FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST JESUS; THE BEGINNING AND THE END.

Contents
CRIMINAL LAW I ................................................................................................................................ 2
THE DEFINITION OF CRIME. ........................................................................................................ 2
HISTORY OF NIGERIAN CRIMINAL LAW. (BRIEF) .................................................................. 3
CULTURAL INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE NIGERIAN BELIEF AND THE CRIMINAL LAW
INTRODUCED. (CONFLICTS) ........................................................................................................ 4
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES AND THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
CLASSIFICATION. ........................................................................................................................... 6
CRIMINALIZATION POLICY. ........................................................................................................ 8
PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINALIZATION. .......................................................................................... 8
THE BASIS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. .......................................................................... 10
ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. ......................................................................... 12
TYPES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. .................................................................................. 16
ATTEMPT. .......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CONSPIRACY .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
PARTIES TO AN OFFENCE. ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
OFFENCES COMMITTED IN THE PROSECUTION OF A COMMON PURPOSE Section 8 of
the Criminal Code. ............................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
NON SEXUAL OFFENCES. .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
HOMICIDE: .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
MURDER. ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
MANSLAUGHTER. ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ASSAULT............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
RAPE. .................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
GENERAL DEFENCES. ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
VITE 2017 CRIMINAL LAW II. ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC ONE: THE OFFENCE OF STEALING. ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC 2: OBTAINING BY FALSE PRETENCE. ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC THREE: CHEATING.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC FOUR: OBTAINING CREDIT BY FRAUD. ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC FIVE: RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY AND UNLAWFUL POSSESSION. ....... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC SEVEN: THE DEFENCE OF BONAFIDE CLAIM OF RIGHT. ......... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
TOPIC EIGHT BURGLARY AND HOUSEBREAKING.................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC NINE: FORGERY AND UTTERING. ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC 9: UTTERING ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC TEN: ROBBERY AND ARMED ROBBERY. ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC ELEVEN: CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC ELEVEN: TREASON AND SEDITION ................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
SEDITION. .......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
UNLAWFUL PROCESSION. ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
 SEDITIOUS MEETING ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
RIOT. ................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
AFFRAY. ............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
PERJURY ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC THIRTEEN: CORRUPTION. ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
BRIBERY UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE AND ICPC ACT. ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.
(EXTORTION) ILLEGAL GRATUITY. ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN BRIBERY AND EXTORTION. ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CRIMINAL LAW I
THE DEFINITION OF CRIME.
What we would do now is to highlight some principles and comments on the definition
of Crime.
:: The word; “crime” is both vague and difficult to define- Glanville Williams.
:: “Crime” emanates from the Latin word “crimen” which means accusation.
:: Our first port of call would be Section 2 of the Criminal Code Act which defines
crime (it uses the word “offence”) as; “an act or omission which renders the person
doing the act or making the omission liable to punishment under this Code or any Act
or law”.
:: It is an act committed or omitted in respect of a public law forbidding or commanding
it-Blackstone.
:: It is an act that can be followed by criminal proceedings- Glanville Williams.
:: It is an act or omission punishable by law- Sir Fitz James Stephens.
:: It is an act which threatens the wellbeing of the society and should be punished-Sir
Carleton Allen.
:: It is an act that is prohibited in the interest of the public.
:: It is an act that is followed by punishment-A.G V Awoyele.
:: It is an act or omission which threatens life and property therefore justifying the
intervention of the state (through punishment) –Prof Adeyemi.
:: It is an act which the Law forbids-Terrence Morris.
:: It is an act which is contrary to the cultural and moral values of the society-Aderemi.
Although as we would see later in this work, this definition is not absolute because there
are some areas where the law deviates from custom. E.g. Bigamy, Adultery, Juju, etc.
See for ex; Aoko V Fagbemi on adultery.
:: Let us take a cue from the Wolfenden Report which noted that the function of the
criminal law is to preserve public order and decency and protect citizens from
exploitation, injury and corruption.
Just before we conclude on the definition of Crime, you may note the following
characteristics of crime:
- Crime is generally punitive in nature.
- The prosecution and punishment of crime is done by the State not an individual.
- The accused is presumed innocent until the prosecution proves/establishes the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt-R V Seidu, Woolmington V DPP, Section 36
CFRN (henceforth means the Nigerian 1999 Constitution).
- Before a person can be convicted/punished for an offence, such offence must be written
and must be in existence as at the time the accused was carrying out the act-Aoko V
Fagbemi, Section 36(12).

:: In conclusion, because the content and nature of criminal law varies (from age to age,
country to country, district to district…) there can be no single all-encompassing
definition of crime.

We move on to:
TOPIC 2 HISTORY OF NIGERIAN CRIMINAL LAW. (BRIEF)
:: We had certain pre-colonial systems of administering criminal justice in Nigeria
which were largely anchored on customs and traditions of the particular ethnic group.
:: Upon arrival, the British formed the opinion that the customs and traditions of
Nigerians were diverse, unwritten, unascertainable and (some) barbaric. They
concluded that it would impracticable to adopt our customary laws. This conclusion was
followed by the introduction of the a Criminal Code for Northern Nigeria in 1904 by
the Lord Luggard Administration (Ordinance No. 10 of 1904).
:: Following the amalgamation of 1914, the 1916 Criminal Code was introduced.
:: Conflicts between the Customs, Islamic Law and the Criminal Code were to be
resolved by administrative officers provided there was no remarkable deviation from
the provisions of the Code-Gubba V Gwandu Native Authority. Mazigbo V Sokoto
Native Authority.
:: The rejection of the Criminal Code in the North for its failure to connect with the
values and religion of the people led to the introduction of the Penal Code in 1959 to
the North.
:: As time went on, the conflictSubsequently, the abolition of common-law and
customary law offences (except they have been codified) came with the rule that:
“Nobody shall be convicted for an offence unless that offence is provided in a written
law and the penalty prescribed” see Section 36(12) of the constitution, Aoko V
Fagbemi.
Lagos has enacted the Criminal Laws of Lagos State which is arguably more
refined and reviewed.
In conclusion, In Nigeria, our criminal law is based largely on the Criminal and
Penal codes applying to the South and North respectively. The codes are supplemented
by a host of other statutes for example, Dangerous Drug act. Case law plays an
 important role of interpretation where a provision of the Criminal Code is ambiguous
or laconic.

CULTURAL INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE NIGERIAN BELIEF AND THE

CRIMINAL LAW INTRODUCED. (CONFLICTS)
Involves asking the questions;
- What does the law say?
- What is the value of the people vis a vis the provisions of the law?
- R V oko 1938 4 waca page 71.
The apparent impossibility of adopting our unwritten, diverse and dynamic laws
and customs led to the introduction of a foreign Criminal Code to Nigeria first by
proclamation, ordinance No.10 of 1904. As such, inevitable conflicts arose.
Aderemi has noted that for a conduct to amount to a crime, it must be contrary
to the cultural values and beliefs of the people. Though fraught with issues, it applies in
this circumstance.
They include areas and aspects such as:
SUPERSTITION: Section 210 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to call
someone a witch. Also, the courts have persistently held that the belief in witchcraft is
unreasonable.

In State V Nomeh: The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife… his plea
of provocation (that his wife is a witch and had killed both his children by poisoning)
did not avail him.

In R V Gadam: The appellant claimed that he hit the deceased on the head with the
handle of a hoe in a bid to break the spell of witchcraft which she has been using on his
wife and had no intention to kill her. The court held that holding such belief is
unreasonable and finding him not guilty would amount to a dangerous precedent.

In R V Eriyanremu: The accused pleaded insanity under the influence of juju and the
practice of witchcraft to a charge of murder (of her albino step-daughter). It was rejected
as a plea.

In R V Nwaoke: He was arraigned for the murder of his debtor. It was alleged that he
pointed juju at the deceased and threatened that since he has not paid his debt, he shall
die of the juju or he shall be unable to eat. The deceased later committed suicide. The
court held that the juju could NOT have killed the deceased or make him commit
suicide.

In R V Odo: The trial court found the defendants guilty for attempting to pervert the
 course of justice through supernatural means by spreading black powder around the
court room. The West African Court of Appeal Held that they were not guilty as the
belief in juju is unreasonable.
In my opinion, the court should have taken a technical and practical approach in
deciding R V Odo. In this case, the accused had manifested his intention to pervert
justice to weigh in his favour by spraying black powder around the court which he
believed was going to work. This alone is enough to establish at least; an attempt.
However, the contrary view of the court shows the extent to which they shall refuse to
uphold the belief in witchcraft or juju.

- MARRIAGE;
There are various provisions in the criminal code which confer rights to statutorily
married couples but discriminates against couples married under custom (which is
largely polygamous).
A statutory marriage is a monogamous one.
A christain marriage as defined by lord Penzance in Hyde V Hyde
Is a voluntary union for life of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others during
the subsistence of the marriage.
Section 10 of the Criminal Code provides that a wife of a statutory marriage cannot be
an accessory after the fact to an offence by assisting her husband to escape.
Section 33 of the Criminal Code exculpates a wife of a Christian marriage from liability
for doing an act or making an omission which her husband compels her to do in his
presence. Except murder or causing grievous bodily harm.
Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides that there can be no conspiracy between a
husband and his wife alone.
Section 36 of the Criminal Code provides that husband and wife of a Christian marriage
cannot steal from themselves, neither can a husband and wife of a Christian marriage
institute any criminal proceeding against each other when they are still living together.
Everything: “Christian Marriage”...

- BIGAMY
Section 370 of the Criminal Code criminalizes bigamy and stipulates a penalty of 7
years imprisonment.
Bigamy occurs when a person, while in a subsisting marriage contracts to marry a third
party.
This law is arguably in disconnect with the belief of the people. This law is being flouted
with impunity. In R V Princewill the offender was only sentenced to 3 months
imprisonment. Lagos state has taken a bold step of removing this provision from their
criminal law.
- ADULTERY
In Aoko V Fagbemi, the charge of adultery was quashed. The court held that nobody
shall be convicted for an offence which is not provided for in a written law and the
punishment prescribed.
As annoying as this decision seems, it is well encouraged. In this case, the courts were
not trying to support adultery, they only wanted to show their commitment to upholding
the provision that no one shall be convicted for an unwritten offence.
How come theft of a tuber of yam can land someone in jail when adultery (which is
seriously frowned upon and forms the basis of many homicide cases) is not a crime?
Although the supporters of its decriminalization argue that it is between two consenting
adults how come homosexuality is now criminalized and adultery is left out since they
are both between two consenting adults?

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES AND THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

CLASSIFICATION.
An offence can be classified in a number of ways may be for convenience or academic
purposes. In practice, there exists overlap between the various classifications.
An offence has been defined by Section 2 of the Criminal Code.
As an act or an omission which renders the person doing the act or making the omission
liable to punishment under the code or any other Act or Law.
Section 3 goes further to classify the offences into felonies, misdemeanor and simple
offences. In the US, they are classified as felonies, misdemeanor and infractions.
1. Section 3 of the Criminal Code classifies an offence into; Felony, misdemeanor and
simple offences.
2. Indictable and non-indictable.
3. Common-law/ or statutory offences. Section 36, Aoko V Fagbemi.
4. Offences tried summarily or by information.
5. Sexual violent or fraudulent offences.
6. Mala in se and mala prohibita. (based on the wickedness involved. For example, rape
and failure to insure one’s motor-vehicle)

1. FELONY, MISDEMEANOR AND SIMPLE OFFENCES

Section 3 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State,
classifies offences as, felony, misdemeanor and simple offences.
- A felony is an offence punishable with three years or more till death. At common-law,
it entailed forfeiture of life, limb and chattel.
- A misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment for 6 months up to 3 years.
- Simple offences are others apart from felonies and misdemeanor and are usually
punishable by a mere fine, caution, and very rarely, imprisonment not exceeding 6
 months.

2. INDICTABLE AND NON INDICTABLE

- An indictable offence is one that can merit punishment exceeding 2 years and a fine
exceeding #400 and cannot be punished on summary conviction.
Please read the following cases for further explanations. R V Eze.1959 19 nlr at 110.
Ejor V I.G.P 1963 all nlr at 250, Onymachi V Okeugo.

- A non-indictable offence is one which on conviction, may be punishable by a term not

exceeding 2 years.
Please note that a summary trial is that which is devoid of technicalities and bureaucracy
of regular courts of record, and is usually tried by the magistrate.

THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CLASSIFICATION.

The classification of offences have far reaching effects both on substantive and
procedural law. Some areas include:
1. JURISDICTION: The gravity of offence and penalty prescribed is used in determining
jurisdiction of the court.
2. ARREST: A private citizen and a police can arrest a suspected felon on reasonable
apprehension without a warrant. However, a person committing a misdemeanor cannot
be arrested except it is being committed at night depending on the circumstances. Also,
Reasonable force can be used in effecting a lawful arrest or preventing the escape of a
felon. See Section 32 of the Criminal Code, Section 33 of the 1999 constitution. Section
12 Criminal Procedure Act.
3. BAIL: It is easier to obtain bail for simple offences and misdemeanor and none
indictable offences than it is to obtain bail for a felony or indictable offence. As in
granting bail, cognizance is usually taken, of the gravity of offence committed,
likelihood of retrieval and other considerations.
4. COMPOUNDING AND NEGLECT: Compounding (agreement not to prosecute a
felony for a consideration) and neglect to prevent the commission of a felony does not
extend to misdemeanor and simple offences. Section 515 and 127 Criminal Code and
Section 98 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State.
5. INCHOATE OFFENCES: Punishment for inchoate (attempts, conspiracies and
accessory after the fact) offences are usually divided by two, ie “attempted” this does
not however extend to death penalties.
6. THE RULE IN SMITH V SELWYN: though obsolete in England, states that where
the offence involves a felony and a tort, the felonious aspect has to be concluded before
the tortious aspect can commence. The rationale behind this being that an offender
should first be brought to justice by public law before the individual can proceed with
 his claim.

CRIMINALIZATION POLICY.

PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINALIZATION.
Professor Joel Feinberg provided guiding principles that should work against prohibited
behavior (ab).
1. The harm principle.
2. Legal moralism.
3. Principle of offences to others.
4. Principle of legal paternalism.

1. THE HARM PRINCIPLE.

The word harm is both vague and ambiguous.
Harm may ordinarily be defined as physical, mental or oral injury or damage.
Jerome hall sees it as loss of value.
Eser views it as a violation of a legally protected interest.
This principle can be traced to John Stuart Mill who posited that
The only purpose for which power can be exercised over a member of a civilized
community against his will is to prevent harm to others.
Joel Feinberg in his criticism says that harm principle should not be the only principle
applicable. He considers three senses of harm.
- The derivative or extended sense
- The transferred sense
- The normative sense.
The derivative sense: That anything can be harmed. For example, a vandalized chair.
This sense can however be criticized on the basis that certain things (like gravity) cannot
be harmed. It is pertinent to note that only when the broken/vandalized object can affect
a person can we say a harm has occurred. E.g. A smashes B’s phone.

The transferred sense: Seen as the “thwarting or the setting back or defeating of an
interest”. “Interest” meaning where one has a stake in something and enjoys when it
flourishes or languishes when it fails. Human invasion rather than natural
consequences or bad-luck can lead to such harm in the legal sense. As such the invasion
must be by a human for it to ground legal liability. The test; “but for the human’s
invasion the situation would not be this bad”. The criminal law does not look at personal
interest but at (welfare interests) the interest commonly shared by the public… for
example, privacy, association, and so on as such interest is necessary for the
achievement of the other higher goals. They are called welfare interests.
 Normative sense: a norm is an ideal or standard. When a person’s unjustifiable conduct
violates the legal right of another. For example, trespass to land. Mere violation without
injury constitutes harm. Harm without violation of right is not protected for example,
disappointment.
Joel Feinberg concludes that only harm in the transferred sense and the normative sense
are those that should be seen as harm.

Consent is a defense.
The Harm principle has been criticized for failing to explain the concept of harm, what
qualified as “others”, whether it include abstract entities such as state.

2. PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL MORALISM

The gist of this principle can be summarized in the question: Should criminal law be
used to punish immoral behavior?
The liberals posit that law and morality are not the same.
The Devlin/ Hart debate
Arose based on the Wolfenden report which suggested amongst others that;
- Homosexuality should be allowed between two consenting adults in private.
- The law should not extend to the behavior done in the private lives of the citizens.
Except it is coupled with corruption and exploitation.
- If there can be freedom of religion why can’t there be freedom of private morality?
- A country that has declined to enforce any Christian belief has lost its right to enforce
Christian morals.
Devlin disagreed with the report and argued that the legislature should
determine morality by using the standard of a reasonable man. That immorality in the
view of the law is what a reasonable man would consider immoral and have a real
feeling of disgust towards the act.
Hart queried Devlin’s logic. Arguing that the legislature should ask whether the
general morality is based on ignorance or superstition else our reply should be:
“morality, what crimes may be committed in thy name”. He distinguished positive
morality from critical morality. The latter used in criticizing. That we should not think
that a conduct is wrong because the majority believe it to be without any basis or
rationale. In summary he is of the view that the standard of a reasonable man (as Devlin
submitted above) may be filled with bias, ignorance and superstition.

Dworkin argues that the thought of majority that homosexuality is abominable

may be a compound of prejudice and biased thought.
In conclusion, scholars and stakeholders are still divided on this issue. Note however
that law and morality are not the same.
3. THE PRINCIPLE OF OFFENCE TO OTHERS.
The legislation should aim to prevent serious offences to others and the actor.
Offence is a less serious thing than harm and should attract a lighter punishment. Like
fines and imprisonment in days.
Section 231 of the Criminal Code criminalizes the offence of indecent acts in public
places.

4. LEGAL PATERNALISM:
Paternalism simply means telling people to do what is best for them. In the lay man’s
sense, it is like taking care of a baby. Under this principle, the law sees the citizen as
imprudent and puts in place certain criminal prohibitions to prevent the citizen (actor)
from acting to his detriment or harming himself due to his folly and irrationality.
Paternalism can either be passive or active. Paternalism is active when it requires an act
or conduct while it is passive when it forbids a conduct or act. For example, the law
requiring citizens to use seat belts, the law prohibiting driving under the influence of
alcohol, the law prohibiting the use of narcotics and hard drugs, etc.

One point that hart made is that the law is concerned with welfare interests rather than
individual interests. Meaning that the law does not look at personal interest but at the
interest commonly shared by the public… for example, privacy, association, and so on
as such interest is necessary for the achievement of the other higher goals. Interests that
when promoted would foster the development and advancement of the society.

THE BASIS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.

The classical and positivist schools of thought are the major proponents of
divergent views on the basis of Criminal Liability.

THE CLASSICAL SCHOOL

The late 18th century. Ceseare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Deriving its core ideas
from thinkers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes and others.
This school posits that humans formerly lived in the state of nature and grace
where life was brutish and short (power and might was the order of the day). As such
an unwritten social contract emerged whereby the people gave up part of their freedom
to the strong central state in order to prevent the war of all against all.
Humans have freewill and are naturally hedonistic (desire pleasure over pain).
The major control of human behaviour is punishment which best produces pain.
Cesare Beccaria in his book “On Crimes and Punishment 1764”, posited that
the major principle to govern legislation was “the greatest happiness for the greatest
numbers” (utilitarianism). He posited that “punishment should not be excessive, it
 should fit the crime”. Thus he is in support of duration rather than intensity of the
punishment.
The classical school posits that the criminal justice should aim to prevent crime
through deterrence.
Jeremy Bentham posits that criminal act is based on freewill and calculation of
results the law of felicity calculus. Thus the punishment (pain) should be greater than
the crime (pleasure) thus preventing crime through deterrence which is the objective of
the criminal justice. Deterrence should be achieved by the certainty of the punishment
and swiftness of justice.
This school has been criticised that it failed to address the causes of crime.
That there can be no equal justice for all in an unequal society as not all offenders have
equal freewill.

THE NEOCLASSICAL SCHOOL.

The neo-classical school evolved as a revision of the classical school around the 1980’s.
Writers like Romily, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, etc. their improvements over
the classical school include that;
- Infants, insane people and women should be excluded from punishment
- Self-defence is also a plea.

THE POSITIVIST SCHOOL

With scientific revolution in the 19th century. Man and the world around him began to
be explained from the scientific point of view. In his book, On Origins of Species
Darwin presented evidence that humans were animals of a higher class.
August Comte is often being credited as the founder of positivism. Comte posits that
scientific or positivist knowledge is the highest stage of knowledge.
The positivists argue that human behaviour is determined by various factors. As such
punishment must fit the offender rather than fit the crime.
The ground-breaking work of Cesare Lombroso in his book Criminal Man which
earned him the dubious title of the “father of criminology.” In his book, he argued that
a criminal is born that way and can be distinguished by physical characteristics.
“Criminals are more biologically inferior and somewhat primitive”. His view was based
on genetics. He postulates that there are certain physiological features that are present
in such born criminals, some of which include; large jaws, blood shot eyes, large ears,
thick lips, etc.
His work has been criticised for not having rigorous research methodology.
Because his samples consisted of soldiers, convicts and some mentally insane. That
correlation does not mean causality. It has also been criticised on the basis that the ugly
samples might have been made such by the society’s rejection. E.g an ugly and
 unattractive man might be moved to commit rape because his various advances in the
past has been rejected.

Quetelet found that, literates committed lesser crimes than illiterates in the ratio
1:25 as such the more educated committed lesser serious crimes than their uneducated
counterparts. He thus posited that; education, age, sex, season of the year and wealth
affected the commission of crimes whether serious or petty. As such, certain kinds of
people were more prone to crimes.

See also, the work of Sheldon, where he postulated that after his correlational
study, he found that most of the convicts were mesomorphic and they were least likely
to be ectomorphic.
Freud argued that traumatic experiences of childhood usually unconsciously
make some people develop violent behaviour. The Ego, ID and super Ego was used in
his analysis.

See also the work of Erinco Ferri. Erinco ferri posited that psychological,
sociological and economic factors dertermine rather than physiological factors. He was
a student of cesare Lombroso. Sentimets such as hate, vanity and the like greatly
influenced ones criminal behaviour.

The positivist school has been criticised for failing to discover the cause of crime or
develop effective strategies for controlling crime.

I also find it as being merely descriptive without providing remedies. Of recent, a study
is being conducted on criminals, where the ugly ones undergo plastic surgery to improve
their physiognomy. The study is revealing that the tendency in them to commit crime
after surgery reduced.
ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.
That is; elements of crime. Criminal responsibility means culpability. Why
should someone be culpable? The principle is: No liability without fault.
The maxim of lord Kenyo C.J in (confirm the case and maxim pls) Fowler V Paget;
“actus non facitrium nisi men sit rea” meaning a guilty act alone cannot amount to
liability unless it is accompanied by a guilty mind. In English common-law, the two
terms which stand for the physical and mental elements include;
1. Actus reus. (Guilty act).
2. Mens rea. (Guilty mind).
Hence the actus reus and mens rea of an offence must be proved to ground liability.
Except in a strict liability offence.
Woolmington V DPP. Ignorance of the law is not a defense once the two elements have
been proved.
1. ACTUS REUS
It comprises of an;
- Act, omission, or passive state of affairs.
- Unlawful result/consequence.
- Surrounding circumstances.
AN ACT: Generally, a person is presumed to intend the natural consequence of his act.
For example, an axe cut resulting in death- R V Nungu. Hyam V DPP
Glanville Williams sees it as the whole definition of a crime with the exception
of the mental element. See also Kaza V The State
The law does not punish criminal intention alone until it is manifested by overt acts.
AN OMISSION: Generally, the law is reluctant to punish omissions except there is a
duty to act imposed by law and omission to act exposes others to serious harm.
Section 343 and 344 of the Criminal Code penalizes omission to act in certain
circumstances.
Chapter 26 of the Criminal Code imposes duties on heads of families to take care of the
needs of those under them else, criminal sanction.
Section 515 of the Criminal Code punishes neglect to prevent the commission of a
felony.
Hence, an omission to act in respect of these duties would constitute an offence
even if it is not expressed through positive acts.
Section 7a and b of the Criminal Code also punishes acts or omissions as regards parties
to an offence.
Where there is no duty, one can refuse to act. For example, if a man stands by
callously while a cigarette’s end sets fire to another’s house, even though he could just
stamp it out. Except in the prevention of public decay.
The Belgian Penal code was amended in 1961 to include a duty to rescue persons
that are exposed to serious danger. This is recommended in Nigeria.
Actus reus can be negated by presence of a defense. For example, a public
executioner has justification to intend to and shoot a condemned felon, day to day
issues, and consent as in cases like sports, and so on. Liability for omissions under civil
law is much wider.
UNLAWFUL RESULT OR CONSEQUENCES; the harm must result from the
accused’s conduct. In murder, the conduct of the accused must result in the death of the
deceased. Actus reus may not exist in some instances for example, if someone believes
he is stealing another’s property when it is in fact his. When someone believes he is
committing bigamy, not knowing that his wife has died.
Causation generally, a person is presumed to intend the natural consequence of his
actions. However, there can be an intervening act novus actus intervenens sometimes.
 In such a situation, the consequence must be linkable to the person. Section 24 of the
Criminal Code provides that a person is not guilty for an act which occurs independently
of his will or by accident nor is he liable for an unwilled consequence.
- R. V Dallson. The owner of a filing station had a heart attack after a boy fled due to a
failed attempt to rob the filling station. The court held that the heart attack can be linked
to the boy.
- R V Jordan. A man while being treated (for injury caused by the accused) took water
which gave him pneumonia and led to his death. The court held that the injury was not
the cause of his death as there was a break in causation.
- The courts have also held that accident is an unforeseeable consequence. In R V Harris
a thief that intended to burn down a picture frame accidentally burnt down the house.

2. MENS REA:
The mental guilt of an act. May not apply in strict liability offences.
The culpable mind upon which the act is predicated to constitute an offence.
Section 24 of the Criminal Code exempts a man from responsibility for acts done by
accident.
Intention: Desire is the hallmark of intention. That the accused foresaw and desired the
consequences. This definition was extended by the House of Lords in Hyam V DPP to
knowing the probable consequence of one’s act. Even though one did not desire that
result.
In the Hyam V DPP case; a jealous lover set fire to her husband’s mistress’s house and
two children that were in the house were burnt to death. She alleged that she did not
intend to burn anyone that she only intended to scare the woman away from the
neighborhood. The court held that one is presumed to intend the natural consequences
of one’s act.
Intention must be distinguished from motive, negligence, and carelessness.

Motive: the reason for the accused’s unlawful conduct/act. Motive is generally
irrelevant except to establish intention and in issues of compulsion, defamation and
emergency situations- Section 26 of the Criminal Code. In my opinion, the courts
should take into account the motive of the accused in passing the sentence. For example,
where a person steals a tin of rice out of starvation.

Recklessness is the conscious taking of an unjustified risk. Subjective foresight.

Negligence: the consequence of a person’s act which ought to have been reasonably
foreseen. Objective foresight. The reason for punishing negligence is that a man ought
to take care.
Accident: not even a reasonable man could have foreseen what was going to happen.
See Section 24, 25 and 26 of the Criminal Code.

In burglary and housebreaking, the specific intent must be an intention to commit a

felony.
At common-law, there existed the doctrine of transferred malice.
See also Section 316. R V Latimer (confirm) Transferred malice or transferred intent
occurs where “A,” intending to harm “B” mistakenly harms “C” thus “A” maliciously
wounds/harms “C”. The rule would not apply where the kind of harm intended is
different from the kind of harm done.

Proving intention is a herculean task as noted.

Bryan CJ: the devil himself knoweth not the intention of man. Also,
Williams Shakespeare noted that there is no act to find the mind’s construction from the
face.
Bowen LJ in Edginton V Fitzmaurice: However noted that; “The state of a man’s mind
is like the state of his digestion”.
As such:
Since intentional acts originate from the realm of thought, it can be construed from the
facts and circumstances of a case. For example, in the case of murder intention can be
construed from the manner and intensity of blows.
In Nungu V R: A man initially intended to hack his brother down with the sharp end
of an axe he later used the wooden haft to hit his brother. The brother nevertheless died.
The court held that he intended to cause grievous bodily harm and as such, he was liable
for murder. This case buttresses the egg shell principle “take your victim as you find
him”.
Other epitaphs of intention includes, knowingly, wilfully, maliciously, and so on.
Intention can also be construed from recklessness by the application of either the
subjective (mind of the accused) or objective (reasonable man) test. The subjective test
was applied in R V collingham 1957 2qb. In Caldwell V NPC 1982, ac 341 the court
applied the objective test.
Negligence is generally not part of mens rea. It can however be punished where the
offence created extends to it. The justification for punishing negligence is that a man
ought to take reasonable care. Ibikunle V the state 2007 3 MJSC p 184 … Jimoh
Michael V the state 2008 13 nwlr pt 1104 p 361.
In strict liability offences may not require intention. this was noted in Dosumu V
comptroller of customs and excise. R V Efana.

CONCURRENCE OF MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS.

 Actus reus and mens rea must concur. If a change of mind still leads to the actus reus
accidentally, there is no concurrence.
In Thabo-Meli V R 1954 1 wlr 228.
The appellant struck a man with intent to kill him. Believing him dead though only
unconscious, rolled him over a cliff, in order to make his death appear accidental. He in
fact died as a result of subsequent exposure. It was argued that the intent to kill did not
concur with the act of killing. However, the Privy Council rejected the argument and
held that the transaction could not be divided.
However, in R V Chiswibo (confirm the spelling) 1961 (2) SA 714.
The issue was whether the burial of the living body believing it to be lifeless constituted
a continuing process in the act of killing. The court held that the burial and the act of
killing was divisible. Unlike Thabo meli case.
See also R V khandu 1890 ilr 15. It was held that the two acts were divisible.

In conclusion, Okonkwo and Naish posit that the question of actus reus or mens
rea should be construed from the wordings of the statute and that The courts should
adopt the ordinary rules of interpretation and should lean readily in favour of mens rea
requirement. They also advocate that Chapter 5 should be read into the definition of
every offence… because if the legislature wishes to impose a strict liability, it should
do so in plain language.

TYPES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Criminal responsibility simply means blameworthiness. Criminal liability is personal
(i.e it is the blameworthiness of the perpetrator that we look at).
Exceptions to blame worthiness may include;
1. Vicarious liability (individual).
2. Strict liability (statute made offences that disregard mens rea)
3. Corporate criminal responsibility.
 Vicarious Liability (corporate)
 Doctrine of identification.

1. VICARIOUS LIABILITY (INDIVIDUAL).

Unlike civil liabilities where a master can be vicariously liable for acts of his
servants… generally, criminal liability is personal (attached to the perpetrator).
Huggins V R 1730 2 STRANGE 833.
It was held that the head of a prison cannot be vicariously liable for the negligent
criminal act of the warder which resulted in death of an inmate.
 However, for some reasons, the mental element of the real perpetrator is imputed into
the master to make him vicariously liable. This increases the chances of getting paid
damages. Vicarious liability thus ensures public policy and keeps the employer on his
toes.
Thus, as lord Coleridge CJ affirmed in Somerset V Hart 1884 12 qbd 316 at
362. “It is permissible that a man may put another in his position so as to represent him
for the purpose of knowledge”.
The courts may ask whether the servant was acting within the authority granted
by the principal- Ogbuagu V Police.
Section 44 of the Liquor Licensing Act provides that a liquor license holder is
vicariously liable for any offence committed with the license. For example, the servant
of a licensed liquor depot serves a 14 year old boy a beer. Allemn V Whitehead. 1930
1 kb 211.
In Ogbuagu V Police: the court noted that an employer can be exempted from liability
where he had expressly warned the servant.

2. STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCES.

Such offences are purely created by statutes. Usually to entrench public interest, order
and welfare. The actus reus alone can impose liability for example, D.U.I, public
nuisance, outraging public decency, criminal libel, and so on.
There should be no capital strict liability offence.
The intention of the legislature should be construed from the wordings of the statute.
S5 of the road traffic act of England is an example. It made it a crime to drive or attempt
to drive under the influence of alcohol. The Breathalyzer legislation has created a strict
liability offence for DUI, the intoximeter would be used to test.
In Nigeria, under the customs act, there are offences of strict liability. In Dosumu
V Comptroller of Customs and Excise, Hubbard J pointed out that the customs
ordinance (now Act) contained three classes of offences ie
- Offences of absolute prohibition to which guilty knowledge is irrelevant
- Offences in which prosecution must prove mens rea
- An intermediate class of offences involving mens rea but where the onus of proof is
shifted to the defendant to disprove guilty knowledge.
.
In R V Efana it was held that: Irrespective of the accused innocent belief and ignorance,
they were guilty of offences in respect of taking the cases away because the relevant
sections of the customs ordinance were absolutely prohibitive.
Words like cause, “allow”, “permit”, “be in possession” “cause” and also where no
qualifications such as willfully, knowingly, “intentionally” and so on are used. It may
show the intention of the legislature that it be a strict liability offence.
 Chk Wrothwell ltd V Yorkshire authority 1984 clr at 43 where it was held that the
defendant caused a poisonous matter to enter a stream as such he was liable even if he
did not intend such.
Harrison V R that strict liability applied to offence under Section 19 of the firearms act
and that is the offence of having a loaded shot gun in a public place.
A strict liability does not extend to when someone has been framed. For example,
slipping a prohibited substance into someone’s property.
Warner V Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Knowledge of possession rather than appreciation of the quality or illegality of
substance being possessed shall suffice.
Adjei V R: A newspaper editor was found guilty of publishing a seditious article. The
chairman was also convicted even though he was ignorant that the paper had a seditious
content.

It is important to note that: Unlike Ogbuagu V Police (which was vicarious liability),
Strict liability offences are not interested in whether the employer had previously
warned or discouraged the act. Although in certain circumstances, a quantum of guilt
may be required.
Some other examples of strict liability offences can be found in (amongst others):
Section 243 (1) of the Criminal Code provides 1 year imprisonment for one who has
unfit and noxious materials in his possession and intends to sell them as food or drink.
Section 244 of the Criminal Code penalizes any person who “knowingly” sells deceased
meat. Dosumu V Comptroller of Customs and Excise.

3. CORPORATE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Generally speaking, a company is a body corporate and as such, can sue and be sued.
Initially, at common-law, the corporation was deemed to be devoid of a mind
and as such, incapable of committing mens rea required offences. Anglo Nigeria Tin
Mines V R-“It cannot stand in the dock nor can it be imprisoned”.
The common-law scope was expanded in R V ICR College.
In Nigeria, express wordings of statutes make corporations liable. For example;
Section 74 (5) of Factories Act used “companies and other persons”.
The Criminal Code uses “any person” in most of it offences.
Section 3 of the Old Interpretation Act includes a company in its definition of a
“person”.
Part 51 of the CPA provides that a corporation can be charged with an offence.
The justification for corporate liability may include;
- It makes corporations take care in their activities and improve safety procedures and
regulations.
- It promotes greater control by shareholders who ultimately bear the financial penalties
imposed.
- Deterrence of future harmful activities
There are two ways in which a company can be held liable for a criminal act. Viz;
a. Vicarious liability
b. Doctrine of identification

a. VICARIOUS (company)-
Companies are held vicariously liable for crimes committed by its employees in the
course of carrying out directives. Especially in strict liability offences. Except the
employee acts outside the scope of his authority.
In Ogbuagu V police; The employer instructed his employee not to publish the papers
while he was away. The employee disobeyed and published a seditious article this was
held to be outside the scope of his authority.
Tesco Stores ltd V Brent London Bureau Council: The defendant company was charged
with “supplying” a “video” with an 18 restricted certificate to a youth of 14 in violation
of the video recordings act 1984. Tesco argued that none of the directors were aware of
the fact. This contention was rejected. The court held that the knowledge of the
employee could be attributed to the company to establish vicarious liability.
R V British Steel Plc 1995 1 CR 586.
FULL NOTE ON WWW.ISOCHUKWU.COM

Contents
CRIMINAL LAW I ................................................................................................................................ 2
THE DEFINITION OF CRIME. ........................................................................................................ 2
HISTORY OF NIGERIAN CRIMINAL LAW. (BRIEF) .................................................................. 3
CULTURAL INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE NIGERIAN BELIEF AND THE CRIMINAL LAW
INTRODUCED. (CONFLICTS) ........................................................................................................ 4
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES AND THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
CLASSIFICATION. ........................................................................................................................... 6
CRIMINALIZATION POLICY. ........................................................................................................ 8
PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINALIZATION. .......................................................................................... 8
THE BASIS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. .......................................................................... 10
ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. ......................................................................... 12
TYPES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. .................................................................................. 16
ATTEMPT. .......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CONSPIRACY .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
PARTIES TO AN OFFENCE. ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
OFFENCES COMMITTED IN THE PROSECUTION OF A COMMON PURPOSE Section 8 of
the Criminal Code. ............................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
NON SEXUAL OFFENCES. .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
 HOMICIDE: .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
MURDER. ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
MANSLAUGHTER. ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ASSAULT............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
RAPE. .................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
GENERAL DEFENCES. ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
VITE 2017 CRIMINAL LAW II. ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC ONE: THE OFFENCE OF STEALING. ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC 2: OBTAINING BY FALSE PRETENCE. ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC THREE: CHEATING.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC FOUR: OBTAINING CREDIT BY FRAUD. ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC FIVE: RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY AND UNLAWFUL POSSESSION. ....... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC SEVEN: THE DEFENCE OF BONAFIDE CLAIM OF RIGHT. ......... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
TOPIC EIGHT BURGLARY AND HOUSEBREAKING.................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC NINE: FORGERY AND UTTERING. ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC 9: UTTERING ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC TEN: ROBBERY AND ARMED ROBBERY. ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC ELEVEN: CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC ELEVEN: TREASON AND SEDITION ................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
SEDITION. .......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
UNLAWFUL PROCESSION. ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
SEDITIOUS MEETING ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
RIOT. ................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
AFFRAY. ............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
PERJURY ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC THIRTEEN: CORRUPTION. ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
BRIBERY UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE AND ICPC ACT. ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.
(EXTORTION) ILLEGAL GRATUITY. ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN BRIBERY AND EXTORTION. ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.

WWW.ISOCHUKWU.COM