Contents
English criminal law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
English criminal law refers to the body of law in England and Wales which deals with crimes and their consequences. Criminal acts are considered offences against the whole of a community. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, have responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes and common law, and why some forms of behaviour are considered criminal.
The English legal system is common within other Commonwealth states, notably Australia, although government legislative practises and rare legal procedures, example being court hierarchy, may differ to both a significant and minor extent.
The fundamentals of a crime are known as the actus reus and the mens rea. These two Latin terms mean "guilty act" (doing that which is prohibited) and "guilty mind" (i.e. the intent to commit the crime). The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that one should have recognised or intended that one was acting wrongly. Nevertheless, most jurisdictions have as many strict liability offences, which criminalise behaviour without the need to show moral wrongdoing. These are usually regulatory in nature, where the result of breach could have particularly harmful results. Examples include drunk driving, or statutory rape.
Some of the most serious criminal offences involve death, such as murder and manslaughter. Non-deadly offences include actual or grievous bodily harm. A variety of offences relate to property, like criminal damage, theft, robbery or burglary. Importantly, one can still be liable for helping another person's criminal act, conspiring to do something prohibited or merely attempting an offence. Defences exist to some crimes. A person who is accused may in certain circumstances plead they are insane and did not understand what they were doing, that they were not in control of their bodies, they were intoxicated, mistaken about what they were doing, acted in self defence, acted under duress or out of necessity, or were provoked. These are issues to be raised at trial, for which there are detailed rules of evidence and procedure to be followed.
Criminal law history
The distinction between wrongs to the whole community and wrongs against individuals still had not been established by Roman times, and punishment for infringement of one's legal rights could be carried out by the victim himself. The pater familias was in possession of all the family and its property (including slaves). Hence, interference with any property was enforced by the pater. The Commentaries of Gaius on the Twelve Tables treated furtum (modern theft) as a tort. Similarly, assault and violent robbery were allied with trespass as to the pater's property. For example, the rape of a slave would be the subject of compensation to the pater as having trespassed on his "property") and breach of such laws created a vinculum juris (an obligation of law) that could only be discharged by the payment of monetary compensation (modern damages).
The first signs of the modern distinction between crimes and civil matters emerged during the Norman Conquest of England in 1066.[1] The earliest criminal trials had very little, if any, settled law to apply. However, the civil delictual law was highly developed and consistent in its operation (except where the King wanted to raise money by selling a new form of Writ).
The development of the "State" dispensing justice in a court only emerged parallel to or after the emergence of the concept of sovereignty. It was only in the 18th century that European countries began operating police forces. From this point, criminal law had the mechanisms for enforcement, which allowed for its development as a credible and self-sufficient entity.
Criminal law elements
The two basic elements of a crime are the act of doing that which is criminal, and the intention to carry it out. In Latin this is called the actus reus and the mens rea. In many crimes however, there is no necessity of showing criminal intention, which is why the term "strict liability" is used.
Actus reus
Actus reus is Latin for "guilty act" and is the physical element of committing a crime. It is usually the application or threat of unlawful force, though exceptionally an omission or failure to act can result in liability. Simple examples might be A hitting B with a stick, or X pushing Y down a water well. These are guilty acts and the unlawful application or force. Alternatively, one may have a pre-existing duty to another person and by deliberately not performing it, one commits a crime. For instance, not giving food is an omission rather than an act, but as a parent one has a duty to feed one's children. Pre-existing duties can arise also through contract,[2] a voluntary undertaking,[3] a blood relation with who one lives,[4] and occasionally through one's official position.[5] As the 19th century English judge, Lord Coleridge CJ wrote,
“It would not be correct to say that every moral obligation involves a legal duty; but every legal duty is founded on a moral obligation.”[6]
Furthermore, one can become bound by a duty to take reasonable steps to correct a dangerous situation that one creates. In R v Miller[7] a squatter flicked away a still lit cigarette, which landed on a mattress. He failed to take action, and after the building had burned down, he was convicted of arson. He failed to correct the dangerous situation he created, as he was duty bound to do.[8] In many countries in Europe and North America, good samaritan laws also exist, which criminalise failure to help someone in distress (e.g. a drowning child). On the other hand, it was held in the U.K. that switching off the life support of someone in a persistent vegetative state is an omission to act and not criminal. Since discontinuation of power is not a voluntary act, not grossly negligent, and is in the patient's best interests, no crime takes place.[9]
If someone's act is to have any consequence legally, it must have in some way caused a victim harm. The legal definition of "causation" is that "but for" the defendant's conduct, the victim would not have been harmed.[10] If more than one cause for harm exists (e.g. harm comes at the hands of more than one culprit) the rule states that to be responsible, one's actions must have "more than a slight or trifling link" to the harm.[11] Another important rule of causation is that one must "take his victim as he finds him." For instance, if P gives his friend Q a playful slap on the head, but Q suffers from a rare cranial condition and dies, then P can be guilty of manslaughter regardless of how unlucky he is to have bickered with Q. This is known as the thin skull rule.[12]
Between the defendant's acts and the victim's harm, the chain of causation must be unbroken. It could be broken by the intervening act (novus actus interveniens) of a third party, the victim's own conduct,[13] or another unpredictable event. A mistake in medical treatment usually will not break the chain, unless the mistakes are in themselves "so potent in causing death."[14] For instance, if emergency medics dropped a stab victim on the way to the hospital and performed the wrong resuscitation, the attacker would not be absolved of the crime.[15]
The interplay between causation and criminal responsibility is notoriously difficult, and many outcomes are criticised for their harshness to the unwitting defendant and sidestepping of hospitals' or the victim's own liability. In R v Dear[16] a stab victim reopened his wounds while in the hospital and died. But despite this suicidal behaviour, the attacker was still held fully responsible for murder.
Mens rea
Mens rea is another Latin phrase, meaning "guilty mind". It is the mental element of committing a crime and establishes the element of intent. Together with an actus reus, mens rea forms the bedrock of criminal law, although strict liability offences have encroached on this notion. A guilty mind means intending to do that which harms someone. Intention under criminal law is separate from a person's motive. If Mr. Hood robs from rich Mr. Nottingham because his motive is to give the money to poor Mrs. Marian, his "good intentions" do not change his criminal intention to commit robbery.[17] In the special case of murder, the defendant must have appreciated (i.e. consciously recognised) that either death or serious bodily harm would be the result of his actions. In R v Woolin,[18] a man in a fit of temper threw his three month old son onto a wall, causing head injuries from which he died. Although death was certain and the father should have realised, he did not in the least desire that his son be killed or harmed. The English House of Lords sentenced him for manslaughter, but not murder.[19] If a defendant has foresight of death or serious injury the jury may, but is not bound, to find the requisite mens rea.[20]
A lower threshold of mens rea is satisfied when a defendant recognises that some act is dangerous but decides to commit it anyway. This is recklessness. For instance if C tears a gas meter from a wall to get the money inside, and knows this will let flammable gas escape into a neighbour's house, he could be liable for poisoning.[21] This is called "subjective recklessness," though in some jurisdictions "objective recklessness" qualifies as the requisite criminal intent, so that if someone ought to have recognised a risk and nevertheless proceeded, he may be held criminally liable.[22] A novel aspect of the law on intention is that if one intends to harm somebody, it matters not who is actually harmed through the defendant's actions. The doctrine of transferred malice means, for instance, that if a man strikes another with his belt, but the belt bounces off and hits a nearby woman, the man is guilty of battery toward her.[23] Malice can also be general, so that terrorists who plant bombs to kill random people are certainly guilty.