include an omission to act where
accused is under a legal duty to act;

R v Pittwood 1902
Gate keeper at level crossing failed to close gate
causing death of victim.

Stone v Dobinson 1977
Victim unable to look after herself. D’s undertook her
care. Not call for...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • R V Davis Harris, Advice to a client (criminal law) Essay

    ...R v David Harris ADVICE TO A CLIENT This advice is directed to my client, Mr David Harris, on account of two criminal charges put against him. The first charge is for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861 The second charge constitutes of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent, contrary to s. 18 of the OAPA 1861. The initial part of this advice relates to Mr David's first charge; of assault against his sister, Florence. With regards to the first charge, we will firstly discuss your liabilities and possible defences against s 47 of the OAPA 1861 , in relation to your sister, Florence's injury. Firstly we will take into account the actus reus; your action , which is when you "pulled" Florence "out of the way". This does not necessarily signify causing harm as it can be seen in light with somebody rushing to work and accidently pushing and hurting somebody in a bus. Such cases could be charged with tortuous liability and not a criminal charge . Secondly the mens rea; your mental element behind your action , shows clearly that your state of mind at the time was bent on leaving the house and not on harming Florence. Your lack of acknowledgement of her injury at that time can support that. Since both these elements are required to convict your criminal liability , it seems you may not be criminally liable for harming Florence...

    Read More
    971 Words 3 Pages
  • Criminal Law Essay

    ...“what is crucial is that those whom we punish should have had, when they acted, the normal capacities, physical and mental, for doing what the law requires and abstaining form what it forbids, and a fair opportunity to exercise these capacities. Where these capacities and opportunities are absent, … the moral protest is that it is morally wrong to punish because ‘he could not have helped it’ or ‘he could not have done otherwise’ or ‘he had no real choice’.” Intention is an element of mens rea and can be divided into two parts, namely, direct and oblique intention. Direct intention concludes that a defendant directly desires the consequence of their actions. From the case of Calhaem, we can see that the defendant had clearly intended to kill the victim despite his monetary motivation to commit the act. In Byrne, the defendant had an impulse and intention to commit murder despite his sadistic psychopath behaviour. He enjoyed the act of killing another. However, the case of State v Sikora denies any form of desire to kill in the defendant due to his psychodynamic state of mind. This finding is in conflict with the conclusion in Byrne. Francis J. on Sikora is of the opinion that “if the law were to accept a medical doctrine, as established by Dr Galen on the case, the legal doctrine of mens rea would all but disappear from the law and criminal responsibility would vanish”. Conclusively, whatever the mental health of the...

    Read More
    1559 Words 4 Pages
  • Chapter 7 Criminal Law Essay

    ...CHAPTER 7 – CRIMINAL LAW 7.1 Introduction The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to various rules whose common characteristic is the imposition of punishment if one fails to comply with the rules. In criminal law, a crime is considered as a wrong against the State. A crime may be defined as an unlawful act or an omission which is unacceptable that causes public condemnation in a form of sanction. Therefore, a crime is a wrong which affects the public welfare, a wrong for which the State has prescribed a punishment. It is an act or omission prohibited by law because it is injurious to the public. Examples of crimes are assault, rape, theft, causing hurt, cheating and robbery. A person who commits a crime will be prosecuted by the State, usually through the Public Prosecutor in a court of law. The main aim of criminal law is to punish the offender and does not, as a general rule, provide compensation to the victim. The victim may recover his losses through a civil litigation. In Malaysia, definite description of acts constituting a crime and the corresponding penalty are contained in the Penal Code. The Penal Code has provided about 400 types of offences that may subject one to punishment if the crimes are committed. 7.2 Objective of Criminal Law Criminal...

    Read More
    6313 Words 12 Pages
  • Criminal Law Notes Essay

    ...Criminal Law notes 1.Voluntary act: Status offences – no conduct is required but the crime is committed when a certain state of affair exists or the defendant is in a certain condition or is of a particular status. R v Larsonneur (1933) – Appellant was brought involuntarily back to the UK where she was charged on being an ‘alien’. LCJ Hewart claimed the ‘circumstances are perfectly immaterial’ Winzar v Chief constable of Kent (1983) – drunk on a public highway. LJ Robert Goff claimed ‘it is enough for the commission of the offence if a person is in a public place or a highway, he is drunk and in those circumstances he is perceived to be there and to be drunk, It does not matter if the appellant is only momentarily in the highway’. Martin v State (1944)- Appellant was brought from his home to a public highway and arrested for using loud and profane language in a drunken condition. The trial judgment was reversed and the appellant was discharged. (Supreme Court of Alabama) 2.Ommissions- failure to act may result in the imposition of criminal liability in two situations: in conduct crimes the failure to act may itself, without more, constitute the crime. In result crimes the failure to act may contribute towards the harm specified in the offence and may thus, be deemed the requisite ‘act’ for the purposes of the offence. This will be so if the actor is under a duty to act. a)Duty to act. Special relationship – may be...

    Read More
    5425 Words 14 Pages
  • Law Criminal Courts Essay

    ... Jonas was not murdered therefore his attacker has committed a non fatal offence which is dealt with in either the magistrates court or the crown court depending on the severity of the crime. Jonas's attacker could be charged with a number of non fatal offences ranging from the lowest non fatal offences which are common assault and battery under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to the higher offences assault causing actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm under the Offence Against the Person Act (1861). In order for the attacker to be charged within the criminal courts, the prosecution must prove the crime is 'beyond reasonable doubt' (Charman, 2010: 211). The jury must be certain the accused is responsible for the crime. If the attacker is guilty he will be sentenced by the judge, in order for the judge to rule a guilty verdict the crime must consist of two elements; the mens rea and the actus reus. The attacker must be found guilty of both in order to be sentenced. Jonas's attacker could be charged with the following non fatal offences. The attacker could be charged with common assault under the s39 of the Criminal Justice Act (1988), being a summary crime he would be trailed in the magistrates court. If found guilty he would receive a maximum of six months imprisonment and/or fine. For the attacker to be found guilty of the actus reus of assault 'the defendant must intentionally or subjectively cause another person...

    Read More
    2526 Words 7 Pages
  • Criminal Essay

    ...s38(1): if the person, at the time of the act or omission, is suffering from mental illness so as not to be responsible according to law for his or her actions, the jury may give a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness M'Naghten Rules (R v M'Naghten (1843) House of Lords.) • Onus +burden on defence • Balance of probability To prove insanity must show: 1. Defect of reason – only concern with his mind at the time (Porter) 2. Disease of the mind- disease, disorder, disturbance (Porter) 3. a) not know nature of crime- insane automatism (Falconer) or b) knows but thought it was not wrong to commit the crime (not know quality of act) R v Cheatham - Difficulty with the reasoning is not enough. - Must be completely incapable of understanding. – Must be a complete disability. 4a) Self defence - Complete defence except for excessive self defence that inflicts death. Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) S418 (2) a person carries out conduct in self defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary: (a) to defend himself or another person (b) to prevent or terminate unlawful deprivation of his liberty or that of another person (c) protect property from taking, destruction, damage or interference (d) prevents criminal trespass to land or premises or to remove person committing such acts and conduct is...

    Read More
    3138 Words 20 Pages
  • Essay on The Meaning of Intention in English Criminal Law

    ...The law generally requires that the accused possess a ‘blameworthy’ state of mind at the time the act comprising the offence was committed, and the basic presumption is that mens rea is required for every offence (‘actus non fit reus nisi mens sit rea’), authority for which stems from Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] – “There is a presumption that mens rea … is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject matter with which it deals, and both must be considered.” This proposition, that mens rea is the default position for an offence unless its implication is clearly outweighed by other factors, was secured in Sweet v Parsley [1970]. Per Lord Reid: “it is universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted.” Thus the requirement of intention is presumed where a matter is uncertain. However, many statutes do not use the language of ‘knowingly’ or ‘intentionally’ acting; in the case of such strict liability offences, usually regulatory offences without the “disgrace of criminality”[1], there is no element of intent whatsoever for the prosecution to establish.[2] Normally, an objective view of mens rea, where the defendant fails to recognise the risk of his acts where a reasonable person would have done so, (recklessness in the...

    Read More
    1273 Words 4 Pages
  • Essay about Unit 5 Criminal Law 9 (Offences Against Property)

    ...bill but didn’t. (3)Property received by another’s mistake – ‘A-G Reference (No 1 of 1983) (1985) – Salary overpaid through bank transfer, had an obligation to repay. Mens Rea - Within the offence of the theft the mental element of the crime the mens rea is the ‘dishonest intention’. Dishonesty, it has to be proved that they defendant appropriated dishonestly, there is no definition under S2 however it states that it is irrelevant whether it was made with a view of gain or own benefit. Therefore meaning if the other entire elements are present the defendant’s motive is not relevant. S2 provides 3 situations in which the defendant’s behaviour is not dishonest. If a genuine belief in one of the three below not guilty. A) He has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself of a third person. b) He would have the consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstance of it. c) The person who the property belongs to cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps. Willing to pay – it doesn’t prevent dishonest conduct. ‘A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.’ The Ghosh Test (1982) – Leading case on dishonesty. Ghosh a doctor, (a locum consultant) at hospital, He claimed fees for operations he had not carried out. COA decided dishonestly has both objective and subjective element. 1. Was the...

    Read More
    6044 Words 21 Pages

Popular Essays

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free