Criminal Liability ALL TOPICS

Criminal Liability, all topics, cases + concepts

People (DPP) v Davis

Facts

• Deceased was assaulted by the applicant

• There was unsatisfactory evidence that she fell down her stairs

• Witness declared they had seen the deceased with tears in her trousers but with no noticable injuries

• Deceased died from a heart attack from severe shock

• A was convicted of murder

• A appealed on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that the death was caused by his actions (argued that the other things killed her)

Issue

• Can causation between the A and the deceased be found

Judgement

• Dismissed the appeal

• It was sufficient that the injuries caused by the A related to her death in more than a minimal way(rule for murder convictions)

Dunne v DPP

Facts

• A was convicted of attempted murder following a shooting incident

  • A admitted to the shooting and intention to kill

• Victim survived, and was kept alive on life support

  • On this, A plead guilty and was sentenced for attempted murder

• When family of victim turned off life supprt, A’s charges changed from attempted murder to murder

• A argued that it could not be proven his actions caused the death

  • Argued that the medical decision - not his act - caused the death (broke the chain)

Issue

• CCA referred question to SC: did the removal of life support break the causational chain?

Judgement

• CCA: dismissed the appeal

• SC: affirmed 4 principles

  • Only exceptionally negligent treatment severs causation (R v Jordan)

  • Lawful withdrawl or withholding of treatment does not mean the injury did not cause death if the original injury is still operative (Reg v Malcherek)

  • The constitutional right to life permits letting nature takes its course where treatment is futile (re a Ward of Court)

  • A novus actus intervenies must be truly independent of the accused’s act (R v Pagett)

People (DPP) v O’Loughlin

Facts

• A punched and then pushed victim down a garbage chute

• Victim died in garbage chute because it was blocked with trash

• A convicted of murder, appealed, conviction quashed and retrial ordered

• A argued that there was a novus actus interveniens , because, unaware to A, the third party who placed bags in the chute and blocked it broke the chain of causation

Issue

• Was the act of the third party blocking the trash chute a novus actus interveniens?

Judgement

• Appeal succeed on court/jury issues , ended up being found guilty of manslaughter

• Stated that: an intervening act must occur after the actions of the accused

  • The garbage blocking the chute could not break the chain as it occurred before the incident , an intervening act must be fresh and indepedent

  • The deceased death was caused by A’s act of pushing him into the chute, which is a more than minimal contribution to death (Davis link)

People (DPP) v Murray

Facts

• Concerns law which stated that a person guilty of murdering a guard (capital murder) will face death penalty

• Two individuals robbed bank, off duty guard witnessed this and chased them 

• They shot and killed the guard , and were convicted of murder and set to death

• They contested that they did not know the man was a guard 

Issue

• Did the individuals need to have the mens rea of knowing the victim was a guard?

Judgement

• SCC: A person is guilty of capital murder, whether they knew the victim was a guard or not

• Appealed to CoA who upheld the SCC decisions

• Appealed to SC who reversed both court decisions 

  • Overturned the ruling from capital murder to murder

  • SC emphasized the importance of mens rea

    • Presumed mens rea from Parliaments writing of the act

• Created the irish definition on recklessness:

  • ‘A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offence when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.’

  • Subjective recklessness: the conscious running of an unjustifiable risk

R v G

Facts

• Children set fire to newspaper which spread and caused 1m damage to nearby property

• Charged with arson, at trial they argued that they did not know the fire would spread from concert

Issue

• What standard should the children be held to?

• Is the test for recklessness subjective or objective?

Judgement

• Held them to an objective standard (reasonable adult)

• CoA: upheld the conviction, but they were unhappy to do so, so they referred the case upwards

• House of Lords: Quashed A’s convictions and abolished the objective recklessness test (from R v Caldwell) and changed it to subjective 

  • Stated that the objective rules led to obvious unfairness , it would be neither moral nor just to convict a child on the basis that an adult would have known better

  • Subjective test: the defendent must foresee the risk

Criminal liability

Offence = actus reus + mens rea + causation + no defence

Actus reus

the physical element of a crime

Circumstances in which an omission may give rise to liability

• Special relationship between accused and victim

• Voluntary assumption of responsbility

• Creation of a danger

• Duty under contract

• Misconduct of an officer of justice

• Statutory duty of act

novus actus interveniens

an act so independent and fresh that it severs the chain of causation between the acts of the accused and the harm suffered

Mens Rea (and types)

“Guilty mind” - the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime

Types:

• Intention

  • actor intended for something to happen

• Recklessness

  • the conscious running of an unjustifiable risk

• Negligence

  • a failure to behave in the manner expected of the reasonable person

• Strict/absolute liability

  • liability is incurred for committing the act, no mens rea required

Maguire

Facts

• Concerns regulation which outlaws putting deleterious matter in water

• Appellant was a pig farmer, who was prosecuted for polluting a river

• A had spent a huge amount of money on trying to avoid pollution, he argued that he should be able to make a defence of due dilligence

Issue

• Can the appellant make a defence of due diligence?

Judgement

• Court upheld the DC’s judgement and conviction

• The court characterized the offence as regulatory, rather then truly criminal 

• The general presumption of mens rea can be displaced for regulatory offences concerning public nuisance and social concerns

Shannon v Cavan

Facts

• A discharged sewage into a stream and was prosecuted by the R

• A argued that they had no option, as the gov had not given them money to upgrade the system (they had no source of revenue)

Issue

• Can we take into account that P had no choice and not convict?

Judgement

• Majority dismissed the appeal

• Its a regulatory offence, mens rea did not need to be established

• Keane J dissenting judgement:

  • Would have allowed the appeal

  • Public-welfare goals are better served by incentivising reasonable care than by absolute liability 

  • Felt the blame is on the Minister for not providing the necessary money

Reilly v Judge Patwell

Facts

• Concerns act which made littering an offence

• Pub owner was being prosecused because he had litter outside his pub

• Owner argued that he had sweeped the path daily, however, they swept at 4pm but the litter warde inspected in the morning

Issue

• Can the pub owner argue DD? (Is the offence strict or absolute)

Judgement

• Litter offences held to be of absolute liability

• McCarthy J set out factors for determine whether offence is strict or absolute 

  • 1. The moral gravity of the offence

  • 2. The social stigma attached to the offence

  • 3. The penalty.

  • 4. The ease (or difficulty) with which the law is obeyed.

  • 5. Whether or not absolute liability would encourage obedience.

  • 6. The ease or difficulty with which the law might be enforced.

  • 7. The social consequences of non-compliance.

  • 8. The desideratum to be achieved when considering the statutes [in this case, litter-free streets]

Factors for determining whether an offense is strict or absolute

Set out by McCarthy J in Reilly v Judge Patwell

• 1. The moral gravity of the offence

• 2. The social stigma attached to the offence

• 3. The penalty.

• 4. The ease (or difficulty) with which the law is obeyed.

• 5. Whether or not absolute liability would encourage obedience.

• 6. The ease or difficulty with which the law might be enforced.

• 7. The social consequences of non-compliance.

• 8. The desideratum to be achieved when considering the statutes [in this case, litter-free streets]

Leneghan

Facts

• Concerned an offence involving the conservation of wild birds

• Accused were farmers who had overgrazed their land to the detriment of wild birds

• District Court dismissed charges as they required a mens rea

Issue

• Did prosecution have to prove mens rea in relation to the detriment to wild birds?

Judgement

• HC said DC made an error in requiring a mens rea

• They were regulatory offences of strict liability and thus no mens rea was required

  • Referred to the principles set out in Reilly v Patwell

• Strict liability is justified where offence is regulatory in nature

CC v Ireland

Facts

• Concerns section of act which made it an offense to have sexual intercouse with girls <15

  • No reference to mens rea in legislation

• The accused argued that the lack of mens rea was a violation of his constitutional rights

Issue

1. Whether the offence permitted a defence of reasonable mistake as to age

2. Is it constitutional to have a very serious criminal offence which has no mens rea

Judgement

1. No defence of reasonable mistake allowed, no mens rea required

   1. Denham J dissented, stating that the presumption of mens rea for conviction of an offence is well established 

2. Unconstitutional, violating Art 40.3.1.

   1. Hardiman J, emphasised the absolute nature of not allowing a defence and how serious the crime is as the accused would be enrolled on sex offender register and life imprisionment 

   2. Serious criminal liability demands mens rea

   3. The section wholly removes the mental element and expressly criminalises the mentally innocent

• Court distinguished between a ‘true criminal offence’ and a regulatory offence

Beakhurst

Facts

• Taxis must have both the driver and vehicle licensed

• Inspector discovers the son of accused driving (not registered to vehicle)

Issue

1. Is there adequate admissible evidence to prove that the D committed the offence?

2. Is the D entitled to raise a defence that the vehicle was used without his permission or knowledge

Judgement

1. Yes

2. To avoid liability, the D must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he took all reasonable steps to prevent the vehicle’s use in breach of license conditions (the DD defence)

   1. It is not sufficient for D to establish lack of knowledge

• Used the Reilly v Patwell criteria to determine the offence as regulatory and therefore strict liability

  • Modest penalty, lacks stigma, difficulties of proving mens rea

People (AG) v Dunleavy

Facts

• Driver knocked down and killed cyclist

• Accused argued that his conduct was at most dangerous driving, not manslaughter

• Found guilty and appealed that the jury was not properly instructed on the constituents of manslaughter 

Issue

• What about manslaughter does the jury need to be told?

Judgement

• Jury was not correctly informed, reversed the conviction and ordered retrial

Created test for gross negligence manslaughter , jury must understand:

1. Negligence in this context means failure to behave as a reasonable driver would

2. They must be satisfied that negligence upon the part of the accused was responsible for the death in question

3. Ordinary carelessness is not sufficient to prove manslaughter 

Must be satisfied that the fatal negligence was of a very high degree; and was such as to involve, in a high degree, the risk or likelihood of substantial personal injury to others.

People (DPP) v Joel

Facts

• Joel (mother of first A) moved in with them on temporary basis, lived there for 14 months

• Joel suffered from disability, condition deteriorated and was admitted into ambulance

• Joel was in poor condition, bed was filthy, infected with bed sores

• Joel died in hospital, A’s convicted of manslaughter of Joel on basis of neglect

Issue

• What is the appropriate legal test for causation in manslaughter by negligence

Judgement

• Stated that the test for manslaughter by negligence is whether the accused’s actions were a substantial cause of death (higher threshold then murder)

  • Otherwise, court would overpunish people who minorly contributed 

• Court quashed the convictions due to unfair and incorrect trial

Re Employment Equality Bill

Case Facts

• Made it illegal to do anything with constitutes discrimination

• 15(1) - “Anything done by a person in the course of his or her employment shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as done also by that person's employer, whether or not it was done with the employer's knowledge or approval.”

  • Rebutted the presumption of mens rea

Issue

• Is it constitutional? 

Judgement

• “...to render an employer liable to potentially severe criminal sanctions in circumstances which are so unjust, irrational and inappropriate would make any purported trial of such a person not one held in due course of law and, therefore, contrary to Article 38, s. 1 of the Constitution and also repugnant to the provisions of Article 40, s. 1 of the Constitution.

• This section of the bill could not be signed into law because it was unconstitutional

The People (AG) v Crosbie and Meehan

Case Facts

• Fight broke out, victim tried to break up fight between two D’s, was stabbed by one of the two

• Convicted of manslaughter

•  On appeal, they argued

  • 1. Judge had applied an incorrect standard

  • 2. The judge gave the impression to the jury that the A’s could be convicted of manslaughter without an intention to cause serious injury

Issue

• Answer the questions

Judgement

• Court of Criminal Appeal: disagreed with both of the arguments

  • 1. The dangerous quality of the act must be judged by objective standards. It is irrelevant that the accused did not think it was dangerous.

    • The production of a knife in public is objectively dangerous

  • 2. The relevant intention in manslaughter is the deliberate doing of an act which is unlawful and which, judged by objective standards, is dangerous