DOCSLIB.ORG

CRIMINAL LAW 43 • INDIRECT Intent: an Outcome Was Not the Defendant’S Main Aim, but an Unfortunate By- Product of His Aim

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CRIMINAL LAW 43 • INDIRECT Intent: an Outcome Was Not the Defendant’S Main Aim, but an Unfortunate By- Product of His Aim Topic 1 General Principles Burden of proof/standard of proof The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the Defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Woolmington v DPP) Liability for omissions (failing to act) General Rule: There is no liability for failing to act. Exceptions: A person can be liable for failing to act where: 1) There is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP between the defendant and the victim. For example: • family ties; or, • where the Defendant has assumed a responsibility/duty to the Victim (R v Stone & Dobinson) 2) The Defendant owes a CONTRACTUAL DUTY to act, but fails to comply with these obligations (R v Pittwood) 3) The Defendant owes a STATUTORY DUTY to act. For example, the duty for car drivers to stop at red lights 4) The Defendant has created a DANGEROUS SITUATION, and has not removed the danger created (R v Miller) Mens Rea: different types of mens rea 1) INTENTION • DIRECT Intent: the Defendant’s primary purpose is to bring about a particular consequence, design or aim (R v Moloney) BPP COPYRIGHT YOURGDLBPP 2015/16 YOURGDL.CO.UK/BPP CRIMINAL LAW 43 • INDIRECT Intent: an outcome was not the Defendant’s main aim, but an unfortunate by- product of his aim. Test for indirect intent (R v Nedrick as confirmed and refined by R v Woollin): ○ Was the consequence virtually certain to occur from the Defendant’s act? ○ If yes, did the Defendant foresee this consequence as virtually certain to occur? • ULTERIOR intent: Where the Defendant intends to produce a consequence that that goes beyond the actus reus (AR) of the crime (see Topic 9 Robbery & Burglary) 2) RECKLESSNESS Test for whether the Defendant is reckless is the Cunningham test (see R v G): Did the Defendant FORESEE a risk (subjective), and then go on to TAKE IT? Specific and basic intent crimes 1) Specific Intent crimes = crimes where intention alone (and NOT recklessness) will suffice to make out the MR, for example murder, s.18 OAPA, theft. 2) Basic Intent crimes = crimes where EITHER intention or recklessness will suffice to make out the MR, for example criminal damage (see below) Coincidence of AR and MR GENERAL RULE: the AR and MR must coincide in time for a the Defendant to be criminally liable. EXCEPTION: the Defendant may be found guilty of an offence where the AR and MR do not precisely match up in time/where there is a lapse of time between the two, in cases where the Defendant has carried out a SERIES OF ACTS and from the outset appears to be involved in criminal activity (Thabo- Meli v R and R v Le Brun). Doctrine of Transferred Malice If the Defendant has the ‘malice’ (i.e. intention or recklessness) to commit a crime against one victim/piece of property, this MR can be transferred to the AR he commits against ANOTHER, unintended victim/piece of property (R v Latimer). 44 CRIMINAL LAW COPYRIGHT YOURGDLBPP 2015/16 YOURGDL.CO.UK/BPP BPP For example, the Defendant shoots at X intending to kill him, but misses, and hits and kills the Victim. The doctrine of transferred malice can transfer the Defendant’s MR (intention to kill X) to a different AR (the killing of the Victim). So, the Defendant may be liable for the murder of Victim, despite not intending to kill him. In a recent case in which two men had agreed to the joint enterprise of having a shootout, the respondent was guilty of the Victim’s murder despite the fact that he was not the person who had fired the shot (R v Gnango). N.B. the doctrine is limited to CRIMES OF THE SAME TYPE (R v Pembliton) Driving offences – Road Traffic Act 1988 Problem Questions: use general criminal law structure to apply the following AR and MR. 1) Dangerous Driving (s.2 RTA 1988) (a) AR: Driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place DANGEROUSLY – the definition of driving dangerously (s.2A RTA 1998): (i) the Defendant drove in a manner which fell far below what would be expected of a careful and competent driver; and it would be obvious to a careful and competent driver that driving in such a way would be dangerous; or (ii) the condition of the Defendant’s vehicle is such that it would obvious to a careful and competent driver that driving it would be dangerous (b) MR: None. Strict liability offence. 2) Careless and inconsiderate driving (s.3 RTA 1988) (a) AR: Driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION OR REASONABLE CONSIDERATION for other road users (b) MR: None. Strict liability offence. Driver is assessed against the standards of the reasonable driver - a fixed objective test (McCrone v Riding) BPP COPYRIGHT YOURGDLBPP 2015/16 YOURGDL.CO.UK/BPP CRIMINAL LAW 45.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crimes Act 2016
    REPUBLIC OF NAURU Crimes Act 2016 ______________________________ Act No. 18 of 2016 ______________________________ TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 – PRELIMINARY ....................................................................................................... 1 1 Short title .................................................................................................... 1 2 Commencement ......................................................................................... 1 3 Application ................................................................................................. 1 4 Codification ................................................................................................ 1 5 Standard geographical jurisdiction ............................................................. 2 6 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—ship or aircraft outside Nauru ......................... 2 7 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—transnational crime ......................................... 4 PART 2 – INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................ 6 8 Definitions .................................................................................................. 6 9 Definition of consent ................................................................................ 13 PART 3 – PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ................................................. 14 DIVISION 3.1 – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION ................................................................. 14 10 Purpose
    [Show full text]
  • Victoria Police Force
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. -----~~. -------~ ., .-., )\ '.;.. I t· (J ;f// '. ~\ i:.· .. Ii' ::1)" ,1-,';'" \. .ti} r.? ~, : .. j",C::::i r[. o "1 ~ . I o .~ '\ o 1I .-v,. \ 'i~.. , I\' " '; o l~ I ,zl ." I ·t• r? /I. :/ ,"; o ... 1: --- -~--~~----::-- --"... ··~,-,-.-·"~ ... ·l'~""-,.v.~ -. ::1{-~'~'"':~:':~""""----"" ~ .. < ~~, - - ~ 'l • ,~-'-'-"-----<+.-~-~~'~"' "I) VICTORIA t " POLICE ANNUAL I'· J( REPORT .~, 1981 ) '. (,I C .. U.S. Department 01 Justice 86657 National Institute of Justice This document has been exactly from the reproduc~d af~;eceived \ .\ person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or polic).es of the National Institute of i 11 i Justice. I Permissioh to reproduce this copyrighted material has been ! granted by (. ! <I I. Victoria Police Department i I I to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). f,p I Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner, I i " ~',) ~ a ,-- -- ~ __~F""-'-- - ~- ~-- -~- --­ VICTORIA r , I ,I . i Report and Financial Statement of the VICTORIA POLICE FORCE for the Year ended 31 Decenlber 1981 Ordered by the Legislative Assembly to be printed ", ,.,.d ..' , .' : ' . , \ , \ ACQUISHTnONS '. MELBOURNE F D ATKINSON GOVERNMENT PRINTER 1982 No. 22 Preceding I a . page blank 10 f t f " ... The Hon. C.R. T. Mathews, M.P., Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Parliament House, MELBOURNE Dear Minister, I have pleasure in submitting to you, for the information of Parlia­ ment, the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for the year ended 31st December, 1981.
    [Show full text]
  • Simon Kealey QC
    Simon Kealey QC Call to the Bar: 1991 Silk Year 2017 Simon Kealey was appointed Queens Counsel in 2017. He is an extremely popular advocate who enjoys a busy practice concentrating solely on criminal law for both defence and prosecution. Simon has been involved in a large number of the leading cases both on the North Eastern Circuit and beyond. The principal offence groups CONTACT DETAILS undertaken are murder and manslaughter, serious fraud, high value drug offences, people trafficking, sexual offences and driving offences resulting in fatalities. Email: The work undertaken by Simon often includes cases of significant factual and legal [email protected] complexity and involve legal teams which Simon will lead. In addition to the work Telephone: undertaken in the Crown Court Simon also has an impressive appeal practice and has been involved in many complex appeal court matters throughout his career. 0161 832 5701 PRACTICE AREAS Simon will accept instructions in significant cases from legally aided clients and will cover the full spectrum of criminal offences and appeal work for private clients. Fraud All enquiries in relation to Simon’s work and availability to accept instructions should be Murder/Serious Violence made to the Director of Clerking, David Wright. Drug Offences Murder/Manslaughter Sexual Offences Regulatory R v Lawler – Acted for Defendant in high profile murder of elderly man, case featured on BBC's Crimewatch. Professional Discipline R v Dormer – Lead advocate in murder trial & subsequent conviction appeal concerning expert Private Client evidence & recovered memory. MEMBERSHIPS R v Taylor – Acted for prosecution in the trial of a man kicked to death.
    [Show full text]
  • Conspiracy and Attempts Consultation
    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 183 CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPTS A Consultation Paper The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Etherton, Chairman Mr Stuart Bridge Mr David Hertzell Professor Jeremy Horder Kenneth Parker QC Professor Martin Partington CBE is Special Consultant to the Law Commission responsible for housing law reform. The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Steve Humphreys and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This consultation paper, completed on 17 September 2007, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on its proposals before 31 January 2008. Comments may be sent either – By post to: David Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WC1N 2BQ Tel: 020-7453-1212 Fax: 020-7453-1297 By email to: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments sent by post could also be sent on disk, or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format. We will treat all responses as public documents in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and we will include a list of all respondents' names in any final report we publish. Those who wish to submit a confidential response should contact the Commission before sending the response. We will disregard automatic confidentiality disclaimers generated by an IT system.
    [Show full text]
  • Colin Banham Crime
    Colin Banham Crime Colin has over 17 years’ experience both defending and prosecuting in the criminal courts. He has been instructed as a leading Junior, led Junior and acting alone in serious and complex criminal allegations. He regularly defends and prosecutes cases including aggravated burglary, grievous bodily harm with intent, violent disorder, drugs conspiracies, robbery and large-scale fraud. Colin is graded by the CPS as a Level 4 Prosecutor and is a member of the Specialist Panels for Fraud (including fiscal fraud) and Serious Year of Call: 1999 Crime (including terrorism). Clerks Colin has extensive experience in serious road traffic offences. He is regularly instructed by insurers to represent defendants, particularly in Senior Practice Manager cases involving serious injury with underlying civil litigation. He accepts Andrew Trotter private instructions in all forms of motoring offences either directly or by referral. Chief Executive & Director of Clerking RECENT CASES Tony McDaid R v RS, DB & KM (2016): Instructed by the NCA in a multi-handed Contact a Clerk conspiracy to supply Class A drugs amounting to £50.4m. The case Tel: +44 (0) 845 210 5555 was conducted against a silk and two leading juniors. Fax: +44 (0) 121 606 1501 [email protected] R v KS-R (2016): Case involving allegations of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. R v CP (2016): Successfully defending a middle-aged lady alleged to have defrauded a pension scheme. R v ZN (2016): Defending a male alleged to have conspired to import a large amount of Khat into the UK. R v AB, PB & AE (2016): Prosecuting an allegation of conspiracy to supply cannabis amounting to almost £500,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Dangerous Driving Causing Death Penalty Victoria
    Dangerous Driving Causing Death Penalty Victoria Outright Job still deep-fried: smashing and wisest Willy aggrandise quite satanically but diverts her lymphocytes jealously. Pinched Quent thinks some automations and rives his chinches so powerfully! Catechumenical or ultimate, Lucian never curdled any unclearness! With four counts of culpable driving causing death Victoria Police manual on Monday morning. Penalties on causing death by dangerous driving Sentencing. What are dangerous driving Offences? A driver who came an 11-year-old girl count her input in Saanich while speeding. The race wholesale sentencing changes in Victoria provide two good. A plant what occurred and act may have caused the teenager to frontier the homeless. To take the same penalties as causing death by dangerous driving. More on VIC Thornton Law wildlife and Justice Prisons and Punishment Fire Service Courts and Trials. Of vehicles CarelessDangerous driving Leaving the scene of each accident. Vic businessman jailed for deadly driving. Death by driving sentencing leaflet Sentencing Council. The verge of manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment for 25 years. The hypocrite of causing death by dangerous driving is contained in s 167A of the. 52 The legislation requires that event Court contain the Victoria Sentencing. For Culpable Driving Causing Death according to the Crimes Act 195 Vic s 311. Our brains are mysteriously amazing All day they're drag in information assessing risks and helping us with mundane tasks like survey and driving Simultaneously our brains regulate the function of our organs nervous system or keep us breathing. The errand was created to piss a perceived gap between Culpable driving causing death which carried a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment and licence.
    [Show full text]
  • Causing Death by Driving Offences
    Causing death by driving offences Literature review September 2018 Dr Rachel McPherson and Professor Cyrus Tata Centre for Law, Crime & Justice, The Law School, Strathclyde University Literature review prepared for the consideration of the Scottish Sentencing Council. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Council. www.scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk [email protected] Causing death by driving offences Literature review 1.0 Death by driving: the Scottish landscape 1.1 Framework of offences In Scotland, ‘homicide’ is the umbrella term which encapsulates the separate offences1 of murder and culpable homicide. Through this distinction, a range of circumstances in which a death can be caused is represented. Since the introduction of the Road Traffic Act 1960, causing death by means of a motor vehicle has been treated separately under statutory law, and is now specifically provided for by the UK-wide Road Traffic Act 1988. Despite this, potential still exists for prosecutions to be brought under the common law2, but the view in Scotland, supported by Purcell3, seems to be that any prosecution under common law, even in the most serious of cases, can only be for culpable homicide and not murder, unless there was a wilful act intended to kill or cause physical injury. A vehicle can, of course, be used as a weapon.4 Part one of the Road Traffic Act 1988 contains the relevant offences which pertain to death by driving. The broad offences are: 1. Causing death by dangerous driving5 2. Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving6 1 For a discussion about the extent to which these offences are separate, see Ferguson, P., and Mc Diarmid, C., 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of the Prison Population of England and Wales Peter Cuthbertson
    Who goes to prison? An overview of the prison population of England and Wales Peter Cuthbertson December 2017 Summary What sort of offence, and what sort of criminal history, persuades the courts to impose a custodial sentence? Much of the debate around sentencing, and the appropriate size of the prison population, rests on this question. It is widely suggested on one side of the debate that the courts persistently refuse to incarcerate large numbers of hardened criminals, instead imposing non-custodial sentences like confetti. Some campaigners on the other side argue that prison should be reserved for serious, repeat offenders. In so doing, they imply that a large number of prisoners are in fact first-time or minor offenders who are essentially harmless when they enter the prison gates (but often emerge schooled in crime). A criminal justice system which passes more than 1.2 million sentences a year lends itself well to many striking individual anecdotes which can be used to imply that sentencing is too soft, too harsh, or just right. But any anecdote can be a misleading, exceptional case. This briefing therefore avoids the anecdotal and explores the broad picture of those who are incarcerated. It takes a full year of sentencing data – 2016, in which 98,527 custodial sentences were imposed on 89,812 individuals in England and Wales – and investigates those individuals’ criminal history and the crimes for which they were incarcerated. The sentencing data reveal: Prolific criminals dominate the prison population 70% of custodial sentences are imposed on those with at least seven previous convictions or cautions, and 50% are imposed on those with at least 15 previous convictions or cautions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Crime and Road Safety
    THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRIME AND ROAD SAFETY by Charlotte Brace, Michelle Whelan, Belinda Clark Jennie Oxley December 2009 Report No. 284 II MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Report No. Date ISBN Pages 284 December 2009 0 7326 2354 5 6(40+Appendices) Title and sub-title: The relationship between crime and road safety Author(s): Charlotte Brace, Michelle Whelan, Belinda Clark & Jennie Oxley Sponsoring Organisation(s): This project was funded through the Centre’s Baseline Research Program for which grants have been received from: Department of Justice Roads Corporation (VicRoads) Transport Accident Commission Abstract: The aim of this project was to review the literature on the relationship between crime and road safety, to identify pertinent Victorian crime and road safety data, and discuss how such data can be utilised to examine the relationship between crime and road safety. Of specific interest was the relationship between criminal activity of individuals and the likelihood of these individuals being involved in a fatal or serious injury outcome road crash. The key findings of this research suggests that there is a positive relationship between: general negative behaviour (e.g. involvement in antisocial behaviours) and risky driving behaviour; criminal behaviour and traffic offences (specifically violence, theft & burglary and recidivist/drink driving, driving whilst disqualified; risky traffic behaviour contributing to a crash and criminal history (particularly for violent crime, vandalism, property crime, and involvement in traffic crime), and; crash involvement, drink driving and general criminal history including theft, car theft, drug and alcohol related crimes, violence and property damage.
    [Show full text]
  • Response to Ministry of Justice Consultation Paper “Driving Offences and Penalties Relating to Causing Death Or Serious Injury”
    Response to Ministry of Justice Consultation Paper “Driving Offences and Penalties Relating to Causing Death or Serious Injury” January 2017 The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents Response to Driving Offences and Penalties Relating to Causing Death or Serious Injury Introduction This is RoSPA’s response to the Ministry of Justice’s consultation paper, “Driving Offences and Penalties Relating to Causing Death or Serious Injury”. It has been produced following consultation with RoSPA’s National Road Safety Committee. For most serious criminal offences it is necessary to prove criminal intent on the part of the defendant, but this does not apply to specific road traffic offences. Careless or dangerous driving is determined by the nature of the driving, compared to a notional careful and competent driver, not by the driver’s state of mind or intentions, which is often difficult to ascertain. Careless driving, as defined in Section 3ZA of the Road Traffic Act 1988, is driving without due care and attention, if the manner of the driving falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. Dangerous driving, as defined in Section 2A(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, is driving that falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. Driving behaviour that is commonly judged to be dangerous driving includes street racing, excessive speed, driving aggressively for sustained periods, ignoring road signs or warnings from passengers, overtaking dangerously, driving under the influence of drink or drugs and driving knowing that the vehicle has a dangerous fault or an unsafe load.
    [Show full text]
  • FIRST English 24 Final.Indd
    Kuwait International Law School Journal Quarterly peer-reviewed Law Journal It is concerned with Publishing Legal and Sharia'a Studies and Research The first issue was published in March 2013 Volume 7 - Issue 1 - Serial Number 25 Jumada Al-Akhirah - Rajab /1440 - March 2019 Full text of the research is available in: Journal.Kilaw.edu.kw Kuwait International Law School Journal - Volume 5 - Issue 1 - Ser. No. 18 - Ramadan 1438 - June 2017 1 Editorial Board Editor - in - Chief Prof. Badria A. Al-Awadhi Managing Editor Dr. Ahmad Hamad Al-Faresi Editorial Consultant Prof. Abdelhamid M. El-baaly Prof. Seham Al-Foraih Prof. Yousri Elassar Prof. Ahmad A. Belal Prof. Magdi Shehab Prof. Amin Dawwas Dr. Abderasoul Abderidha The Journal Committee Dr. Ardit Memeti Dr. Farah Yassine Dr. Khaled Al Huwailah Dr. Ahmed Al Otaibi Dr. Yahya Al Nemer This is to certify that The Bachelor of Laws (LLB) programme offered at Kuwait International Law School is quality assured and has successfully passed a Curriculum Review with the following outcome The programme is well managed and complies with the European Standards and Guidelines (Part 1) 2015 and aligns with the QAA Subject Benchmark Statement: Law (2016). Review Conducted by The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) Douglas Blackstock, Chief Executive, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, UK Valid until 30 September 2023 This is to certify that The Master of Laws (LLM) programme offered at Kuwait International Law School is quality assured and has successfully passed a Curriculum Review with the following outcome The programme is well managed and complies with the European Standards and Guidelines (Part 1) 2015 and aligns with the QAA Subject Benchmark Statement: Law (2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Cases and Materials on Criminal Law
    Cases and Materials on Criminal Law Michael T Molan Head ofthe Division ofLaw South Bank University Graeme Broadbent Senior Lecturer in Law Bournemouth University PETMAN PUBLISHING Contents Preface ix Acknowledgements x Table ofcases xi Table of Statutes xxiii 1 External elements of liability 1 Proof - Woolmington v DPP - Criminal Appeal Act 1968 - The nature of external elements - R v Deller - Larsonneur - Liability for omissions - R v Instan - R v Stone and Dobinson - Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - R v Miller - R v Speck - Causation in law -Äv Pagett - Medical treatment - R v Sw/YA - R v Cheshire - The victim's reaction as a «ovtt.j öcto interveniens — Rv Blaue - R v Williams 2 Fault 21 Intention -Äv Hancock and Shankland - R v Nedrick - Criminal Justice Act 1967 s.8 - Recklessness -fiv Cunningham - R v Caldwell - R v Lawrence - Elliott \ C -R\ Reid -Rv Satnam; R v Kevra/ - Coincidence of acft« re«i and /nens rea - Thabo Meli v R - Transferred malice -Rv Pembliton -Rv Latimer 3 Liability without fault 56 Cundy v Le Cocq - Sherras v De Rutzen - SWef v Parsley - L/OT CA/« /4/£ v R - Gammon Ltd v Attomey-General for Hong Kong - Pharmaceutical Society ofGreat Britain v Storkwain 4 Factors affecting fault 74 Mistake - Mistake of fact negativing fault -Rv Tolson - DPP v Morgan - Mistake as to an excuse or justification - R v Kimber - R v Williams (Gladstone) - Beckford v R - Intoxication - DPP v Majewski - Rv Caldwell - Rv Hardie - R v Woods - R v O'Grady - Mental Disorder - M'Naghten's Case -Rv Kemp - Rv Sullivan - R v Hennessy
    [Show full text]