University
of Essex- Department of Law
Criminal Law Syllabus (LW104)2002/3
CRIMINAL LAW TEAM
Fernne Brennan (Course Director)
(joash/3808/5S.6.28)
Janet Dine (dinej@essex.ac.uk
/3542/5S.6.5)
Sabine Michalowski (smichal@essex.ac.uk /2862/5S.6.10)
Estelle Askew-Renaut (easkew@essex.ac.uk)
Emily Cheffins (ejchef@essex.ac.uk)
SYLLABUS INFORMATION
The following materials provide an introduction and
overview of this year's Criminal Law course. Included are:
required and
recommended books
A statement of
aims and objectives for the course
a course syllabus,
including an outline of subject coverage and the approximate order of coverage
A statement of
the basis on which your final mark will be calculated
assessment
information
tutorial
assignments
Seminar
assignments
cases and
statutes
Diary
Dates:
Term
Dates
2002-2003
Autumn Thursday 3 October-Friday 13 December 2002
Spring
Monday 20 January-Friday 4 April 2003
Summer
Monday 28 April-Friday 27 June 2003
Week
Numbering System
Each
term has 10 weeks. In the Autumn Term weeks are numbered 1 to 10, in the Spring
Term 11 to 20 and in the Summer Term 21 to 30. The week in which students
register is counted as Week 0. Week 1 begins 7 October 2002.
Essay
Submission Dates
First
Term – Week 10
1st
Year – 4 pm Monday 9 December 200
Second
Term Week 20
1st
Year – 4 pm Monday 17 March 2003
Law
Undergraduate Reading/Writing Weeks
Term 1
– 2 December 2002 – 6 December 2002 inclusive (Week 9)
Term 2
– 10 March 2003 – 14 March 2003 inclusive (Week 19)
Note:
Students should consult the notice boards in due course for further information
about reading/writing weeks
MOCK
EXAM CRIMNAL LAW
This
will take place in week 10 in the lecture slot. Compulsory for all but
final year students (who are of course welcome to sit the exam if they so
wish).
TEXTS
Required:
J. Dine & J. Gobert, Cases and Materials in
Criminal Law (3rd. ed. 2000 Blackstone Press )
P. R. Glazebrook, Statutes on Criminal Law 2002-3(2002 Blackstone Press).
M. Allen, Textbook on Criminal Law (5th
ed. 1999, Blackstone Press).
Recommended:
- Ashworth,
Principles of Criminal Law (3rd ed. 1999, Clarendon).
A. P. Simester & G. R. Sullivan, Criminal Law:
Theory and Doctrine (2000, Hart)
Legal
skills (any one of these):
S. Hanson Language and Legal skills (1997,
University of London).
L Cassell, Studying the Law (1998, Old Bailey
Press).
J. Holland & J. Webb, Learning Legal Rules (2nd
ed. 1993, Blackstones).
P. Clinch, Using a Law Library (1992, Blackstone
Press).
Computer Aided Learning (CAL) available for essay
writing skills called HELPDISK! 2.4 Essay Writing Program can be found at
computer terminals and located on the windows task bar or URL
http://www2.essex.ac.uk/essay-writing/
AIMS
AND OBJECTIVES
Our goal is both to impart knowledge of the
substantive Criminal Law and to teach the skills which you will need to become
successful in your use of the law. In particular we believe that a Criminal Law
course should help students to learn how to:
read and critically
analyse judicial decisions;
appreciate the
importance of facts and how they can affect legal analysis;
recognise which
issues are critical to the decision in a case;
interpret
statutes;
see law in a
broader social and philosophical context.
Lectures, tutorials and seminars will be the medium
for teaching. Lectures are used to impart knowledge and will be the forum where
the basic concepts of criminal law are taught. Tutorials will be used to impart
the skills necessary to develop an understanding of. and to practice using,
criminal law materials. Tutorials will also be used to develop oral skills.
Seminars will be used to enable students to develop oral legal skills,
confidence, co-operative skills and independent learning.
In tutorials and seminars you will be called upon
to answer questions and defend positions. While you may feel uncomfortable
doing this at first, you should regard it as a learning experience, and you may
take comfort from the fact that, because the other students in the class are in
the same position, they can be expected to be sympathetic. It is not our
objective to embarrass you in tutorials and seminars but rather to help you to
develop the forensic skills to succeed in the use of the law (even if you never
appear in a courtroom).
Do not expect your tutor to deliver a lecture or
simply answer questions about previous lectures. Tutorials and seminars are
student driven, and, to be effective, you need to prepare the work prior to the
class and be prepared to participate. Unless instructed otherwise, it is
permissible (and, indeed, encouraged) to discuss work in groups prior to the
class.
Tutorial and seminar work is contained in this
handout. In respect to each tutorial and seminar there is a reading assignment
and questions. You should prepare for these prior to class, and, as a general
rule, you should not attend a class if you have not prepared the assignment in
advance.
Written skills are developed through assigned
essays, a mock exam and assessments on the internet CLINT 2001. There will also
be some time devoted to essay and problem preparation in tutorials.
The Preface to the Dine and Gobert book will shed
further light on our aims and objectives in this course, and you should read it
carefully. As you proceed through the casebook, please pay careful attention to
the Notes and Questions. They are designed to help you think through the cases
and to develop that critical faculty which is the hallmark of all good lawyers.
SYLLABUS
What follows is a list of the topics we plan to
cover during the year and the order in which we intend to cover them. Lectures
will commence in week one and finish in week 10. Tutorials commence in week one
and finish in week 8. Seminars commence in week 11 and end in week 20. You will
be assigned to tutorial and seminar groups. Please see the first year notice
board for details.
TERM 1
|
WEEK LECTURE TUTORIAL (bi-weekly) |
|
1 Introduction ILAC + tips on essay writing |
|
2 Elements of murder ILAC +tips on essay writing |
|
3 Elements of manslaughter Case noting |
|
4 Causation / Concurrence Case noting |
|
5
Assaults
Statutory
interpretation Protection From Harassment Act 1997 |
|
6
Inchoate crime I
Statutory interpretation Protection From Harassment Act 1997 |
|
7 Inchoate crime II ILAC (advanced) |
|
8 General Defences ILAC (advanced) |
|
9 General Defences Reading week |
|
10
Revision. Mock Exam (last lecture
slot) No
tutorial see tutorials if you need help with revision |
HAPPY HOLIDAY
TERM 2
|
WEEK |
SEMINAR (ONE HOUR A WEEK IN PLACE OF LECTURES & TUTORIALS) |
|
11 |
ANALYSIS OF MURDER |
|
12 |
ANALYSIS OF VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER |
|
13 |
ANALYSIS OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER |
|
14 |
ANALYSIS OF ASSAULTS |
|
15 |
CRIME AND GENERAL DEFENCES |
|
16 |
CRIME AND ACCESSORIES |
|
17 |
CRIME AND CONSPIRACY |
|
18 |
CRIME AND ATTEMPTS |
|
19 |
READING WEEK |
|
20 |
REVISION AND THEFT LECTURE |
|
tbc |
LECTURE ON THEFT REVISION LECTURE |
|
|
HAPPY REVISION AND GOOD LUCK WITH EXAMS! |
ASSESSMENTS
In Term 1 there will be a compulsory assessment and
a mock exam. These assessments do not count towards your final mark but it will
enable the team to give student feedback. In Term 2 the assessed essay will
count 25% towards your final mark. In Term 3 there will be a written exam which
will count 75% towards your final mark. In addition there may be assessments on
the internet in a software programme called QuestionMark Perception which can
be used to consolidate knowledge on theft.
See http://courses.essex.ac.uk/qm/perception.dll
Term 1 Assessment
Submit on Monday 9 December 2002. This assessment
should be handed in to the General Law office where a receipt will be issued.
This piece of work is for diagnostic purposes and will be returned to you with
comments. There is no requirement for 4th years to complete this assessment but
they are encouraged to do so.
Term 1 Mock Exam
There will be mock exam in the last lecture slot of
week 10. This exam will cover the lectures to date and will give students an
opportunity to experience exam conditions. The exam paper will be 50 minutes
long and will consist of a long problem question. Students are permitted to
bring their own case list and a clean copy of Blackstone's Statutes on Criminal
Law or similar statute Please bring your own paper and pens. Written answers
are to be handed to the invigilator at the end of the exam.
Term 2 Assessment
The assessment will be due on Monday 17 March 2002.
This assessment must be completed by all students and handed into the general
office. Retain the receipt that will be issued upon submission.
Final exam
There will be a final examination which will be
scheduled during the examination period. This exam is to be taken by all
students. You will be notified of precise details regarding time and place at a
later date - watch the first year notice board.
The examination will be closed book except that you
may take a copy of the Criminal Law Statutes or an approved compilation of
statutes (such as that published by Blackstone’s). The compilation is not to be
edited by you, or any other person including a professional editor. The
statutory material that you bring to the examination may contain the title and
the text of the statute only. We will provide you with a list of cases and some
statutory material.
In the examination you will be expected to
demonstrate knowledge of all materials covered in the reading assignments,
lectures and tutorials. Thus, for example, you are responsible for material
covered in a tutorial even if the material is not covered in the lecture.
Students should note that past copies of Criminal
Law exam papers are available from the exams office and may also be obtained
from the library.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS WHO DO NOT SPEND A FULL YEAR
WITH THE DEPARTMENT PLEASE SEE FERNNE BRENNAN REGARDING ASSESSMENTS.
STUDENT STUDY GROUPS
While not formally scheduled, students are
encouraged to establish their own study groups. We believe that students can
learn much from each other, and that the discussion of legal issues among
students is intellectually stimulating and instructive. It is also a good way
to prepare for tutorials, as well as examinations. You should bear in mind,
however, that all written assessments must be your own work, and that
unauthorised assistance in writing an assessment may constitute plagiarism. The
department may require you to undergo an oral examination (viva) if there is
any doubt that any submission does not properly reflect your own work. Students
need to appraise themselves of the university's regulations regarding
plagiarism (cheating). These regulations can be found on the university's home
page. Cheating is a disciplinary offence. If you are in doubt about what
constitutes permissible assistance in the preparation of an essay, please
consult your tutor before submitting the assessment.
WHAT FOLLOWS ARE YOUR ASSESSMENTS FOR TERM 1 AND 2
AND MATERIALS FOR YOUR TUTORIALS AND SEMINARS TOGETHER WITH A CASE
LIST
Assessment 1
Reading: Dine and Gobert
chapter 6, Blackstone’s Statutes Homicide Act 1957, Allen chapter 9,
CAL
htt://www2.Essex.ac.uk/essay-writing/
ESSAY
Critically
discuss the difference between murder and manslaughter? Discuss by
incorporating relevant cases and statutory references.
OBJECT
To produce a piece of written work using essay
writing skills and the aid of a Computer Assisted Learning programme (CAL)
BASIS OF ASSESSMENT
The following areas will be assessed do apply them
when constructing your essay
1. The ability to identify the key issues in an
essay question.
2. The ability to read, discriminate between and
use relevant
reading materials.
3. The ability to provide a concise and clear
answer to an essay
question.
4. An attempt to develop critical analysis.
5. The ability to use a Computer Assisted Learning programme
as an
aid to writing.
6. The correct use of citations.
7. The use of correct punctuation and grammar.
8.The ability to keep to a deadline.
9.The ability to keep to a word limit.
Assessments may be typed, word processed, hand written.
The golden rule is that work must be neat and legible!
ARRANGEMENTS FOR STUDENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL NEEDS
Where students have an individual difficulty that
may affect the assessment, eg, dyslexia please see the Student Support Office
promptly. They will provide the information and advice necessary.
STUDENT COLLABORATION
Students are encouraged to establish study groups.
This aids the development of assessments. But bear in mind that all work
submitted must be your own.
WHAT DO THE MARKS MEAN?
70 + ("1st")
Paper exhibits almost complete knowledge and real
insight into difficulties. Unusual problem solving skills with strong powers of
critical analysis, confidence in the identification of issue and originality of
thought. Precision and
conciseness. Fluent and accurate expression. Relevance.
60 - 69 ("2-1")
A good level of knowledge and understanding of the
principles of law. Sound ability to apply legal principles effectively in
problem solving. Ability to deal with problems in a logical manner. Awareness
and understanding of a reasonable amount of contextual material. A good grasp
of the hierarchy of legal authority. A reasonable sense of relevance.
50 - 59 ("2-2")
Average knowledge of principle and authority.
Expresses it well or shows solid understanding of it. Or commands a
considerable mass of material but does not integrate this well or express it
with confidence. Efficient attempt at resolving problems but commonly misses
one or two points. Produces a great deal of what has been taught in class, but
contributes little from independent reading or thinking. Good formal knowledge
of the hierarchy of legal authority, but unsubtle in its use.
40 - 49 ("3rd")
Some knowledge but superficial, incomplete,
unintegrated, or ill-understood. Makes errors of fact or reasoning, but
sometimes sustains an accuracy that shows some profit from the course. When
attempting a problem, tends to identify the area in which discussion must be
conducted and contributes some relevant material; but makes errors in the
solution of the problem, which reveal a lack of discrimination or a failure to
learn the whole of a principle of to understand how the parts of a subject
relate to each other. Tends to have some, but imperfect, understanding of legal
authority and materials. Passages fluently expressed found to say very little,
or to be insignificant, or inconsistent.
39 and below ("Fail")
An attempt at an answer that is rushed or barely
coherent, or one that largely misses the point of the question. A mark below
20% is extremely brief and/wildly inaccurate in the answer.
*(Taken from student handbook)
HOW TO USE THE COMPUTER ASSISTED LEARNING PACKAGE
(CAL) - HELPDISK! 2.4.
If you are unfamiliar with the University computer
system, the use of the internet, accessing the law department's home page, the
use of email or the use of word processing tools on the University computer
system, you must speak to Computer Service.
Once you are familiar with the use of the internet you
can find the package by going to the home page of the essay-writing program.
You will find this by typing in the following address:
http://www2.essex.ac.uk/essay-writing. There you will find a page which
requests your user name (which you must type in), the department you are from
(choose the law department) and then press continue. You will find that the
essay-writing program appears. When you get to this stage you should look in
the left hand column of this page headed "contents". Press on the
relevant section e.g., plagiarism.
NOTE ON PLAGIARISING (CHEATING)
You will be aware of the University Regulations and
Procedures on dealing with Cheating (see the University Student Handbook and
the Undergraduate Student Handbook). You must satisfy the Department that the
work you produce is your own and that you have not copied the words of others
without acknowledgement. Failure to fulfil this requirement may lead to a zero
mark awarded for your work and to disciplinary proceedings. When you have
completed your work please check that you have put in the appropriate
acknowledgements. The following statement, from 'Model Declarations for
Students When Submitting Coursework', (Rosemary Harrison, AR, QA), should be
attached to the end of your essay in a separate paragraph:
"I have read and understood the University
Regulations and Procedures on dealing with Cheating. I certify that all the
coursework assignments which I have submitted or will submit in respect of
Course LW104 must, according to University requirements, be my own work. I
understand that I may be penalised if I use the words of others without
acknowledgement."
WORD LIMIT
1000 words. This word count includes footnotes but
does not include bibliography. Please make sure that you put a word count at the
end of your work. You can short circuit this by using the tool bar on your
computer to count the words for you. Do not quote statutes at length or
describe cases in detail. Use key words or phrases and legal principles
and ratios.
DATE FOR SUBMISSION
Monday 9 December 2002
RULES FOR SUBMISSION
You need to hand in two copies to hand in two
copies of your assessment to the General Office and obtain a receipt. This will
serve as verification that your essay has been handed in on time. You must keep
a copy of all assessed coursework.
EXTENSIONS
Requests for extensions must be addressed to the
Year Co-ordinator. Appeals against refusal to the Director of Undergraduate
Studies.
STILL LOST?
When in doubt see your tutor. You are welcome to
email the Course Director: joash@essex.ac.uk
or call 873808.
Assessment Question 2 (For term 2)
The Assessment
To follow
Word Limit: 1500 Words
THE OBJECT
To produce a piece of written work which addresses
a mixed set of Criminal Law problems. To demonstrate the relationship between
legal principles and practical problems.
BASIS OF ASSESSMENT
The following areas will be assessed:-
The ability to identify issues in a problem
question.
The ability to demonstrate critical analysis in an
essay format.
The ability to read, discriminate and use relevant
reading materials.
The use of legal principles.
The ability to identify areas of weakness in legal
analysis.
The ability to write concise and clear answers.
The correct use of citations, punctuation and
grammar and footnotes.
Good presentation skills.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following is required reading:-
J. Dine & J. Gobert, Cases and Materials on
Criminal Law, 3rd edition
ARRANGEMENTS FOR STUDENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL NEEDS
Where students find that there are difficulties
that might impinge on their work they should see the Student Support Office
promptly.
STUDENT COLLABORATION
Students are encouraged to form study groups and
collaborate, but work submitted must be your own.
WHAT DO THE MARKS MEAN?
See Criminal Assessment 1
HOW TO USE HELPDISK! 2.4
See Criminal Assessment 1
PLAGIARISM (CHEATING)
See Criminal Assessment 1
WORD LIMIT
Word limits are like speed limits. Strict! Anyone
caught breaking the limit may be asked to re-submit work.
DATE FOR SUBMISSION
Monday 17 March 2003
RULES FOR SUBMISSION
Two copies for the undergraduate office. Keep your
own copy. Obtain a receipt to verify that you handed in on time.
EXTENSIONS
Address your request to Year Co-ordinator. Appeals
against refusal must be directed to the Director for Undergraduate studies.
STILL LOST?
In the event that the above instructions are
unclear please see your tutor. You are welcome to email the Course Director -
Fernne Brennan on joash@essex.ac.uk
Tutorial Materials
Tutorial
1
HOW TO GET THE MOST OUT OF THIS COURSE
CAN YOU FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS?
*You have 90 seconds to do this test.
*You should time yourself carefully.
Read all instructions from 1-15 before beginning
this test
1 Write your answers on this answer sheet
2 Write your name in the top right-hand corner of
Section B
3 Calculate 20 x 26 = in Section C
4 Draw 3 apples of different sizes in Section D
5 Shade in Section E with oblique lines
6 Print the name of a friend in Section F
7 in Section G write the name of your last school
8 Check to see how many seconds you have taken so
far
9 In Section H write the word 'you' twice
10 Draw a circle around one of those words
11 Do not write anything in Sections F or G
12 In Section H write 'I can follow directions'
13 Pat yourself on the back when you have done all
these things.
14 Do only instructions 1,2, and 3.
ANSWER SHEET
SECTION A-----------------------------------------
SECTION B-----------------------------------------
SECTION C-----------------------------------------
SECTION D-----------------------------------------
SECTION E-----------------------------------------
SECTION F-----------------------------------------
SECTION G ----------------------------------------
SECTION H-----------------------------------------
SECTION I------------------------------------------
SECTION J-----------------------------------------
Now ask yourself whether you can follow
instructions. If the honest answer is yes, well done! If not this is a lesson
for you. Do not make the same mistake when it comes to the real thing. Always
read instructions fully before you proceed to follow them.
THE ILAC FORMULA
What is it and how can it be used?
Useful bibliography E. Cassell, Studying
the Law.
Tutorial
2
Case noting : R v K
(2001) HL 3 WLR 471. Click here
Objective: To understand what is involved in
analysing and recording cases.
Method: Read the above case carefully and make
notes of the following:
1 name of case
2 court in which it was heard
3 names of the judges
4 hearing dates
5 the head note
6 fact of the case
7 details of the appeal
8 the judgments (each judge)
9 the decision
10 the reason for the decision or ratio of the case
Reading: See materials from Hanson and Holland on
reading law reports of cases
Tutorial 3
Reading Statutes: Protection From Harassment Act
1997
Objective: to understand how to read a criminal
statute and to analyse its relevance to law.
Method: Read the above statutes carefully and make
a note of the following:
1 the short title
2 the long title
3 date of royal assent
4 the number of sections
5 date of commencement
6 the interpretation sections
7 a brief summary of each section
8 Make a note of the principles of statutory
interpretation (Cassell, pp.69-79) and consider how they might arise with this
statute.
Reading: See material from Hanson and Holland. Also
read and make notes from Cassell, Studying the Law, 1998, Old Bailey Press,
pp.69 -79.
Tutorial 4
ILAC (ISSUE, LAW, APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION)
(advanced)
Objective: to develop the tools necessary to
analyse a problem question.
The ILAC or ISAC formula is simply a method for
analysing a factual problem.
I = Issue. Identify the relevant legal issues.
L= Law. Look for the appropriate law that applies
to the legal issues.
A= Application. Once the issues and law have been
identified you will be expected to apply the law to the legal issues.
C= Conclusion. On the basis of your analysis of the
law what conclusions might be reached?
Method: Using the following question apply the ILAC
formula to resolve it.
Corporal Angus, a member of the Edingburgh
Highlands regiment, had spent the evening drinking in a public bar. He was
dressed in the uniform of his regiment which included the kit. Giles entered
the bar and said to Kit, the bar tender, " A pint size tartan Bitter,
Kit". Angus, who was short in stature and sensitive about his height,
misheard the remark as a "pint size tartan bit of skirt", and assumed
it was an insult directed at himself. He seized his knife and struck a vicious
blow at Giles who side-stepped so that Angus struck the bar tender and killed
him. Corporal Angus has since stated that he did not intend to kill the
bartender or cause him injury and is sorry for the harm which has occurred.
Discuss the criminal liability of Corporal Angus.
Reading: Dine and Gobert, chapters on homicide,
provocation and mistake.
SEMINAR
MATERIALS
SEMINAR 1- 3 An analysis of murder and manslaughter
Reading Assignment: Dine and Gobert relevant
chapters.
Homicide Act sections 2 and 3.
1. Jack, a short-tempered
and impatient man, was clearing rubble from his roof by throwing it down into
the garden below, in which his tenants’ children were playing. Jack realised
that there was the risk of serious injury to the children, but did not care. A
jagged brick hit and killed one of the children. Mary, the child’s mother, on
seeing what had happened, rushed up to the roof and screamed at Jack that he
was a psychopathic, irascible brute. Jack was incensed by these comments and
hit Mary over the head with a spade. Mary collapsed. Jack believed that she was
dead and rolled her off the roof. In fact, Mary died from the fall, not the
blow.
Because of the
publicity surrounding the preceding events, Jack and his family decided to
move. His wife, who had a history of mental instability, became deeply
disordered and depressed in their new home. She refused to eat. Jack realised
that she was becoming very ill, but felt obliged to honour her wish not to see
a doctor. Eventually, she died of starvation.
Discuss Jack’s
criminal liability.
2. Dominic is 22
years old but has a mental age of nine. He also has a terrible temper which he
tries to keep under control. At the school he attends he is often the object of
ridicule, although it is rarely said to his face. One day, however, Valerie was
talking a bit too loud and Dominic overheard her referring to him as a
"banana brain". He immediately lost his temper, grabbed Valerie and
threw her to the ground, banging her head repeatedly on the concrete surface.
It took three teachers to pull Dominic off Valerie. It subsequently turned out
that Valerie had been a battered child and had suffered internal injuries which
never had healed properly. Dominic’s assault on her had re-opened those
injuries and as a result she died.
Assess Dominic’s
criminal liability.
- The concept of constructive manslaughter has no place in a
rational criminal justice system.
- Has the Adomako case clarified the law on gross negligence
manslaughter?
Seminar 4 & 5 Analysis of assaults and relevant
defences.
Reading assignment: Dine and Gobert
1. Aryan, a
member of an ultra right wing organisation, seized Delroy's son. He telephoned
Delroy telling him to collect and post a parcel to the leader of Races United
if he did not wish to see his son hurt. Delroy posted the parcel as directed.
Delroy thought the parcel contained a bomb but he knew that the mail for Races
United was being intercepted and therefore expected that no injury would occur.
In fact, the postman handling the parcel was injured when it exploded in the
sorting office where it had been delayed.
Advise the
parties of their criminal liability.
2. Dan, an
epileptic, suffered an epileptic fit. In the "twilight zone" of
semi-consciousness that typically follows such an attack, he entered a shop
with his friend Julian, picked up a book and started to leave without paying.
Dan was unaware of what he was doing but Julian did not realise this and
believed Dan was simply trying to steal the book. Julian distracted the
manager’s attention whilst Dan wandered out without paying for the book. Later
Dan realised what had happened and returned the book to the shop. The manager
was extremely unpleasant and abusive. Dan was so upset by this that he forgot his
doctor’s advice that he should not drink alcohol and drank a large gin and
tonic in a nearby pub. As a result Dan blacked out. When he came round he
realised that in his unconscious condition he had got behind the bar and
seriously injured the barmaid. Dan ran out and hid in a nearby house, the
occupants of which were out. Dan felt hungry and decided to cook himself a
meal. He found a frying pan and some oil, and started to heat these on the gas
cooker. However, he felt so agitated that he forgot about this and left the
house leaving the frying pan and oil on the gas. The oil caught fire and caused
a large-scale conflagration. The fire-brigade was called and, tragically, a
fire-man died in the effort to put out the fire. Dan read about this in the
newspaper and became obsessed by feelings of guilt. The next day, while driving
and obsessively ruminating about his guilt, he failed to see a young boy in the
road and ran him over and killed him.
Discuss Dan and Julian’s criminal liability.
Seminar 6 Accessories
Patrick, an
Irishman, was accosted by two armed men, John and Larry, when waiting in his
car at some traffic lights. They told Patrick to drive them to a particular
bank. Patrick assumed they were terrorists intent upon bombing the bank and its
occupants.
When they
arrived, John and Larry told Patrick to wait outside and warned him that they
had his car registration number and thus, if he left, they could trace him and
his family and would kill them all. Terrified, Patrick waited for them. In
fact, they were common bank-robbers. They rushed out of the bank, clutching
sacks of money, and told Patrick to drive to another bank, which he did.
En route,
Patrick heard Larry say to John, ‘why did you have to cosh that clerk? He’s
dead now. I thought we had agreed not to use violence unless the police
arrived.’ John replied, ‘I only meant to hit him lightly. How was I to know his
skull was like an egg-shell?’
When they
arrived at the second bank, John jumped out and bustled a wages-clerk, with a
case chained to his wrist, into the car. They told Patrick to drive to a
near-by park, which he did. After Larry had cut through the chain, John told
Patrick to kill the wages-clerk. Again, John threatened Patrick and his family
with death if he refused. John gave Patrick a gun and Patrick shot and killed
the clerk. At that moment, the police arrived and arrested Patrick, Larry and
John.
A crowd formed.
Vera, who knew Patrick, joined the crowd and shouted, ‘Irish scum! A bullet in
the head is the answer for them!’ Patrick, whose brother in Ireland had been
killed by being shot in the head by terrorists, found Vera’s comment
intolerable. Furious, he wrestled free of the police and pushed Vera into the
path of an on-coming ‘bus, which injured her.
Discuss the
criminal liability of the parties.
Seminar 7 & 8 Conspiracy, incitement and other crimes.
Mr and Mrs Jones
and their precocious daughter, Amanda, who was thirteen, decided to open a club
devoted to sado-masochistic sexual activities. They planned to print
broadsheets advertising the establishment on a printing press they had stored
in a nearby warehouse. Unknown to them, the warehouse and printing press had
been destroyed by fire two days earlier. When they learnt this they abandoned
the project.
Mr and Mrs Jones
mentioned their foiled scheme to a neighbour, Mrs Smith. Mrs Smith told them
she was "into" sado-masochism and would like them to cane her on
Tuesday night if, as planned, her husband went out that night. Her husband did
go out and Mrs Smith was caned by Mr and Mrs Jones in the Jones’s flat. Unknown
to the others, Mr Jones had filmed the event with a hidden camera. After Mrs
Smith had gone, Mr Jones developed the film and told his wife to show it to Mrs
Smith and demand £100 as the price for not showing it to her husband. At first
Mrs Jones was unwilling to do this, but Mr Jones told her he would force Amanda
out on to the streets if she refused. Mrs Jones did as she was commanded and
obtained the £100 from Mrs Smith.
The next night
Mr Smith called at Mr and Mrs Jones’s flat to ask if he could borrow some
sugar. Mrs Jones answered the door and, in panic, assumed that Mr Smith had
discovered the events of the previous night and had come to remonstrate. Mrs
Jones hit Mr Smith on the head with a hammer, knocking him unconscious. Mr
Jones told his wife "to finish him off". At first Mrs Jones refused,
but her husband told her that he would kill her and Amanda if she refused. Mrs
Jones complied and killed Mr Smith.
Discuss the
criminal liability of Mr and Mrs Jones and Amanda.
Jim and his wife
Helen and their two young children moved from Scotland to the south east of
England in search of work. Both Jim and Helen were of low intelligence which
resulted in their failure to organise any social security or supplementary
benefits payments. The family was sleeping rough, had no money and the children
were hungry. One day Jim passed a camp site. He saw a caravan with its door
open revealing that no-one was in it. He entered and took a loaf which was on
the table. As he emerged from the caravan with the loaf, the caravan owner,
Bob, who was on the opposite side of the camp-site, saw Jim and shouted at him
to drop the loaf. Jim did not do this and ran off. Bob, who had a gun with him,
shot at Jim. The bullet nicked Jim’s fore-arm. Jim went to hospital where the
doctor mistakenly put a contaminated dressing on the wound, causing Jim’s arm
to become infected. Jim was allergic to all anti-biotics and thus the arm had
to be removed. Jim’s brother, Stan, learnt of these events and decided to seek
revenge on Bob. Stan went to the camp-site and hid in a bush by Bob’s caravan.
Stan saw Bob’s wife emerge from the caravan and, just as she was about to
descend the steps, jumped out of the bush and shouted ‘Boo!’ Stan intended only
to frighten Bob’s wife, but in fact the surprise caused her to stumble and
fall, cutting her knee badly on the ground. Stan ran off, but felt he had not
extracted sufficient revenge. Stan sent a message to Bob stating that he would
meet him at a particular pub to have a fight, explaining in the message why he
wanted to fight Bob. Bob and Stan met and fought. Albert, who enjoyed watching
violence, stood and watched the fight and shouted ‘Let’s have some blood!’ Stan
and Bob did not hear him. Stan won the fight, giving Bob two black eyes.
Discuss the
criminal liability of Jim, Stan, Bob and Albert.
Cases
and Statutes
Actus Reus
R v Dytham [1979] 3 All ER 641
R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37
R v Gibbins and Proctor (1919) 13 CR APP R 134
R v Lowe [173] 1QB 702
Du Cross v Lambourne [1907] KB 40
R v Miller [1983] 1 All ER 978
R v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450
R v Stone; R v Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341
Mousell Brother Ltd v London and North-Western
Railway Co. [1917] 2KB 836
R v. Larsonneur (1933) 149 LT 542
Lim Chin Aik v R [1963] 1 All ER 224
Mens Rea
Roper v Taylor’s Central Garage [1951] 2 TLR 284
R v Taafe [1984] AC 539
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 39C
R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341
Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Shimmen (1986) 84 Cr App R
7
R v Crossman [1986] RTR 49
Elliott v C [1983] 1 WLR 939
R v Stephen Malcolm R (1984) 79 Cr App R 334
R v Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79
R v Lemon [1979] 1 All ER 898
Cotterill v Penn [1936] 1 KB 53
Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 133
Pharmaceutical Soc of GB v Storkwin [1986] 2 All ER 635
Causation and concurrence
R v Towers (1874) 12 Cox CC 530
R v Kimsey (1995) CLR
R v Hensler [1861-73] All ER Reg Ext 1806
R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273
R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox 692
R v Curley (1909) 2 CR APP R 109
R v Mackie (1973) 57 CR APP R 453
R v Pitts (1842) 174 Eng Rep 509
R v Cato [1976] 1 All ER 260
R v Notman [1994] Crim LR 518
R v Armstrong [1989] Crim LR 149
R v Holland (1841) 2 Mood & R 351
R v Roberts (1971) 56 CR APP R 95
R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411
R v Jordan (1956) 40 CR APP R 152
R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35
R v Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670
R v Malcherek, R v Steel [1981] 2 All ER 422
Rv Le Brun [1991] 4 All ER 673, CA
R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr APP R 279
R v Taafe [1984] AC 539
Prudom, The Times, 8 October, 1982
R v Jakeman [1982] 76 CR APP R 223
Thabo Meli v The Queen [1954] 1 WLR 228
Williams [1992] 2 All ER 183, CA
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 4 of 1980) [1981] 1 WLR 705
R v Miller [1983] 1 All ER 978, HL
R v Dear [1986] Crim LR 595
R v Corbett [1996] Crim LR 594
Gavin Thomas Mellor [1996] 2 CR App R 245
AG Ref (No 3 of 1994) HL, Times 25 July 1997
R v Pembliton (1874) LR 2 CCR 119.
THE PRINCIPLE OF CAPACITY
Infancy
Children and Young Persons Act 1983, s.50
Mischievous discretion
C (a Minor) v DPP [1996] AC 1
Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s. 34
Insanity/Automatism
McNaghten’s Case (1843) 10 CL+F 200
R v Clarke [1972] 1 ALL ER 219
R v Sullivan [1984] 1 AC 156
R v Hennessy [1989] 1 WLR 287
R v T [1990] Crim LR 256
R v Windle [1952] 2 QB 826
R v Sodeman [1936] 2 ALL ER 1138
Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to
Plead) Act 1991
Bratty v Atty Gen for NI [1961] 3 All Er 523
R v Quick and Paddison [1973] QB 910
R v Bailey [1983] 1 WLR 760
R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92
HOMICIDE
Actus Reus
R v Poulton (1832) 5 C+P 329
R v Brain (1834) 6 C+P 350
R v Senior (1832) 1 Mood CC 346
R v Malcheck & Steel [1981] 1 WLR 690
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 2 WLR 316
SI Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
R v Dyson [1908] 2 KB 454
Jordan/Smith/R v Roberts (above)
R v Blaue [1975] 3 All ER 446
R v Haywood (1908) 21 Cox CC 692
R v Halliday (1889) 61 LT 701
Mens Rea
R v Moloney[1985] 1 AC 905
R v Hancock & Shankland [1986] 1 AC 455
R v Nedrick [1986] 3 All ER 1
R v Skalley (1995) CLR
Stephen Leslie Woollin [1997] Crim App R 97 Now House of Lords
Atty-Gen’s Ref (3 of 1994) [1997] 3 All ER 936
Voluntary Manslaughter
1. Diminished Responsibility
S2 Homicide Act 1957
R v Dix (1981) 74 CR APP R 306
R v Bryne [1960] 2 QB 396
R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889, CA
Sanderson [1994] 98 CR App R 325, CA
Miller [1972] Times, 16 May
Sutcliffe [1981] Times, 23 May
R v Atkinson [1985] Crim LR 314
2. Provocation
S3 Homicide Act 1957
R v Cascoe [1970] 2 All ER 833
R v Johnson [1989] 1 WLR 740
R v Davies [1975] 1QB 691
R v Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932
DPP v Camplin [1978] AC705
Thornton [1992] 1 All ER 306, CA
Thornton No 2 [1996] WLR 1174, CA
Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889, CA
R v Newell (1980) 71 CR APP R 331
R v Morhall [1995] WLR 330
R v Thornton (no 2) (1995) CA 1996
Masciantondour (1995) AJLR
R v Humphreys (1995)
Luc Thiet Than v Queen PC [1996]
R v Brown [1972] 2 QB 229
R v Phillips [1969] 2 AC 130
R v Johnson [1989] 1WLR 740
R v O’Grady [1987] 3 All ER 420
R v Smith [2000] HL 27 July 2000
Suicide Pact (see S.4. HA 1957 & Diane Pretty
Case
Involuntary Manslaughter
Andrews v DPP [1937] AC576
R v Lamb [1967] 2QB 981
R v Church [1965] 2 All ER 72
R v Dawson [1985] 81 CR APP R 150
R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152
R v Goodfellow (1986) CR APP R 23
R v Reid [192] 1 WLR 793
R v Woodward 1995 Crim LR 486
R v Seymour [1983] 2 AC 493
R v Adomako [1994] 3 ALL ER 79 also Crim LR 757
R v Bateman (1925) 19 CR APP R 8
Chan-Fook [1994] 2 All ER 552
Ball [1989] Crim LR 730, CA
Law Comm No 237, Involuntary Manslaughter (1996)
NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
Assault
R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981
Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) 76 Cr App R 234
Turberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3
R v Wilson [1955] 1 All ER 744
Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439
R v Savage [1991] 4 All ER 698.
R v Burstow (1996) CLR
R v Ireland, [1997] 1 All ER 112
R v Constanza, [1997] CRIM LR 576
Battery
Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374
Venna [1976] QB 421
R v Savage [1991] 3 WLR 914, HL
DPP v K (a minor) [1990] 1 WLR 1067
R v Brown [1993] 2 WLR 556
Laskey & Others v United Kingdom; ECHR; 19 Feb 1997, Times, 25 Feb 1997
Burrell v Harmer [1965] 3 All ER 684
R v D [1984] 1 AC 778
Bolduc and Bird v R (1967) 63 DLR (2d) 82
Bainferth (1994) CLR
Gardiner (1994) CLR
S47, S20, S18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Miller [1954] 2 QB 282
Wilson [1984] AC 242
Salisbury [1976] VR 452
Mandair [1995] 1 AC 208
Cunningham [1957] 2 All ER 412
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 ss.28-33
Mistake
R v Ellis, Street & Smith [1987] 84 CR App R
235
DPP v Morgan [1976] AC 182
R v Williams (Gladstone) [1983] 78 CR App R 276
R v Graham [1982] 74 CR App R 235
R v Kimber [1983] 1 WLR 1118
R v O’Grady [1987] 3 WLR 321
Jaggard v Dickenson [1980] 3 ALL ER 716
R v Clegg (1995) Crim LR
R v Owino (1995) Crim LR
Ignorance of Law:
R v Bailey (1800) Russ & RY 1
R v Smith (David) [1974] QB 354
Intoxication
DPP v Majewski [1976] 2 WLR 623
R v Kingston [1994] 3 All ER 354
R v Hardie [1984] 3 ALL ER 848
A-G for N. Ire. v Gallagher [1963] AC 349
R v Davis (1881) 14 Cox CC 563
Duress and Necessity
R v Dudley & Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
R v Howe & Others [1987] 1 AC 417
R v Cole [1994] Crim LR 582
Cichon v DPP [1994] Crim LR 918
R v Bourne [1939] 1 KB 687
R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652
R v Horne [1994] Crim LR 584
R v Hegarty [1994] Crim LR 353
R v Ali (1994) Crim LR
R v Willer (1987) RTR 22
London Borough of Southwark v Williams [1971] 2 ALL
ER 175
R v Sharp [1987] QB 833
R v Lewis (1993) 96 CR App R 412
R v Gill [1963] 2 ALL ER 688
R v Hudson & Taylor [1971] 2 QB 202
R v Bowen (1996) 2 CR App R 157
R v Pommell (1995) 2 CR App R 607
Criminal Law Act 1967, s.3
Devlin v Armstrong [1971] N 113
R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816
R v Shannon [1980] 71 CR App R 192
Palmer v R [1971] AC 814
A-G for N. Ire (Ref. No. 1 of 1975) [1976] 3 WLR
235
R v Owino [1996] 2 CR App R 1288
INCHOATE OFFENCES
Incitement
Race Relations Bd v Applin [1973] 1 QB 815
R v Most (1881) 7 QBD 244
Invicta Plastics v Clare [1976] RTR 251
R v Ransford (1874) 13 Cox CL 9
R v Whitehouse [1977] QB 868
R v Shaw [1994] Crim LR 365
R v Curr [1968] 2 QB 944
R v Shephard (1919) 2 KB 125
R v Evans [1986] Crim LR 470
Conspiracy
Criminal Law Act 1977
DPP v Doot [1973] AC 807
R v Scott (1979) 68 CR App R 164
R v Burns (1984) 79 CR App R 173
R v Longman and Cribben (1980) 72 CR App R 121
R v Anderson [1986] AC 27
R v Sirscusa (1990) 90 CR App R 340
Yip Chiu-Cheung [1994] 3 WLR 514
R v Reed [1982] Crim LR 819
R v Jackson [1985] Crim LR 442
Scott v MPC [1975] AC 819
R v Allsop (1976) 64 CR App R 29
Welham v DPP [1961] AC 103
Wai Yu Tsang v R [1991] 4 All ER 664
Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220
Knuller v DPP [1973] AC 435
R v Gibson [1991] 1 All ER 439
DPP v Nock [1978] AC 979
Attempt
Criminal Attempts Act 1981
DPP v Stonehouse [1977] 2 All ER 909
R v Whybrow (1951) 35 CR App R 141
R v O’Toole [1987] Crim LR 759
R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 CR App R 226
R v Khan [1990] 2 All ER 783
A-G’s Ref (No 3 of 1992) [1994] 2 All ER 121
R v Gullefer [1987] Crim LR 195
R v Jones [1990] 1WLR 1057
R v Geddes [1996] Crim LR 894
R v Shivpouri [1987] AC 1
R v Becerra (1975) 62 CR App R 212
PARTIES
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, s.8
R v Austin & Others [1981] 1 All ER 374
R v Carberry [1994] Crim LR 446
R v Maxwell [1994] Crim LR 849
R v Wheelhouse (1994) Crim LR 756
R v Baker [1994] Crim LR 444
R v Stewart & Scholfield [1995] Crim CR 420
R v Labbie (1995) Crim LR 316
R v Petes & Parfitt [1995] Crim LR 501
(i) Principals and innocent agents
Mohan v R [1967] 2 AC 187
R v Lane (1986) 82 Cr App R 5
(ii) Accessories
Thornton v Mitchell [1940] 1 All ER 339
R v Bourne [1952] 36 Cr App R 125
R v Cogan & Leak [1976] 1 QB 217
R v Wheelhouse [1994] Crim LR 756
R v Wan & Chan (1995) Crim LR 296
A-G’s Reference (No.1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773
R v Clarkson & Others [1971] 3 All ER 344
R v Allan & Others [1965] 1 QB 130
Wilcox v Jeffrey [1951] 1 All ER 464
R v Russell & Russell [1987] 85 Cr App R 388
Rubie v Faulkener [1940] 1 KB 571
R v. Powell; R v. English [1997] 4 All ER 545
R v Uddin [1998] 2All ER 744
Mens Rea
Blakely & Sutton v DPP [1991] Crim LR 764
Gillick v W. Norfolk & Wisbech Area Health
Authority [1984] 1 QB 581
R v Bainbridge [1959] 1 QB 129
DPP for N. Ire. v Maxwell [1978] 3 All ER 1140
R v Creamer [1965] 3 All ER 257
R v Anderson & Morris [1966] 2 QB 110
Chen Wing Siu & Others v R [1984] 3 All ER 878
R v Hyde & Others [1990] 3 All ER 892
R v. Powell; R v. English [1997] 4 All ER 545
R v Uddin [1998] 2All ER 744
Protected individuals
R v Tyrrell [1894] 1 QB 710
Sayce v Coupe [1953] 1 QB 1
Withdrawal
R v Becerra [1975] 62 Cr App R 212
Entrapment
R v Birtles (1969) 53 Cr App R 469
R v Clarke [1984] 80 Cr App R 344