Criminal Law - Actus Reus, Mens Rea, and burdens of proof and standards.

This is taken from the lecture from Week 1.

Actus Reas

The criminal act itself.

Mens Rea

The state of mind during the criminal act - the intent to do it, opposed by recklessness. Crimes may have a combination, when one part of an act is intended and the other reckless. There are special types linked to specific cases, such as dishonesty for fraud. Defence mist negate this and prosecution’s claims. Insanity can also impact this.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Gives defendants procedural rights, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to a defence, an interpreter, etc.

Burden of Proof and Woolmington v DPP [1935]

The burden of proof is with the prosecution, excluding insanity where the prosecution must prove this.

Woolimngton v DPP [1935] - a husband killed his wife with no witnesses, and he insisted he had not intended to. The burden of proving his intent (to charge him with murder, rather than manslaughter) was with the prosecution - ruled by the House of Lords.

Standard of Proof

Prosecution must convince a jury to the extent of sureness (almost certain), although this is reduced when it comes to determining diminished responsibility (such as for insanity), which is measured on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not).

Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Condemns retroactivity, in that nobody can be prosecuted for what is presently a crime, but had not previously been when the act was committed.

Justifications and reasons for Criminal law

• To define what a criminal is.

• To identify acceptable behaviours.

• Deterrent for wrongdoing.

• To punish those that have done wrong.

Counter-arguments for Criminal law justifications and reasons.

• Not everyone agrees on what is wrong.

• Not everyone agrees on what is right.

• Deterrence does not always prevent crime.

• Punishments can be unjust, disproportionate, or undeserved.

Law and morality, Dudley and Stephens (1885), and Hinks [2001]

Law and morality is an essential theme in criminal law.

Dudley and Stephens (1885) saw the courts insist that while not the same, law and morality must not be fully separated from one another.

Hinks [2001] underlined the need for law to define the boundary between mere immorality and illegality.

The Harm Principle

This examines what should be illegal, deciding that if the act causes individual harm (not societal harm), then it can be considered illegal. More modern theorists also include that this harm must be an important and not minor harm.