Criminal Law – Core Concepts, Cases, and Defences

These flashcards review fundamental principles of criminal liability, actus reus, mens rea (intent, recklessness), causation, homicide (with emphasis on murder), and partial defences of diminished responsibility and loss of control, including key statutory provisions and landmark cases.

What are the three primary purposes of criminal law?

Protecting the community, maintaining law and order, and maintaining social order.

Name the three categories of triable offences in English criminal law.

Summarily tried offences, indictable offences, and offences triable either way.

Translate the Latin maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’.

‘An act does not make a man guilty of a crime unless his mind be also guilty.’

What is meant by actus reus (AR)?

The guilty act – the prohibited conduct, consequence, or circumstance required for a crime.

Define mens rea (MR).

The guilty mind – the mental element such as intention or recklessness required for a crime.

State the basic formula for criminal liability.

Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Absence of a valid defence = Crime.

Who bears the burden of proof in a criminal trial?

The prosecution.

What is the standard of proof required in criminal cases?

Beyond reasonable doubt.

Which seminal case confirmed that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution?

Woolmington v DPP (1935).

Differentiate between the evidential burden and the legal burden.

Evidential burden: the accused must raise enough evidence to create doubt; Legal burden: the jury/magistrates must be sure of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In what order must AR and MR coincide according to Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)?

AR must exist before or at the same time as MR.

What distinguishes strict liability crimes from other offences?

They impose liability without needing to prove mens rea for at least one element.

Give two common examples of strict liability offences.

Selling alcohol to minors and certain traffic offences (e.g., speeding).

Why will merely having ‘evil thoughts’ not incur criminal liability?

Because criminal law requires an act or omission (actus reus) in addition to mens rea.

List the three broad categories that an actus reus element may involve.

(1) Conduct (acts or omissions), (2) Consequences (results), (3) Circumstances (surrounding facts).

What is the general rule on liability for omissions?

There is no liability for a failure to act unless a legal duty to act exists.

Name the five recognised duties that can make an omission criminally liable.

Special relationship, voluntary assumption of responsibility, duty to avert danger created, contractual/public duty, and statutory duty.

Which case illustrates liability arising from a special relationship?

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918).

Identify the case that created liability for failing to avert a danger one created.

R v Miller (1983).

What statutory provision makes failing to report a road accident an offence?

Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Which test establishes factual causation and in which case was it set out?

The ‘but for’ test – established in R v White (1910).

State the key requirement for legal causation.

The defendant’s act must be an operating and substantial (or significant) cause of the result.

Give one authority for legal causation being an ‘operating and substantial’ cause.

R v Smith (1959).

What does ‘novus actus interveniens’ mean?

A new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation.

List the four broad categories of intervening acts.

Acts of the victim, acts of third parties, naturally occurring events, and medical negligence.

What is direct intention in criminal law?

Where the defendant’s aim or purpose is to bring about a particular consequence.

Explain the ‘virtual certainty’ test for oblique intent.

If the consequence was virtually certain from the defendant’s act and the defendant appreciated that fact, the jury may find intention (Nedrick 1986; Woollin 1999).

Does foresight of virtually certain consequences automatically equal intention in law?

No – it is evidence from which the jury may find intention, but they are not obliged to do so.

Provide Lord Bingham’s modern definition of recklessness (R v G and another, 2003).

A person acts recklessly when (i) aware of a risk of circumstance or result, and (ii) in the circumstances known to him, it is unreasonable to take that risk.

Name two earlier recklessness authorities superseded by R v G.

Cunningham (1957) and Caldwell (1982).

Define homicide.

The killing of one human being by another (lawful or unlawful).

What are the actus reus elements of murder?

Unlawfully causing the death of a human being under the Queen’s peace.

What constitutes the mens rea of murder?

Malice aforethought – intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

What sentence is mandatory upon conviction for murder in England and Wales?

Life imprisonment.

What type of defence is diminished responsibility (DR) and to which offence does it apply?

A partial, special defence applicable only to murder.

State the four statutory requirements for diminished responsibility.

(1) Abnormality of mental functioning; (2) Arising from a recognised medical condition; (3) Substantial impairment of ability to understand conduct, form rational judgment, or exercise self-control; (4) Provides an explanation for the killing.

Which Act and section currently govern diminished responsibility?

Section 2, Homicide Act 1957 as amended by section 52, Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Why was voluntary acute intoxication alone rejected for DR in Dowds (2012)?

Because voluntary acute intoxication is not a recognised medical condition capable of founding diminished responsibility.

What partial defence replaced the common-law defence of provocation?

Loss of control, under sections 54–56 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Identify the three components of the loss of control defence.

(1) Loss of self-control, (2) Qualifying trigger, (3) Objective test: a person of D’s sex and age with normal tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted similarly.

What is the legal consequence of a successful loss of control defence?

Conviction for manslaughter instead of murder (s.54(7) CJA 2009).