Evidence and Criminal Procedure

Transfer of MR

• D’s mens rea directed at one victim or object can be transferred to the actual victim/object if the actus reus harms someone else

• fixes D with criminal liability where intended harm fell on an unintended victim

• Ment to hurt A but hurt B instead

R v Latimer (1886) = D missed hitting someone with a belt, striking someone else; MR transferred: common assault.

R v Mitchell (1983) = D pushed a man who fell onto an elderly woman, who later died; MR transferred: manslaughter. not just assault but an assault that caused death.

R v Pendleton (1874) = D threw a stone intending to hit people but smashed a window; different intents: harm persons vs property damage; MR did not transfer. in this scenario, intent was different (different crimes).

R v Dadson: Proportionality of force against the intended target is assessed (self-defence)

Coincidence of AR & MR

• The actus reus (AR) and mens rea (MR) must coincide in time for criminal liability to exist, if recognised in a specific way

• The purpose of coincidence is to ensure that D’s guilty act (AR) and guilty mind (MR) exist together when the offence is committed.

• No coincidence for murder if for example D’s care experiences catastrophic failure which is not D’s fault and runs over V

• If D does something to V but V doesn’t die and actually dies from D’ second act, there can still be coincidence

· Fagan v MPC [1969] = AR happens first, but MR develops while the AR is continuing so can be liable (CONTINUING ACT)

Thabo Meli v R    [1954] = it wasn’t D’s act that killed, so AR isn’t there

R v Church [1966] =

• The initial MR, which thought killed but didn’t, can be held alive

• Held, the earlier MR can be “rolled forward” as long as the acts form one sequence.

Le Brun = MR from one criminal act (assault) can transfer to another criminal act (fatal injury) so MR coincides

Attorney General reference No. 4 = D is guilty even if it’s uncertain which act caused the death, provided that each act could have caused the death

INCHOATE OFFENCES: ATTEMPTS

• D wants to commit a crime and starts doing something serious towards committing it, but doesn't finish the crime.

• to criminalise serious steps towards committing a crime even when the full crime has not been completed.

Governed by Article 3(1) of the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (NI) Order 1983- Distinguishes preparation (gathering tools/positioning) from embarking on the crime

1.    Physical impossibility yields liability,

legal impossibility does not. D imports foreign currency, believing that to do so is illegal (Taaffe [1983]) (its not illegal)

R v Campbell [1991] Defendant caught outside a post office with imitation firearms and a threatening note. Held that mere possession of items was preparatory; he had not yet acted on the intent to rob.

R v Gullefer [1990] 1 WLR 1063 is a landmark English criminal law case on the actus reus of an attempt under section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. for attepmt the D must have intent and take more than prepatory acts

INCHOATE OFFENCES: CONSPIRACIES

• occurs when two or more people agree to commit a criminal offence. The agreement itself constitutes the offence; the agreed-upon crime does not need to occur.

• to criminalise the agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, even if the crime is never actually carried out

Governed by Art 9 of the NI Order 1983 Agreed crime need not actually occur

 

Exemptions: (Art 10): Cannot conspire with a spouse/civil partner (a), a person under age 10 (b), or the intended victim (D is V) (c)

INCHOATE OFFENCES: INCITEMET

•  a common law offence where D encourages, persuades, or induces another to commit a criminal offence.

  → The offence does not require the crime to be committed.

AR

• D encourages or procures another person to commit a crime. Can be verbal, written, or by conduct.

• Encouragement can be direct or indirect, if it is intended to influence.

MR

• D intends that the other person commits the offence. Recklessness is not sufficient.

R v Kennedy [2007] - General advice/information ≠ necessarily incitement.
Specific encouragement to commit a crime = incitement.

R v Jogee 2016- mere foresight of risk not enough. Showed that if D1 and D2 planned a crime together, D2 could be guilty of a further crime committed by D1 if D2 foresaw that D1 might commit it.

Complicity:

• Intentionally aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring a principal offender without being the principal actor

• even though you didn’t do AR or MR. mere presence doesn’t count

Aiding: Practical assistance (e.g providing burglary tools

Abetting: Encouraging during the crime (e.g., cheering theft).

Counselling: Giving advice before the crime (e.g., bypass instructions). Procuring: Causing another to commit a crime (e.g., hiring a hitman (Article 26 PACE NI)

• R v Jogee 2016

CRIME AFTER CRIME

• Governed by Criminal Law Act (NI) 1967 s.4 and s.5 and common law

  Covers concealing offences, assisting offenders, witness intimidation, or perverting the course of justice

• Burning an offender's clothes after an assault to destroy evidence (R v Vreones).

Perverting Justice

ex: brbing jurer

Amends the Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to introduce juror anonymity protections to explicitly insulate jurors from bribery networks and intimidation. It also allows for non-jury trials if there is a severe risk of jury tampering.

convictional justice act 1994 s51

WITHDRAWEL

R v Becerra and Cooper [1975]

= withdrawel from join enterprise

• mere change of mind is insuffieicent but taking actions and communicating can satsify withdrawel