DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents Topic 1: Principals of Criminal Responsibility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents Topic 1: Principals of Criminal Responsibility Table of Contents Topic 1: Principals of Criminal Responsibility ................................................................................ 1 Children committing criminal offences ...................................................................................... 1 Doli incapax .................................................................................................................. 1 Evidence that a child knew it was wrong ..................................................................... 1 Corporate Criminal Liability ....................................................................................................... 2 Vicarious Liability .......................................................................................................... 2 Direct Liability ............................................................................................................... 3 Corporate Culture.......................................................................................................... 4 Elements of a Crime ................................................................................................................... 5 The physical elements of a crime ................................................................................. 5 A specified form of conduct ............................................................................... 5 Voluntariness ...................................................................................................... 6 Causation ............................................................................................................ 6 The reasonable foreseeability test ....................................................... 7 The substantial cause test ..................................................................... 7 The natural consequence test............................................................... 7 Novus actus interveniens ...................................................................... 8 The acts of the victim (that may break chain of causation) .................. 8 The acts of a third party (that may break chain of causation) .............. 9 Medical Treatment ................................................................. 9 Withdrawing life support ..................................................... 10 The fault elements of a crime .................................................................................... 10 Subjective v Objective fault ........................................................................... 11 Intention ........................................................................................................ 12 Motive & Intention ............................................................................ 12 Direct & Oblique Intention ............................................................... 13 Transferred Invention ....................................................................... 13 Knowledge ........................................................................................ 13 Knowledge & willful blindness .......................................................... 14 Recklessness ..................................................................................... 14 Recklessness & Indifference ............................................................. 15 Recklessness & willful blindness ....................................................... 15 Negligence ..................................................................................................... 16 Strict liability & Absolutely liability offences ........................................................................... 16 Mistake of facts & strict liability offences .................................................................. 18 Mistake rather than ignorance ...................................................................... 18 Mistake of fact ............................................................................................... 19 Honest & reasonable mistake ........................................................... 20 Mistake must render the accused's act innocent ............................. 20 Criminal negligence & due diligence ................................................ 20 Mistake of law ................................................................................................ 21 Knowledge of unlawfulness as a fault element ................................ 21 The defence of claim of right ............................................................ 22 The non-discovery of laws ................................................................ 22 The statutory defence of lawful excuse ............................................ 22 Concurrence of physical & fault elements ............................................................................... 23 Fault element imposed on a 'series of acts' ............................................................... 23 Fault element imposed upon a 'continuing act' ......................................................... 23 Topic 2 – Unlawful Killing ........................................................................................................... 25 Table 1: Physical & Fault elements of murder ......................................................................... 25 Causing the death of a human being ....................................................................................... 26 Physical element of murder & manslaughter ............................................................. 26 A human being ............................................................................................................ 26 Is a feotus a human being? ......................................................................................... 26 The end of life ............................................................................................................. 27 Euthanasia & unlawful killing ......................................................................... 28 Voluntary Euthanasia – the NT experiment................................................... 28 Arguments in favour of voluntary euthanasia ............................................... 29 Beneficence ...................................................................................... 29 Arguments opposing voluntary euthanasia ................................................... 30 "slippery slope" argument ................................................................ 30 Integrity of medical profession & palliative care .............................. 30 Non-voluntary euthanasia ............................................................................. 30 The fault element of murder ...................................................................................... 32 Intention to kill ............................................................................................... 33 Transferred intention........................................................................ 33 Intention to inflict serious bodily harm ......................................................... 33 Recklessness .................................................................................................. 34 Probability ...................................................................................................... 35 Recklessness to inflict GBH ............................................................................ 35 Constructive Murder ................................................................................................... 35 Table 2: Commission of certain offences (different wording) ....................... 35 The specified offences in question ................................................................ 36 Manslaughter .............................................................................................................. 37 Fault element of manslaughter ..................................................................... 37 Unlawful & dangerous act manslaughter ...................................................... 38 Unlawful assault causing death ..................................................................... 38 Unlawful act ................................................................................................... 38 Pemble v the Queen (1971) ............................................................... 40 Dangerous act ................................................................................................ 41 Negligent manslaughter................................................................................. 41 Duty of care ...................................................................................... 42 Standard of care................................................................................ 43 Breach of duty of care ...................................................................... 44 Offences involving death ............................................................................................ 44 Culpable driving ............................................................................................. 44 Table 4: Culpable driving causing death ........................................................ 44 Omissions & unlawful killing .......................................................................... 45 Offences related to suicide ......................................................................................... 46 Assisting or encouraging
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Katherine Blackwell QC
    Katherine Blackwell QC Call to the Bar: 1992 Silk Year: 2012 "A brilliant tactician." "She's just fantastic; she's very robust, very tenacious, and superbly charming. Has a very attractive advocacy style.” Chambers and Partners 2020 ‘A silk truly at the top of her game’ Legal 500 2020 'Barrister of the Year' – Manchester Legal Awards, 2019 CONTACT DETAILS "At the top of her game. One of the best cross-examiners on the circuit. Her trial strategy Email: is second to none." – Chambers & Partners, 2019 [email protected] “Her speeches are pure genius.” – Legal 500, 2018 Telephone: "She is a joy to instruct and is the silk you want in your corner when things get tough. 0161 832 5701 One of the best cross-examiners on circuit and pure class all round." "She is magnificent in court from start to finish; it is a pleasure to watch such skilled advocacy." – PRACTICE AREAS Chambers & Partners, 2018 Inquiries & Inquests "A Master Tactician." – Legal 500, 2017 Criminal Law 'Barrister of the Year' – Manchester Legal Awards, 2017 Business Crime & Financial Regulation "Regularly appears in complex white-collar and serious fraud cases, with noted Regulatory experience in corruption and money laundering. She is also well known for her work Professional Discipline on high-profile sexual offences, acting for both the prosecution and defence... She does high-profile work. She's very hard-working and committed to her clients." – Licensing Chambers & Partners, 2017 PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS ''Possibly the best crime silk on circuit; she has exceptional judgement and is an Appointed as Crown Court Recorder outstanding trial advocate'' – Legal 500, 2016 in 2009 “This criminal law specialist receives high praise from solicitors for her strong practice Appointed as Queens Counsel in 2012 and advocacy skills.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Wormald QC
    Richard Wormald QC Call: 1993 QC: 2019 ‘Standout, exceptional, strategic, superb…’ Chambers UK 2019 Contact Details: 3 Raymond Buildings "A very intellectual barrister who makes brilliant tactical choices and Gray’s Inn wins the most impossible cases." Chambers UK 2018: Crime London WC1R 5BH Tel: +44 (0)20 7400 6400 ‘Absolutely first class and a brilliant cross-examiner’. Email Address: Chambers UK 2017 richard.wormald @3rblaw.com ‘One of the silkiest advocates at the Bar.’ The Legal 500 2015 Details of practice A Queen’s Counsel practising in crime, financial crime and licensing, Richard is regarded as ‘standout, superb and a star practitioner’ at the criminal bar. As a junior he was consistently ranked as one of the very best, winning the Chambers’ Junior of Year award in 2013/4. He is currently advising senior board member of a company being investigated for bribery of public officials in Indonesia. He is leading in a high-profile insider-dealing case being prosecuted by the FCA, and is advising the Metropolitan Police in respect of ongoing terrorism investigations. He is defending in the UK’s largest ever cash seizure case and money-laundering investigation and is instructed to defend in a murder at the end of the year. Last year he acted: for two of the senior management team of Rolls Royce; as leading counsel in a high-profile Watchdog fraud; for the first defendant in one of the country’s biggest boiler-room frauds; for a solicitor in a complex, multi-handed embezzlement case. Other cases in the recent past include various corporate fraud, bribery and corruption allegations, representing the former Cabinet Minister Chris Huhne, a well-known hotelier on charges of rape, acting in a number of murder and manslaughter cases, and undertaking judicial review proceedings, inquest and inquiry work.
    [Show full text]
  • Concealment of Birth: Time to Repeal a 200-Year-Old “Convenient Stop-Gap”?
    University of Plymouth PEARL https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk Faculty of Arts and Humanities School of Society and Culture 2019-07 Concealment of Birth: Time to Repeal a 200-Year-Old "Convenient Stop-Gap"? Milne, E http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/15651 10.1007/s10691-019-09401-6 Feminist Legal Studies Springer Science and Business Media LLC All content in PEARL is protected by copyright law. Author manuscripts are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author. Concealment of birth: time to repeal a 200-year-old “convenient stop-gap”? Introduction The criminal offence of concealment of birth (concealment) prohibits the secret disposal of the dead body of a child in order to conceal knowledge of that child’s birth under English and Welsh criminal law.1 Most prosecutions are of women who have concealed or denied their pregnancy, then given birth alone, with the child dying around the time of birth, and the woman disposing of the body without informing another person of the existence of the child. The offence is closely connected to newborn infant homicide and defendants are often suspected of being responsible for the child’s death. While the offence can be committed by anyone, the defendant is most often the birth mother.2 The offence is rarely prosecuted with only four convictions between 2010 and 2014 (Milne 2017), and since 2002 only one person has received an immediate custodial sentence.3 However, despite the small number of convictions and nature of the sentence, the offence is significant, particularly when analysed from a feminist perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Cap. 16 Tanzania Penal Code Chapter 16 of the Laws
    CAP. 16 TANZANIA PENAL CODE CHAPTER 16 OF THE LAWS (REVISED) (PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION) [Issued Under Cap. 1, s. 18] 1981 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, DARES SALAAM Penal Code [CAP. 16 CHAPTER 16 PENAL CODE Arrangement of Sections PARTI General Provisions CHAPTER I Preliminary 1. Short title. 2. Its operation in lieu of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Saving of certain laws. CHAPTER II Interpretation 4. General rule of construction. 5. Interpretation. CHAPTER III Territorial Application of Code 6. Extent of jurisdiction of local courts. 7. Offences committed partly within and partly beyond the jurisdiction, CHAPTER IV General Rules as to Criminal Responsibility 8. Ignorance of law. 9. Bona fide claim of right. 10. Intention and motive. 11. Mistake of fact. 12. Presumption of sanity^ 13. Insanity. 14. Intoxication. 15. Immature age. 16. Judicial officers. 17. Compulsion. 18. Defence of person or property. 18A. The right of defence. 18B. Use of force in defence. 18C. When the right of defence extends to causing abath. 19. Use of force in effecting arrest. 20. Compulsion by husband. 21. Persons not to be punished twice for the same offence. 4 CAP. 16] Penal Code CHAPTER V Parties to Offences 22. Principal offenders. 23. Joint offences. 24. Councelling to commit an offence. CHAPTER VI Punishments 25. Different kinds of punishment. 26. Sentence of death. 27: Imprisonment. 28. Corpora] punishment. 29. Fines. 30. Forfeiture. 31. Compensation. 32. Costs. 33. Security for keeping the peace. 34. [Repealed]. 35. General punishment for misdemeanours. 36. Sentences cumulative, unless otherwise ordered. 37. Escaped convicts to serve unexpired sentences when recap- 38.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Wormald QC Call: 1993 / QC: 2019
    Richard Wormald QC Call: 1993 / QC: 2019 Richard Wormald QC practices in crime, financial crime and licensing, and is regarded as a standout leader at the criminal bar. As a junior he was consistently ranked as one of the very best, winning the Chambers’ Junior of Year award in 2013/4. Over the last year Richard has been leading in a high-profile insider-dealing case being prosecuted by the FCA (FCA v Choucair). He is currently engaged in the appeal of Giovanni Di Stefano (on a novel point of jurisdictional law), is advising the Metropolitan Police in respect of ongoing terrorism investigations and defending in the UK’s largest ever cash seizure cases. He is acting for Trocadero in respect of a licensing appeal and has been advising Punch Taverns at board level. He acts for an advise a number of high-profile individuals. Last year he acted for two of the senior management team of Rolls Royce; as leading counsel in a high-profile Watchdog fraud; for the first defendant in one of the country’s biggest boiler-room frauds; for a solicitor in a complex, multi-handed embezzlement case. Other cases in the recent past include various corporate fraud, bribery and corruption allegations, representing the former Cabinet Minister Chris Huhne, a well-known hotelier on charges of rape, acting in a number of murder and manslaughter cases, and undertaking judicial review proceedings, inquest and inquiry work. Richard also acts as a legal adviser in licensing and disciplinary hearings. He is highly-rated in all his chosen fields of practice: crime, fraud, professional discipline and licensing.
    [Show full text]
  • Suspicious Perinatal Death and the Law: Criminalising Mothers Who Do Not Conform
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Middlesex University Research Repository Suspicious perinatal death and the law: criminalising mothers who do not conform Emma Milne A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology University of Essex 2017 Acknowledgements ii Acknowledgements There are a number of people who have made this PhD possible due to their impact on my life over the course of the period of doctoral study. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my thanks. First and foremost, my parents, Lesley and Nick Milne, for their constant love, friendship, care, commitment to my happiness, and determination that I will achieve my goals and fulfil my dreams. Secondly, Professor Jackie Turton for the decade of encouragement, support (emotional and academic) and friendship, and for persuading me to start the PhD process in the first place. To Professor Pete Fussey and Dr Karen Brennan, for their intellectual and academic support. A number of people have facilitated this PhD through their professional activity. I would like to offer my thanks to all the court clerks in England and Wales who assisted me with access to case files and transcripts – especially the two clerks who trawled through court listings and schedules in order to identify two confidentialised cases for me. Professor Sally Sheldon, and Dr Imogen Jones who provided advice in relation to theory. Ben Rosenbaum and Jason Attermann who helped me decipher the politics of abortion in the US. Michele Hall who has been a constant source of support, information and assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Unravelling Tort and Crime Edited by Matthew Dyson Frontmatter More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-06611-3 - Unravelling Tort and Crime Edited by Matthew Dyson Frontmatter More information UNRAVELLING TORT AND CRIME Tort law and criminal law are closely bound together but their relation- ship rarely receives sustained and rigorous scrutiny. This is the first significant project in England and Wales to address that shortcoming. Building on growing interest amongst both academics and practitioners in the relationship between tort and crime, it draws together leading experts to chart the field and explore key points of interest. It uses a range of perspectives from legal theory, doctrine, legal history and comparative law to address some of the most important and interesting links between tort and crime. Examples include how the illegality defence operates to avoid stultification of the law, the difference between criminal and civil caus- ation, how the Motor Insurers’ Bureau not only insures but acts to enforce laws and alter behaviour, and why civil law only very rarely restores specific property but the criminal law does it daily. matthew dyson is a Fellow in Law at Trinity College, University of Cambridge, where he specialises in the relationship between tort and crime. He teaches tort law, criminal law, Roman law, comparative law and European legal history. He has held visiting positions at the Universities of Girona, Valencia, Sydney and Göttingen and been a visitor at Harvard, as well as a Visiting Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Procedure in Israel-Some Comparative Aspects
    19671 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN ISRAEL- SOME COMPARATIVE ASPECTS * ELIARU HARNON PRELIMINARY In July 1965 a new comprehensive law on criminal procedure was passed by the Kfnesset, the Israeli Parliament It is now appro- priate to point out some of the main features of criminal procedure in Israel and some of the more important changes introduced by this new law. Until 1965, the rules of criminal procedure in Israel, like the rules in other branches of the law, were composed of remnants of the Ottoman law, legislation of the British Mandate and amendments introduced by the State of Israel. Now for the first time, the field of criminal procedure has been treated by the legislature in a thorough and comprehensive manner. With the exception of legislation in matters requiring immediate attention, the policy of the Israeli legislature has been to concentrate on one province of the law at a time. Thus, law reform has been based on a close examination of comprehensive proposals, after substantial periods of preliminary work. The new law replaces eighteen former enactments of Ottoman, Man- datory and Israeli origin and includes almost 230 articles. It covers almost the whole road of the criminal process from arrest to appeal. The Judiciary and Criminal Jurisdiction Although the English common law pattern served as a model for the administration of justice in Palestine, there was a striking departure-the absence of a jury which was continued in Israel. The jury system, whether for preliminary inquiries or for the trial itself, was never adopted; even in criminal cases, courts are constituted of pro- fessional judges only.
    [Show full text]
  • Title 17. CRIMES TITLE 17 CRIMES CHAPTER 1
    MRS Title 17. CRIMES TITLE 17 CRIMES CHAPTER 1 ABDUCTION §1. Abduction of women (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY PL 1975, c. 499, §5 (RP). §2. Abduction of women while armed with firearm (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY PL 1971, c. 539, §1 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 499, §5 (RP). CHAPTER 3 ABORTION; CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH §51. Penalty; attempts (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY PL 1979, c. 405, §1 (RP). §52. Mother's concealment of death of illegitimate issue (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY PL 1975, c. 499, §5-A (RP). §53. Contraceptives; miscellaneous information for females (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY PL 1967, c. 78 (RP). CHAPTER 5 ADULTERY §101. Penalty; cohabitation after divorce (REPEALED) Generated 11.25.2020 Title 17. CRIMES | 1 MRS Title 17. CRIMES SECTION HISTORY PL 1975, c. 499, §5 (RP). CHAPTER 7 ARSON §151. Burning of dwelling house; when murder (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY PL 1967, c. 410, §1 (RP). §152. Public and private buildings (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY PL 1967, c. 410, §1 (RP). §153. Other buildings, vessels and bridges (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY PL 1967, c. 410, §1 (RP). §154. Assault with intent to commit (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY PL 1967, c. 410, §1 (RP). §155. Produce and trees (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY PL 1967, c. 410, §1 (RP). §156. Liability of wife (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY PL 1967, c. 410, §1 (RP). §157. Burning for insurance (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY PL 1967, c. 410, §1 (RP). CHAPTER 8 ARSON Generated 2 | Title 17. CRIMES 11.25.2020 MRS Title 17. CRIMES §161. First degree (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY PL 1967, c. 410, §2 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 499, §5 (RP).
    [Show full text]
  • Note: Publication of Names, Addresses, Occupations Or Identifying Particulars of Complainants Prohibited by S 203 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011
    NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANTS/PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA119/2016 [2016] NZCA 504 BETWEEN GLENN RODERICK HOLLAND Appellant AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent Hearing: 6 September 2016 Court: Miller, Courtney and Woodhouse JJ Counsel: M A Corlett QC and G E Schumacher for Appellant I R Murray for Respondent Judgment: 17 October 2016 at 2.15 pm JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The application for an extension of time in which to bring the appeal is granted. B The appeal is dismissed. ____________________________________________________________________ REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Courtney J) HOLLAND v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZCA 504 Introduction [1] Glenn Holland is 71 years old and has a history of sexual offending stretching back to 1988. His earliest sexual offences were of having and attempting to have intercourse with a female under the age of 16. Subsequently his offences have mostly involved the importation or possession of sexualised photographs of children. In March 2012 Mr Holland was sentenced to a total of three years’ imprisonment1 for doing an indecent act on a child under 12 outside New Zealand2 and knowingly possessing objectionable material.3 These offences triggered his eligibility for an extended supervision order (ESO) under pt 1A of the Parole Act 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Rape Law and Cases of Initial Consent
    (2017) 19 Flinders Law Journal CONSENT INTERRUPTUS: RAPE LAW AND CASES OF INITIAL CONSENT THEODORE BENNETT† This article is an in-depth analysis of the operation of Australian criminal laws around rape in situations where sex begins with the initial consent of the parties but is then continued without the consent of one of them. It sets out the historical development of the relevant law from the conflicting series of case authorities in the mid-20th century about ‘carnal knowledge’ through to the introduction of specific continuation provisions within modern statutory reforms. It argues that despite these reforms there are still a number of substantial legal difficulties with the application of the current law, including a lack of clarity about what it means to ‘continue’ sex, whether non-consent needs to be communicated to the continuing party and how to evaluate the effectiveness of such communications. I INTRODUCTION In her widely-cited 1986 article ‘Rape’, Estrich observed that the criminal law has handled different instances of non-consensual sex in very different ways.1 She identified that in both the formulation and enforcement of law a particular kind of non-consensual sex was ‘generally acknowledge[d]’ and treated as a ‘serious crime’.2 She called this ‘traditional rape’, by which she meant non-consensual sex situated within the broad factual pattern of a strange man using threats/violence to overcome the resistance of a woman.3 Importantly, Estrich also identified that non-consensual sex that ‘deviate[d] in one or many respects from this’ pattern was often treated by the law as being relatively trivial and was sometimes not † BA, LLB (Hons), PhD.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Case Problem 1 Skeleton Argument 3 R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411 4 R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 10 R v Dear [1996] Crim LR 595 20 R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 30 COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION R -v- Walcott Jamie Stevens was the leader of a gang of white youths, the “Leamington lads”, who were suspected of being involved in a number of racially motivated assaults. A group of black youths, the “Cov demons” including Eddie Walcott, decided to take revenge for these assaults by attacking Mr Stevens and his gang. In the course of the fight, Mr Walcott, who was armed with a knife, stabbed Mr Stevens in the stomach. Although Mr Steven’s injury was serious, there is medical evidence that it would not have been life-threatening had he received prompt hospital treatment. Mr Stevens, however, refused to go to the hospital because he was disgusted at the prospect of being touched or attended to by black medical staff. He was also afraid that he would be recognised as the perpetrator of various serious assaults on black medical staff near the hospital. Mr Stevens therefore received no medical treatment and subsequently died of his injury. Mr Walcott was charged with Mr Stevens’ murder. At trial, Mr Justice Gravel relied on the case of R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411 in directing the jury. He directed them to consider that if the initial stab wound could be regarded as the operative cause of Mr Stevens’ subsequent death, then Mr Walcott would be guilty of murder.
    [Show full text]