Criminal Law Review

Flashcards covering key concepts and terminology in Criminal Law.

Arrestable Offence

An offence for which a person may be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years or more.

Non-arrestable Offence

An offence not punishable by five years or more, usually minor or summary offences.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by establishing each element of the offence.

Presumption of Innocence

The principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty, fundamental to criminal law.

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The standard of proof required in criminal trials, the highest standard in law.

Actus Reus

The physical act of committing a crime; the action or conduct that constitutes a criminal offense.

Mens Rea

The mental state or intent of the accused while committing a crime; the 'guilty mind'.

Involuntary Manslaughter

A form of homicide that occurs without intent to kill, typically due to gross negligence.

Voluntary Manslaughter

A killing that would otherwise be murder but is committed under circumstances that lessen the defendant's culpability.

Diminished Responsibility

A legal defense that claims the defendant was suffering from a mental disorder that substantially impaired their judgment.

Provocation

A defense in which the defendant claims they were provoked into a loss of self-control leading to a crime.

Self-Defence

A defense that argues the use of force was necessary to protect oneself from imminent harm.

Strict Liability

Holding a defendant liable without a finding of fault (mens rea), often seen in regulatory offenses.

Criminal Justice Act 1984

An act outlining various provisions for criminal procedure in Ireland.

Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006

Legislation that addresses the defense of insanity in criminal law.

Balance of Probabilities

The standard of proof in civil law, also applicable to certain defenses in criminal law, meaning something is more likely than not.

Duty of Care

A legal obligation to avoid causing harm to others.

Causation

The relationship between the defendant's conduct and the result, crucial for establishing liability.

Manslaughter by Dangerous Act

A form of involuntary manslaughter where the defendant commits an unlawful and dangerous act, resulting in death.

Statutory Exceptions

Exceptions to general rules created by legislation, defining specific circumstances or criteria.

Proximate Cause

An event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury.

The Golden Thread

A phrase originating from Woolmington v DPP, referring to the presumption of innocence and burden on prosecution.

Limited exceptions to burden of proof

Insanity, statute and peculiar or special knowledge

DPP v Gleeson

Facts: Accused (a prison officer) claimed threats from criminal gangs forced him to act.
Held: CA accepted appeal but SC reversed. Job/circumstance ≠ personal characteristic for duress.
Use: Key Irish case clarifying that duress must consider subjective factors, but not every context qualifies.

 R v Z (Hasan)

(voluntary or self-induced duress and objective test as to foresight) Bingham L.: “The policy of the law must be to discourage association with known criminals, and it should be slow to excuse the criminal conduct of those who do so. If a person voluntarily becomes or remains associated with other engaged in criminal activity in a situation where he knows or ought reasonably know that he may be the subject of compulsion by them or their associates, he cannot rely on the defence of duress to excuse any act which he is thereafter compelled to do by them”

AG v Whelan

Facts: Accused claimed to have acted under threat of death.
Held: Duress may excuse most crimes but not murder.
Use: Sets out foundational test for duress in Irish law. Still applies today, often cited with English cases like Hasan.

Duress

• Accused acted under threat of death/serious injury
  
  

• Not a defence to murder or if duress was foreseeable/self-induced

Re A (Conjoined Twins)

Facts: Doctors sought permission to separate conjoined twins, knowing one would die.
Held: Necessity applied:

1. Act avoids inevitable evil
   
   

2. Is reasonably necessary
   
   

Harm caused is not disproportionate

Use: Powerful modern restatement of necessity — good for ethical problem questions and medical law crossovers.

 R v Dudley and Stephens

Facts: Sailors stranded at sea killed and ate cabin boy to survive.
Held: Necessity is no defence to murder – law must protect sanctity of life.
Use: Classic example for limits of necessity, particularly in fatal cases. Also useful to contrast with health-related necessity.

Necessity

• Very limited defence
  
  

• Codified in some contexts:
  
  

  • s.18(1) NFOAPA 1997 – reasonable use of force
    
    

s.6(2)(c) CDA 1991 – damage to protect person/property

DPP v Tomkins

Facts: Trial judge failed to tell jury that premeditation doesn’t preclude diminished responsibility.

Held: Conviction quashed; retrial ordered.

Use: Shows misdirection to jury can invalidate trial — relevant to procedural fairness and limits of the defence.

DPP v Heffernan

• Facts: Accused raised diminished responsibility in a murder trial.
  Issue: Who bears the burden of proof?
  Held: Defence must prove diminished responsibility on the balance of probabilities.
  Use: Foundational for explaining legal burden and standard of proof in essays.

Diminished Responsibility (s.6, 2006 Act)

• Only applies to murder charges
  
  

• Must show mental disorder substantially impaired responsibility
  
  

• Standard: balance of probabilities (burden on defence)

DPP v Kenna

Facts: Conflicting psychiatric evidence as to whether the accused met the threshold for insanity.

Held: Conviction was safe, but court clarified that jury is entitled to choose between expert opinions.

Use: Highlights how the trier of fact navigates expert evidence and fits within debates around mental illness and culpability.

DPP v Alchimionek

Facts: Accused killed victim but expert evidence suggested he was legally insane.
Held: Court of Appeal overturned conviction as jury’s guilty verdict was perverse in light of the evidence.
Use: Demonstrates rare case where court will intervene on a jury’s insanity finding — useful for essays on jury discretion or when verdicts conflict with psychiatric evidence.

M’Naghten Rules

Facts: M’Naghten killed the PM’s secretary, believing he was being persecuted.
Held: Defendant is insane if they:

1. Didn’t know what they were doing, or
   
   

Didn’t know it was wrong

Use: Still the core test for insanity in Irish law, now integrated into the 2006 Act.

Insanity (s.5 Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006)

• Must prove lack of understanding of nature/quality of act or its wrongfulness
  
  

Results in special verdict: not guilty by reason of insanity

Amah and Musueni v Ireland

Context: Post-CC v Ireland constitutional challenge.

Facts: Two applicants committed murder while under 18 but were sentenced after turning 18.

Held: Mandatory life sentence for children who “age out” was unconstitutional under Article 40.1 (equality).

Use: Important in essays about age and sentencing, the protection of child rights, and evolving interpretations of the Constitution.

KM v DPP

Context: High Court applied and affirmed Gorrie.
Facts: 13-year-old threatened victim, saying he’d kill her if she told.
Held: Presumption rebutted because KM showed awareness of serious wrongdoing, not mere mischief.
Use: Shows what kind of evidence can rebut doli incapax, especially in threats or violence.

 R v Gorrie

Context: Historic English case applying the doli incapax presumption
Facts: A child was accused of criminal damage. The court considered whether he knew the act was wrong.
Test Established: To rebut the presumption, courts should consider:

1. Nature of the act
   
   

2. Conduct after the act
   
   

Subjective and objective understanding of wrongness

Use: Applies when analysing how courts distinguish childish mischief from criminal wrongdoing.

Stalking

• Stand-alone offence since 2023 amendment
  
  

• Actus reus: Acts causing:
  
  

  • Fear of violence to self or others
    
    

  • Serious alarm or distress with a substantial adverse impact on daily life
    
    

• Mens rea: Intention or recklessness
  
  

Also judged by reasonable person standard

Harassment

• Actus reus: Persistent acts that seriously interfere with another’s peace, privacy, or cause alarm/distress/harm
  
  

• Mens rea: Intention or recklessness
  
  

Objective standard: Would a reasonable person realise the conduct would have such effects?