Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.
Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication Intoxication covers the effects of alcohol, drugs or solvents. It is not actually a defence but it does provide a defence in some circumstances if the defendant does not have the required mens rea of the offence. A drunken man can take actions whilst influenced by drugs or drink that he would not have taken if he had been sober, but he cannot raise the defence of intoxication, if he has the capability of forming the required mens rea of the offence. If the defendant had the intention before becoming drunk he will be charged with the offence he committed whilst being drunk. Intoxication is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating factor of an offence. The law recognises that alcohol or drugs may impair a defendant's power of perception, so he cannot foresee or measure the consequences which may arise from his actions which he would be able to foresee if he was sober, therefore he cannot be plead a defence that he did not have the ability to judge between right and wrong or that he did something whilst being drunk which he would not ever do had he been sober. There are two categories of intoxication, the first of which is voluntary intoxication, this is where the defendant chooses or knowingly takes a substance knowing it will cause him to become intoxicated, this depends on what mens rea is required
How effective was the defence of intoxication?
How effective was the defence of intoxication? Intoxication is the excessive drinking and various forms of drug taking which can be voluntary or involuntary. Intoxication can be a defence depending on whether or not D has the required mens rea. If in an intoxicated state without the required mens rea D may not be guilty. This depends on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary and whether the offence charged was one of specific or basic intent. The absence of mens rea is required otherwise intoxication cannot be a defence as shown in Kingston (1994) 'a drugged intent is still intent'. Even if D lacks the mens rea D can still be found liable which is an exception to the rule that both mens rea and actus reus are required. Voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for a specific intent offence. If D is so intoxicated he cannot form the mens rea, he may be able to put forward the defence, but normally he will not avoid liability completely, if it is possible to convict him a lesser basic intent offence. If D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence he is not guilty. This rule comes from the case DPP v Beard. D had been charge with murder and pleaded intoxication to deny malice aforethought. From this case it is now accepted that D need not be incapable of forming intent; it is sufficient if they do not in fact do so. However, D
Briefly explain the meaning of, and reasons for, strict liability as a criminal offence
Briefly explain the meaning of, and reasons for, strict liability as a criminal offence (8 marks) Strict liability are offences which require no mens rea. A person can be guilty of the offence by just having the actus reus. This can seem unfair as one may not have the intention to commit the offence but just by having the conduct and consequence is sufficient. For example, in relation to speeding, it is sufficient if one can prove that they are above the speed limit, the intention of speeding is not required. As seen in the case of Larsonneur, the defendant didn't have the intention to return back to the UK, hence there was no mens rea; however, the act of being present in the UK was sufficient for a strict liability offence. Some examples of strict liability offences can include parking and speeding offences, selling unfit food for human consumption, health and safety at work regulations, trade description offences etc. Even though these offences may seem small, they are common as nearly 50% of strict liability cases are taken to court. The type of court would depend on the fine limit; i.e. the Magistrates court would fine up to £5000, however, the Crown court do not have a maximum penalty, but in severe cases, it could lead to imprisonment. The case of Gommon (Hong Kong) LTD V Attorney General for Hong Kong was a House of Lords case. Lord Garmon sets out the
OCR Feb 10 Exam Paper Non-Fatal Offences Problem Case. The scenario states that Colin ran towards Sarah waving a knife. The actions by Colin caused Sarah to scream.
OCR Feb 10 Exam Paper - Non-Fatal Offences Sarah is walking home when Colin runs towards her waving a knife. Sarah Screams. Colin grabs Sarah's coat and then punches her in the face which breaks her nose and causes her to fall to the ground. Gregory, a passer-by, runs to help Sarah. Colin lunges wildly at Gregory with the knife and slashes Gregory's hand, causing severe bleeding. Colin takes aim and kicks Sarah in the stomach, causing serious internal injuries. [35] The scenario states that Colin ran towards Sarah "waving a knife". The actions by Colin caused Sarah to scream. The Actus Reus for assault is 'any act which causes the 'victim' (V) to fear immediate unlawful force'. The meaning of immediate was defined in the Smith (1983), a case where a man looked into the window of a women in her flat thus causing her to be terrified, as to meaning "imminent". The fact that Sarah screamed after seeing Colin running towards her illustrates she feared of action imminently. The Mens Rea for Assault is 'intention or recklessness to cause another to fear immediate unlawful force'. By referring to the definition set out in Smith, Richard waving the knife around, coupled with him heading towards Sarah, clearly shows that he was reckless as to make Sarah fear imminent unlawful force. Colin is therefore guilty of committing the Common Law offence of assault, and can be sentenced up to
What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible to distinguish between intention and motive?
What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible to distinguish between intention and motive? The law generally requires that the accused possess a 'blameworthy' state of mind at the time the act comprising the offence was committed, and the basic presumption is that mens rea is required for every offence ('actus non fit reus nisi mens sit rea'), authority for which stems from Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] - "There is a presumption that mens rea ... is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject matter with which it deals, and both must be considered." This proposition, that mens rea is the default position for an offence unless its implication is clearly outweighed by other factors, was secured in Sweet v Parsley [1970]. Per Lord Reid: "it is universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted." Thus the requirement of intention is presumed where a matter is uncertain. However, many statutes do not use the language of 'knowingly' or 'intentionally' acting; in the case of such strict liability offences, usually regulatory offences without the "disgrace of criminality"1, there is no element of intent whatsoever for
Law and Fault
With reference to decided cases in any area(s) of law with which you are familiar, consider to what extent English law is concerned with the concept of fault in deciding issues of liability or guilt (30) In English civil and criminal law, liability is based on fault. Fault is therefore perhaps one of the most important concepts in law, as without it, it would be impossible for justice to be reached for the state, victim and wrongdoer. Fault determines the way the state will compensate the victim and punish the wrongdoer, and this essay will focus on the latter. The whole aim of criminal law is to punish those who have committed a crime against the state. The sanction imposed considers the sentencing aim and attempts to reflect society's revulsion at the crime. Fault is present if the appropriate actus reus and mens rea can be proved. A person cannot be found guilty unless both elements were present. The actus reus concerns all elements of the offence apart from the defendant's state of mind. This not only includes the prohibited physical act but also any omissions and causation issues. The actus reus must be committed voluntarily, as Professor Hart stated 'the principle that punishment should be restricted to those who have voluntarily broken the law ... is a requirement of justice'. Involuntary actions give way to the general defence of automatism, which concerns
Criminal Law,dealing with the subject of murder and how applying the general principles of criminal law will help us in deciding an outcome
Criminal Law LR2S07 This essay will be dealing with the subject of murder and how applying the general principles of criminal law will help us in deciding an outcome. To begin with murder can be defined as 'a common law offence, which is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought.'1 It is important to establish whether Mens Rea and Actus Reus are present. In most cases is an act of crime because the person committing it intended to do something wrong. This mental state is generally referred to as Mens rea, or guilty mind. Mens rea expresses a belief that people should be punished only when they have acted in a way that makes them morally blameworthy.2 The Actus Reus is a guilty action, which may not necessarily involve intent. The main facts of the case are as follows: John was a Carsea United supporter, he brought three flares to the match with he planned to release into the crowd to disrupt the match is the opposition, Swaniff City, were in the lead. After half time, Swaniff City were clearly leading so John decided to release the flares. He points them to the Swaniff City fans, whom he hates passionately. One of the flares hits Pablo; John laughs and flees the scene. Pablo is eventually collected by an ambulance but due to the drivers careless driving, is involved in an accident. Another ambulance comes after a considerable
In relation to the offence of murder discuss the suggestion that the law is in urgent need of reform
In relation to the offence of murder discuss the suggestion that the law is in urgent need of reform The definition of murder is derived from the explanation by Sir Edward Coke who expressed "Murder is when a (person)...unlawfully killeth..any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought.." - this is essentially; the unlawful killing of a human being. However, the conundrum this provides is the actus reus of murder; in that there is no distinction of the severity or gravity of the crime. This definition raises several points that require further consideration, as there are many anomalies and thought concepts that are now out dated. Coke's definition of murder used to provide that the death of the victim had to occur within a year and a day of the actus reus; so when this definition was originated the "year and a day rule" was sufficient, however with modern technology life may be maintained for longer, so already this anomaly has been reformed under the Law Reform Act (Year and a Day Rule) 1996 as the time frame was no longer relevant. There is also no distinction for mercy killing especially of those in a vegetative state. The definition of a "person" is open to interpretation, as a foetus is not considered a "person", so if death is caused before the child has an existence independent of its mother, there can be no murder. However
"All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed until the crime is completed" - Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the above proposition.
"All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed until the crime is completed" Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the above proposition using examples drawn from any of the inchoate offences of incitement, conspiracy and attempt. 'All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed until the crime is completed', during this essay I shall critically evaluate this statement, using examples from the inchoate offences of incitement, conspiracy and attempt. The definition of Inchoate offences, are the incomplete offences. I shall first explain the actus reus and the mens rea required for all the inchoate offences. The actus reus of conspiracy is the agreement with another or others that a course of conduct will be pursued, which if carried out by their instructions, will lead to an offence. The mens rea of conspiracy is intention, although in Anderson 1986 the House of Lords decided that the defendant was to be found guilty even when intention was not established. The actus reus of incitement is when the offender urges, suggests, persuades, etc. another to commit a crime. The mens rea of incitement is again intention, this intention is to bring about the required result. The actus reus of attempts exists when a party does an act, which is more than merely preparatory. Once again intention is the
Is the current law on the non-fatal offences against the person satisfactory?
Reform of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person It has been recommended by many leading academic lawyers, including Professor Spencer, that the current legislation on non-fatal offences against the person be reformed to modernise and clarify the law. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861, under which the more serious offences of ABH, GBH and GBH with intent are charged, is one of the "workhorses" of the criminal law, and is responsible for approximately 80,000 cases a year; this strengthens the justification for improving the existing legislation through reform in order to make it more comprehensible. One of the main criticisms of the Act is that it is "outmoded" (Jack Straw), and much of the language is arcane and ambiguous. For example, before the case of Wilson v Pringle, it was unclear whether there was a requirement for hostility in the commission of a battery. Terms such as "occasioning" and "maliciously" are outdated and are in need of modernisation in order to make the law more accessible, particularly to laypeople. An additional complexity arises from the fact that the law is contained in a mixture of statute and case law. The Act itself was a consolidating statute that has been described as a "ragbag of offences" due to the lack of logical structure (for example, ABH is defined under section 47, whereas GBH and GBH with intent are defined under sections
