Principles/Context of the Criminal Law

The for liability is , , conduct and .

Criminal capacity can be tested by listed in the and 1991.

Fault is the element of the crime.
Intention, and negligence are all crimes of .

is the actus reus element of the . The law is concerned with punishing guilty , not guilty minds.

intention =
Indirect intention = is a virtually certain one

R v
Held: D could not be convicted of murder because it wasn't his to kill.

R v Maloney.
Held: D did not have the necessary for murder.
Lord : it is for the jury to decide whether D intended to or cause GBH.

Re A (2001)
Held: performing the operation to separate Jodie and Mary would be the . Although it meant that would die, in the eyes of the law it is preferable that at least one autonomous being survives.

This case distinguishes the difference between .
Intention = ?
Motive = ? (Referred to as )

(1964)
D had wished to demonstrate their opposition to nuclear so planned to break into an and immobilise it for 6 hours. They were convicted under the .
They appealed, arguing that their purpose was in the .
Held: 'the motive behind the was irrelevant; they still intended the of achieving it.'

Intention is different from .
= intending to perform the specific .
Motive = for having the intention to the specific act.

(1947)
D was charged with intending to .
Held: his was to save his family but his was to assist the enemy.
Motive and intention cannot be .

Objective recklessness = recklessness
Subjective recklessness = recklessness

recklessness

D acts recklessly if:
(i) He believes his conduct will give rise to a risk of .
(ii) It is for D to run the risk that he foresees. is required.

R v
D interfered with a in an unoccupied house to . Gas escaped, seeped through the walls into an adjoining house and the life of a person living there.
Held: malice requires either intention or . D was liable.

R v
D slammed down a public so hard that he broke it.
Held: the Court rejected his defence that he was so enraged to even consider the of his conduct. He to the idea of it and therefore he is .

recklessness
D is guilty of causing damage if:
(i) He does an act that creates an that property would be destroyed or damaged, and
(ii) When he does the act, he has either not given any thought to the of risk or has recognised that there was some and has gone on to do it anyway.

MPC v
D set fire to a hotel whilst . He was charged with an offence against s1(1) of the CDA 1971.
Embraces gross and advertent wrongdoing.

R v
2 children entered the of a Co-Op shop and caused a fire. They apparently expected the newspapers to burn out and did not the risk of the fire spreading.
At trial, they were convicted of .
The HL quashed the conviction and overruled . It was held to have misinterpreted when enacting the and also labelled "."

reflects fault on the part of D but does not require any .
Where negligence is enough for liability, there is liability for intention or .
D can the AR without being , yet can still be negligent.

D is if the person in the same circumstances:
(i) would have been aware of the of doing the AR; and
(ii) would not have those risks.

Result crimes place on the result of the crime.
crimes are only concerned with D's , not the consequence.
crimes have no guilty conduct whatsoever, i.e. liability for .

John : "." We all have a to one another.

The general rule in criminal law is that there is for omissions. There are, however, exceptions to this rule:

Duties arising out of a
Duties
Creation of a
Duties arising from

Duties arising out of a :
R v
A parent who omits to feed or care for their child may face for subsequent death or injury.
The court held that this was so that it did not require

Duties arising out of a relationship:
R v
A conviction for murder or would arise where the or lack of care by a parent is either or grossly negligent.

Contractual Duties:

A railway gatekeeper forgot to do his job and a was killed as a result.
Held: D was liable for his

Creation of a

A fell asleep in someone's house and his was not put out. It smouldered the mattress and the house caught on fire. He was convicted of - he was under a duty to act as soon as the became lit.

Duties arising from
i.e. Failing to provide a at the roadside.