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 (Cheffins.emilyj@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
2001-2002
Autumn Thursday 4 October-Friday 14 December 2001
Spring
Monday 14 January-Friday 22 March 2002
Summer
Monday 22 April-Friday 28 June 2002
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 8 October 2001.
Essay
Submission Dates
First
Term – Week 10
1st
Year – 4 pm Monday 10 December 2001
2nd
Year Core Courses – 4 pm Tuesday 11 December 2001
Final
Year Core Courses –4 pm Wednesday 12 December 2001
Options
- 4 pm Thursday 13 December 2001
Second
Term Week 20
1st
Year – 4 pm Monday 18 March 2002
2nd
Year Core Courses – 4 pm Tuesday 19 March 2002
Final
Year Core Courses – 4 pm Wednesday 20 March 2002
Options
– 4 pm Thursday 21 March 2002
Law
Undergraduate Reading/Writing Weeks
Term 1
– 3 December 2001 – 7 December 2001 inclusive (Week 9)
Term 2
– 11 March 2002 – 15 March 2002 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. 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 (2000 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 Protetion 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 (please see tutors if you need help with revision or other aspects of the course) |
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 20% towards your
final mark. In Term 3 there will be a written exam which will count 80% 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 10 December 2001. 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 18 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.
Examples of past papers are accessible from Fernne's Home Page.*
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS WHO DO NOT SPEND A FULL YEAR WITH THE DEPARTMENT
PLEASE SEE FERNNE BRENNAN REGARDING ASSESSMENTS.
*http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~joash/
DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES OF WHICH YOU SHOULD BE AWARE
You need to hand in two copies of your assessments to the General Office
and obtain a receipt. This will serve as verification that your assessment has
been handed in on time.
YOU must keep a COPY of all coursework.
Extensions to deadlines are obtainable for extenuating circumstances
only. An extension will not be granted where the sole ground invoked is
pressure of work or computer failure. Where an extension is refused, there is a
right of appeal to the Dean.
Where coursework is submitted AFTER the submission deadline (or any
extension deadline), the percentage mark that would otherwise have been awarded
shall be reduced by 5 marks for each period of 24 hours or part of 24 hours of
late submission. For this purpose, Saturday and Sunday together count as one 24
hour period.
A word limit is attached to some coursework. If you do not observe the
word limit your work may not be marked and you may have to re-write it.
NB. The department has provided you with a cover sheet (see attached)
for course work which you must complete and attach to work submitted.
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, Blackstones Statutes Homicide Act
1957, Allen chapter 9.
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dine & Gobert, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Blackstone
Press, 1998, chapters on actus reus, mens rea, causation and Homicide.
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 eg, 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 10 December 2001
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
Assessment Question 2 (For term 2)
The Assessment
You are a solicitor in a criminal law
practice. You have been asked to interview and advise, Chris Cocknee, as to his
criminal liability and possible defences. Chris reveals the following facts:
"Well, it's like this you see. I've had
a lot of trouble with the wife. We live in a council flat and she's been after
me to get us moved but the Council won't hear of it. So, I decides to set fire
to the place, you know, make it look like someone's out to get me. Trouble is,
the wife's mother-in-law was inside at the time. She's now on a life support
machine at the hospital. I told the wife I didn't mean it but she's been giving
me hell over it. She says to me that the doctors will switch off the life
support machine and that will be the end of her mum. Still, they'll be doing
the mother-in-law a favour, she's got cancer and boUlld to cop it any minute.
Well, the wife kept on and on and I couldn't do nothing right so I belts her
one in the mouth. Didn't mean to hurt her just to shut her up. My mend, Albert,
said I should try belting her since nothing else works. She was none too
pleased. She had to see the dentist because her front teeth fell out. She
looked aright mess and there was blood everywhere. I told the kids to clean up
the blood but you know what they're like. Want this and that but won't listen
to a word you say. Oh, that reminds me. I had a go at our baby. Well, all that
carrying on with the wife the baby starts howling and wouldn't stop. I really
lost my temper arid hit it this time. I think it's dead. Funny that, I really
loved this kid and would never usually do anything to hurt it. Anyway, the kids
run out and next thing you know I got a social worker poking her nose in and
the police everywhere, typical, never there when you want them. Anyway, where was
I, oh yes, this social worker, with all her airs and graces starts telling me
I'm no good and pushing me about. I just lost it. Imagine, a **** foreigner
coming into my country and telling me what to do? I found out where she worked
and I've been giving her hell. You won't believe this but last time I went to
her office they said she was ill because of my troubling her. Any old excuse to
get off work! When I demanded to see her they called the police. The coppers
were all over me like a rash, gave them a run for their money. When they tried
to hold me down I pushed one of'em out of the way. He fell on another, I think
that one got a broken arm. 'Ere, how much time do you think I'll get for
nicking that social worker's mobile phone?"
Write a memorandum outlining any criminal
liabilities and defences. (Exclude discussion of areas of the law not
covered in the syllabus -although these may be mentioned briefly in order to
deal with issues that you have been taught).
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 Chapters on homicide, causation, omissions, attempts, conspiracy,
Incitement, general defences.
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 18 March 2000
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