CRIMINAL LAW TABLE OF CONTENT Task 01 Page No. 3-6 I. Explain with illustrations the nature and definition of crime in the context of criminal law (1.1) 7 II. What illustrations the relevant elements of crime which you can identify in the given scenario 01? (1.2) 8-19 III. There are different levels of mens rea. To be guilty, the accused must have at least the minimum level of mens rea required for the offence. Critically analyze this statement with the relevant statutes and relevant case law. (1.3) IV. Critically analyse with the relevant provisions of Penal code 20 and decided cases whether Janaka and Amal criminally liable for Sujith’s death. (1.4) Task 02 I. Describe the defense available under the Penal Code of Sri 21-23 Lanka for the offences referred in the given Scenario (2a) (2.1) II. Critically assess whether defence of duress is available to 24 Kannan for the offence referred in the given scenario 2(b) under the Sri Lankan and English law.(2.2) III. With reference to relevant section and illustrations of Penal 25-33 critically discuss the defense of Private defense and necessity (2.3) Task 03 I. In the context of the above statement (task 3) critically 34 examine the position of law relating to offences where secondary party (to an offence) could be found guilty even though the principal offender is acquitted.(3.1) II. Identify the role of principal offender and secondary offender 35-37 under the criminal law (3.2) III. The legal effect and punishment for attempted crimes are 38 different fro committed crimes. Discuss (3.3) 39 1 | P a g e CRIMINAL LAW IV. Critically evaluate the legal principles articulated in the cases of R v Bourne (1952) App R 1251 and R v Coagan and Leak (1976) QB 217, in the context of participation in crimes. (3.4) V. The offence under the Criminal law, generally classified into 40-51 offence committed against person and offence committed against property. Critically evaluate this statement with relevant statutory provisions and decided cases. (3.5) Task 04 I. Critically examine the jurisdiction of the criminal courts and 52-62 Criminal procedures in the context of criminal proceeding in Sri Lanka. (4.1) II. Identify the provisions in the Penal Code and Code of 63-67 Criminal Procedure of Sri Lanka in respect of crimes referred in the scenario (4.2) III. Briefly describe the law relating to bail and identify whether 68 the offences referred in the scenario are bailable or non bailable (4.3) Consulted works 69 2 | P a g e CRIMINAL LAW 1.1 Explain with illustrations the nature and definition of crime in the context of criminal law. Introduction "A crime is an unlawful act or default which is an offence against the public and renders the person guilty of the act or default liable to legal punishment.” 1 In case Board of Trade v Owen (1957)2 Lord Tucker also considered that the correct definition of a crime in the criminal law was the above passage from Halsbury's Laws of England. When somebody is participating for a crime he makes himself criminally liable. Discussion According to the peal code offence is a thing made punishable by the penal code or under any other law.3 Main purposes of criminal law are; a. Protect individuals and there property from harm b. Preserve order in society c. Punish those who deserve punishments There are two branches of criminal law; a. Substantive Criminal law - physical and mental element a crime, general principal of intention and causation, the defense available and other general rules b. Procedural Criminal law – include rules of procedure or evidence or sentencing theory and practice Classification of Offences, 4 (1) Police powers a) Indictable offences b) Indictable offences c) Terrorism offences d) "Hybrid" offences (2) Source of law a) Common law (judge made) b) Statutory (defined in an act of parliament) c) Regulatory (set out in delegated legislation) (3) Type offence a) Offence against the person b) Offence against property c) Offence against public order 3 | P a g e CRIMINAL LAW Penal code has classified criminal offences under 17 topics, 1. offences affecting the human body 2. offences against property of theft 3. offences against the state 4. offences relating to the navy, army and air force 5. offences against the public tranquility 6. offences by or relating to public servants 7. offences relating to elections 8. contempt of the lawful authority of public servants 9. false evidence and offences against public justice 10. offences relating to coin and government stamps Offence against 11. offences relating to weights and measures 12. Offences affecting the public health. safety, convenience, Public order Decency. And morals 13. offences relating to religion 14. Offences relating to documents. property-marks, currency Notes and bank notes 15. criminal intimidation, insult, and annoyance 16. unlawful oaths 17. attempts to commit offences (4) Place of trial a) Indictable only offences b) Trialable either way offences c) Summary offences Also Penal code has stated the punishments which offenders are liable, a. Death b. Imprisonment ( simple & rigorous ) c. Whipping d. Forfeiture of property e. Fine Elements of a crime Crime = Actus Reus + Mens rea + Absence of a defense5 1. Actus reus (guilty act); A. A prohibited voluntary act – D guilty of manslaughter of V, who died in their care, by gross negligence, not by an unlawful act [Stone & Dobinson (1977)]6 B. A failure to act (an omission) – D found guilty of arson. He failed to put out a fire which came from his lit cigarette. [Miller (1983)]7 In the case of Actus Reus of a crime, it need not simply be voluntary to satisfy the Actus Reus. D found drunk in hospital. He was chased to public highway by policemen. Later he 4 | P a g e CRIMINAL LAW was charged with being found drunk in the highway. [Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)] 8 The Theory of Causation The act of the defendant must cause the result or the crime. Causation is like a chain. That mean defendants actions should be a direct link of the end result which is consider as the criminal act. An intervening act at somewhere of the incident may break the chain of causation. Because of that he will not find guilty. 1. D’s action must be a factual cause of criminal act- In R v White (1910)9 D tried to poison and kill his mother. But unexpectedly she died because of natural causes before he could give it to her. He was not guilty for her death. Because poisoning was not the factual cause of criminal act. 2. D’s actions need not be the sole cause of criminal act – In case R v Pagett (1983)10 D used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield in hostage situation. Later she died in police gunfire. But he found guilty because his actions need only be a substantial cause of death. 3 Thin Skull Rule – “You must find your victim as you find him.”11 This means that the defendant cannot escape liability if the victim suffers more harm than would otherwise be expected due to his act under normal circumstance. D was not given excuse simply because she didn’t know V was more susceptible to serious injury or death fro her act. [R v Blaue (1975)12] 4 If V kills due to Medical intervention, D may still be liable – In case R v Smith (1959)13 “an operating and substantial cause of death” of V. In R v Cheshire (1991)14 D’s acts need not be the sole or even the main cause of death. , he died due to other reasons as well. Again in R v Jordan (1956)15 “palpably wrong medical treatment” cause the death of V. In all above three cases V died not directly because of D’s act, but it initiate the consequence and final result was the death. 2. Mens rea (guilty mind) - Mens rea has two divisions as Intention and Recklessness. (1) Intention – It can be direct or indirect. Direct; - the accused desires the outcome. And he sets out to ensure it occurs; Or Indirect; - the accused does not desire the outcome. But he recognizes that crime is a virtual certainty. (R v Woollin [1998]) 16 (2) Recklessness - There is now only one test for recklessness (subjective). Did the D foresee there was a risk involved? R v G and R (2003)17 – the Ds, aged 11 and 12, set fire to a wheelie bin. Fire spread causing damage to the neighboring building. Ds did not appreciate the risk – found not guilty (follows R v Cunningham). 3. Strict liability- In offences under strict liability the Defendant only needs to commit the Actus Reus to be found guilty of the crime. The D’s state of mind at the time is irrelevant and not takes into consideration. Someone may think it is unfair on the D who is committing a crime but may 5 | P a g e CRIMINAL LAW not realize it. In Meah v Roberts (1977)18 two children asked for lemonade. But by mistake they were served with caustic soda. D found guilty of selling food unsuited for human consumption. Conclusion Criminal law is usually categorized under the public law. Because of the crimes are considered as wrong doings against the people, though it might affect only one person. Hence it considers as the acts against the State and they are punished by the State.