Using actual situations describe the elements of actus

Authors Avatar

Using actual situations describe the elements of actus reus and mens rea in criminal law. Comment on the importance of those two elements in relation to murder and manslaughter.

Criminal Law, branch of law that defines crimes and fixes punishments for them. Also included in criminal law are rules and procedures for preventing and investigating crimes and prosecuting criminals, as well as the regulations governing the constitution of courts, the conduct of trials, the organization of police forces, and the administration of penal institutions. In general, the criminal law of most modern societies classifies crimes as offences against the safety of the society; offences against the administration of justice; offences against the public welfare; offences against property; and offences threatening the lives or safety of people.

In England and Wales criminal trials are heard in dedicated courts: the magistrates' court for less serious offences, and the Crown Court for all other offences. Reform of the law is under continuous examination by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which reports to the Lord Chancellor (the head of the judiciary). The committee recently proposed a draft criminal code to unify all criminal offences in one format, but this has not yet been taken up by the government or Parliament.

Criminal Procedure, legal system for determining the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime. In most English-speaking countries, the heart of the system is the presumption of innocence, whereby a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In any criminal case it is up to the prosecution to prove the elements of the offence which make up guilt. The presumption takes further expression in the right of an accused not to give evidence (see right of silence), the right not to answer questions that might incriminate the answerer, and the right to cross-examine all prosecution witnesses. Similarly, a defendant can only be prosecuted once for an alleged crime (see double jeopardy).

The law in the United Kingdom protects the citizen's rights in the investigative process. The search and seizure of property is governed by rules which generally call for the police to obtain search warrants from magistrates: these are only available when the police can show a reasonable suspicion of the presence of evidence in the property, and they may not be issued for police to undertake so-called “fishing expeditions” on the chance that a householder may have relevant evidence. Arrest powers are also circumscribed, and people held by the police are entitled to certain rights while in custody and being questioned: if these are infringed the prosecution may be prevented from bringing confessions or other evidence into court at the trial.

After an arrest, the suspect must either be released within a set period of time, or charged with an offence. If there is a charge, the accused must be brought before a court as quickly as possible, or released and told when to attend court. The accused is first of all brought to a magistrate's court, which must decide how to deal with him or her. Magistrates should grant bail unless there is a reason for detention, such as the probability of the accused absconding, committing further offences, or interfering with witnesses at the trial. If any of these is likely, the court will remand the accused in custody. Bail may be granted subject to conditions, such as the accused living at a certain address, or keeping a curfew (staying indoors between certain times), or subject to a surety, which is the guarantee of money from a friend should the accused fail to return to court to answer the bail. In England and Wales, a deposit of money may no longer be taken from the accused.

The process of determining the outcome of the case also takes place in the magistrate's court. The vast majority of criminal offences are dealt with summarily by magistrates, who have powers to imprison people for up to six months. Many crimes are triable only summarily and the accused has no choice of where to be tried. The most serious crimes may not be tried by magistrates. For those in between, the magistrates must decide which procedure is suitable, depending on the gravity and complexity of the case, but the accused may always choose to be tried by a jury.

For summary cases and those that the magistrates take as suitable, with the defendant's acquiescence, the trial often proceeds immediately. A notable difference between magistrate and jury trial in England and Wales is that magistrates may leave a case part-heard for some time—even weeks—and return to it when another day is available. Juries hear cases without a break. If the magistrates find the defendant guilty, they may sentence him or her themselves, or if they think the matter too grave for their powers, they may pass it to the Crown Court, which has power to pass more severe sentences. They should not do so unless there is something that became apparent in the course of the trial which makes the case more serious; if it is apparent from the start, they should send the case to Crown Court for trial.

If magistrates cannot or decline to hear the case, or the defendant chooses a jury trial, the magistrates must examine the evidence to see whether there is a case to answer. If there is they commit the defendant for trial. The case need not be proved to their satisfaction; it has only to be possible that it could be proved. Because the test is so easily satisfied, the defence is often content to allow the committal to go through on paper. This also has the advantage that the defence does not have to reveal its case.

The case will then be listed for a trial date in the Crown Court. The defendant remains on bail or remanded in custody. If the case is particularly complex, or if there is a question of law which can or should be resolved before the evidence is heard, there may be a hearing to determine that before the trial itself. The trial in the Crown Court is on indictment: that is, a document drawn up showing the offence with which the defendant is charged. The prosecution must prove everything alleged.

The trial in the Crown Court is controlled by the judge, but attention is directed to the jury, who give the verdict. If the verdict is not guilty, the defendant is released and may not be tried again for the same offence. If it is guilty, the sentence is passed by the judge. In all cases where the judge is considering the possibility of imprisonment, except where the case is so serious that any other sentence is out of the question, a presentence report must be obtained. This report, by a probation officer, describes the defendant's circumstances and recommends a way of dealing with the case, usually by means of a probation order or community service. Psychiatric or medical reports may also be obtained.

After conviction, a defendant may appeal against the verdict and the sentence. Appeals from the magistrate's court go to the Crown Court, where a judge sits with two or more magistrates who did not hear the original case; the appeal amounts to a complete rehearing of the case. Appeals from Crown Court trials go to the Court of Appeal, which looks at what may have gone wrong with the trial.

If the defendant is imprisoned, he or she will usually be released after serving a proportion of the sentence, on parole. For longer-serving prisoners this release is not automatic; a parole board examines the prisoner's disciplinary record in prison, and decides how likely it is that he or she will reoffend. A released prisoner may be liable to be recalled to prison if he or she commits an offence while on parole.

This account is true of the legal system of England and Wales, and its features are present in one form or another in most English-speaking jurisdictions. In most states of the United States the law of procedure is based on the English common law. European jurisdictions have a more inquisitorial system of criminal justice, where the examining magistrates are involved in the investigation of crime, and the trial judges—often more than one—more involved in the examination of witnesses and the direction of the trial. In some jurisdictions the defendant may be required to answer questions.

Criminal Psychology, the application of psychological approaches, theories, and methods to the understanding, explanation, prediction, and control of criminal behaviour, and the functioning of agents in the criminal justice system, such as trial witnesses and police.

It is a field of applied psychology like occupational, clinical, and educational psychology and is closely related to, but more general than, forensic psychology.

Criminology, social science dealing with the nature, extent, and causes of crime; the characteristics of criminals and their organizations; the problems of apprehending and convicting offenders; the operation of prisons and other correctional institutions; the rehabilitation of convicts both in and out of prison; and the prevention of crime. The science of criminology has two basic objectives: to determine the causes, whether personal or social, of criminal behaviour, and to evolve valid principles for the social control of crime. In pursuing these objectives, criminology draws on the findings of biology, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, anthropology, and related fields. See the article on Penology for a discussion of correctional institutions, and that on Juvenile Crime for consideration of special problems of young offenders.

Retrospective Legislation or Retroactive Legislation, in criminal law, a law enacted or decreed after an act has been committed that may be illegal as a result of the new law but was not illegal at the time it was committed. Such ex post facto laws may also retroactively increase the punishment of previously committed crimes.

In interpreting legislation in the United Kingdom there is a presumption that Parliament cannot have intended to enact retrospective laws, particularly where they create criminal offences. Retrospective laws will only be effective when they cannot be understood in any other way.

The European Convention on Human Rights, and similar international conventions forbid retrospective laws, as do the written constitutions and Bills of Rights of many countries.

Self-Defence, in law, defence of one's person or property from threatened violence or injury by the exercise of force. A person may practice self-defence against assault or unlawful attack by the use of force, provided the person uses no more force than is necessary to accomplish that result, and provided there is an honest belief based on reasonable grounds that force is necessary. Forcible resistance may not be carried to the point of taking life when it is otherwise possible to retreat safely from the assailant. If more force than is necessary is used to repel the attack, the person will be liable both civilly and criminally for assault. Under these conditions both the assailant and the person assailed may be guilty of assault.

On the principle of self-defence a person may forcibly resist an illegal arrest. The resistance, however, must fall short of taking life. A person may also forcibly resist an unlawful attack on another person, particularly if the other person has a natural claim to the first person's protection, for example, a spouse, child, or someone in the first person's company. The law of defence of property is the same as that relating to the defence of the person, except that under no circumstance is the taking of life as a means of protecting property justifiable. One who kills to protect property is guilty of manslaughter, and if the killing is premeditated it may be murder.

The law also recognizes a distinct right to protect the home. A person inside his or her own dwelling may forcibly resist attacks upon himself or herself and the other occupants of the house and, without retreating, kill an assailant if necessary to repel the attack.

Obscenity Laws, legal restrictions on the publication of words or other material on the grounds that they are too indecent to be acceptable to society. Some countries have stricter obscenity laws than others: Ireland and Italy, for example. In English law it is a criminal offence to publish obscene articles for financial gain, and obscenity is determined by reference to those who are likely to come into contact with the publication. The publication must be likely to “deprave and corrupt” such people. It is no defence that the article will only be seen by people who are already depraved and corrupted.

Perjury, in criminal law, wilful false statement made under oath with respect to a material matter, either in a legal proceeding, as by a witness at a trial, or in matters in which an oath is authorized or required by law, as in an affidavit affecting title to property. To constitute perjury in a legal proceeding the offender need not know that the statement would affect the determination of the case in which it is uttered; it is sufficient if the statement might affect such a proceeding. A misstatement by a witness, that is, a statement made through inadvertence or mistake, does not, however, constitute perjury.

Inquest, in law, judicial inquiry. In criminal law the term usually refers to an investigation into the cause of sudden or violent death of a person, or of the death of a prisoner while in jail. The inquest is conducted by a coroner, or other qualified official, and a jury. If foul play is suspected as the cause of death, the coroner and the jury may investigate to determine the identity of the murderer. Witnesses may be summoned and compelled to testify. If the testimony warrants a verdict, known as a coroner's verdict, a charge of homicide may be returned by the jury against one or more individuals.

Accomplice, in criminal law, any person who is in any way associated with another in the commission or attempted commission of a criminal offence. An accomplice is punishable either as principal or accessory. Under certain conditions, an accomplice is a competent witness either for or against his or her associates at every stage of the proceedings.

Jeopardy, in criminal law, peril incurred by a defendant charged with a crime, on trial before a court of competent jurisdiction. In the past, it was not uncommon for people acquitted of criminal charges by the verdict of a jury to be tried a second time on the original charge; those treated in this way were often political prisoners or dissidents, and they were said to be placed in double jeopardy (and would make a plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict). A defendant is not put in jeopardy when there is a retrial if the jury cannot agree a verdict, although in practice a defendant will not be retried more than once. The rules of the finality of a judgment in civil cases have a similar effect.

Join now!

Forgery, in criminal law, fraudulently altering a written document or seal with the intent of injuring the interests of another person or of fraudulently obtaining governmental revenue. Forgeries must be executed with such skill or in such circumstances that they would be mistaken for genuine documents by the average person. To imitate the handwriting of another or the form of the simulated document is not necessarily attempted. If the intention was to deceive, and the circumstances were such as to render deception possible, then the crime has been committed; consequently, forgery includes signing the name of a person who ...

This is a preview of the whole essay