lOMoARcPSD|8500852

Criminal Law Tutorial Questions and Answers

Criminal Law (University of Bristol)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Md. Yousuf Rifat (yousufrifat01@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|8500852

TUTORIAL 1 - ACTUS REUS 25/10

Required Reading
Jonathan Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (OUP 2016) Ch 2
OR
Jeremy Horder, Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law (OUP 2016) Chs 5.1, 5.3-5.5

Omissions
Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 Q.B. 439; [1968] 3 All E.R. 442
Stone v Dobinson [1977] Q.B. 354; [1977] 2 All E.R. 341
R v Miller [1983] 2 A.C. 161; [1983] 1 All E.R. 978
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] A.C. 789 at 865D–868E (Lord Goff; Lords Keith and Lowry
agreeing) and 881B–885B (Lord Browne-Wilkinson)

Causation
R v Blaue [1975] 3 All E.R. 446
R v Roberts [1971] 56 Cr. App. R. 95
R v Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38 (compare Kennedy (No 2) [2005] 1 W.L.R. 2159, 3594)
R v Evans (Gemma) [2009] EWCA Crim. 650

Questions:

1. When, if at all, are omissions punished in the criminal law of England and Wales? Is the
current position satisfactory?
Omissions are punishable when a reasonable person should have acted and had a duty
of care to act. Where there is a legal duty to act and it is shown that the lack of action caused
harm, omissions can be punished. Really asking to map out the law of omissions. Always make
sure I explain legal concepts to show the examiner what I know. Go through the circumstances
where there is a duty to act. Map out the general position- there is no duty to act, Good
Samaritan laws do not exist in the UK. Important to understand what the precedent was and
how it was established and why.
Road Traffic Act s6 1988
R v Dytham- duty to act as he is a police officer
R v Pittwood- contractual duty to the employer
Lewin v CPS [2002]- friendship is not sufficient to create a duty
Stone v Dobinson- subjective judgement since there was an altered state of mind of the
defendants and they were not ‘reasonable’ people. Brings in the issue of autonomy
Fagan v MPC- continuing omission; mens rea did not exist at the time of the initial act, and once
he realised he committed an act and failed to stop it, it became a continuing act.
The defendant must do what is reasonable, which is determined by the jury.
Need to explain the reason behind the decision- Issues, Law, Apply the law

Downloaded by Md. Yousuf Rifat (yousufrifat01@gmail.com)

Bland- a doctor must not force treatment on a patient, and when a patient cannot decide for
themselves the doctor must act in the best interests of the patient.

2. A cuts B’s face with a knife. B is so distressed by the resulting scar that she commits
suicide. Has A caused B’s death? (Explain your reasoning using relevant case-law).
Thin skull rule does not apply as it does not cover harm the victim causes to themselves
due to the actions of the defendant- although there is some debate about this. So A would not
be liable for B’s death due to the chain in causation being broken by B ‘taking over’ the chain.
How does this apply in cases of bullying leading to suicide or other forms of harassment that
lead to people hurting themselves?
In R v Roberts the defendant is responsible for harm the victim causes themselves due
to the actions of the defendant, however this is a very different scenario as the actions of B
could not have been reasonably foreseen by A as a consequence due to their actions.
Test in Roberts: Was it the natural result of what the assailant said and did in the sense that it
was something that could reasonably have been foreseen as the consequence of what he was
saying or doing? Whether the reaction of the victim, taking into account the state of the victim,
was reasonable and foreseeable to the ordinary person.
Blaue- take the victim as you find them, proves that A caused B’s death if the victim was
in a state to kill herself due to her injuries.
Have to argue for and against- both sides in my answer, I will be defence and
prosecution
Need to discuss causation- result crimes. The courts will try to create a chain of
causation.
Is the defendant liable for the victim’s death? Want to establish that A committed and act
which lead to A’s death. Each person is responsible for their own act. Elements of causation-
factual and legal causation. The defendants actions must be substantial and operative- use
relative case law.
Crown v White- defendant poisoned their parent but the parent died of a heart attack unrelated
to the poison; defendant was not liable for the death, still charged with attempted murder.

3. F gives G some drugs. G injects the drugs and dies. Has F caused G’s death? (Explain your
reasoning using relevant case-law). Why/why not? And is this reasoning convincing?
Depends on age and relationship? Evans (Gemma)- the defendant contributed to the
risk in the situation and was therefore liable. In R v Kennedy the defendant prepared the drug
and the deceased self-administered voluntarily as a fully-informed, responsible adult.
Issue of voluntariness- partially free, voluntary, and informed. Precedent was
established in Kennedy that the victim’s free, voluntary, and informed choice to self-inject broke
the chain of causation- shows a broad interpretation of what we mean by ‘free’ (despite him
being addicted to heroin).
In Evans the duty would arise when the defendant realised danger was created.
4. Is the concept of causation in the criminal law influenced by moral and/or policy
assumptions about the nature of criminal law (give examples)? Should it be influenced by
these assumptions?
Intervention by third parties. In medical cases the cases are hesitant to use negligent
medical care to break the chain of causation. Jordan, Smith, Cheshire.
TUTORIAL 2 – Mens rea Elements: Intention; Recklessness 10/11

Required Reading
On mens rea in general:
Ashworth’s 6.4-6.7

Strict liability offences – the exception

Sweet v Parsley [1970] A.C. 132
R v G [2008] UKHL 37, at para 1-6, 24-31

Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1998] A.C. 245
Thabo Meli [1954] 1 All E.R. 373
Fagan v MPC [1968] 3 All E.R. 442
Miller [1983] 1 All E.R. 978

Mens rea (studied through murder): intention

(You may like to look at Herring 5.1-5.2 OR Horder 8.1-8.3 before the tutorial in addition to the
relevant lectures)
Homicide Act 1957, s.1
Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.8
Moloney [1985] 1 All E.R. 1025
Nedrick [1986] 3 All E.R. 1
A-G Ref No. 3 of 1994 [1997] 3 W.L.R. 421; 3 All E.R. 936
*Woollin [1998] 3 W.L.R. 382; [1999] A.C. 92
Matthews and Alleyne [2003] Crim. L.R. 553

Mens rea: Recklessness

‘Advertent recklessness’ or Cunningham recklessness
Cunningham [1957] 2 Q.B. 396
Stephenson [1979] Q.B. 695
Parker [1977] 2 All E.R. 37
‘Caldwell-type’
recklessness Caldwell
[1982] A.C. 341
Elliott v C [1983] 2 All E.R. 1005
Chief Constable of Avon v Shimmen (1986) 84 Cr. App. R. 7
R v G [2003] 3 W.L.R. 1060, [2003] 4 All E.R. 765.

Questions:

1. What is the difference between ‘direct’ and ‘oblique’ intention? Why is ‘oblique’ intention
regarded as a form of ‘intention’ in the criminal law of England and Wales?
 Direct- when the defendant was pursuing causing GBH to a person or intending to cause
harm- desired result. Must have aim or purpose- leading authority of direct intention was
Moloney (shooting stepfather on a drunken dare). Start with direct- if there is no aim or purpose
there is no direct intention and then move on to oblique.
Intention is the highest form of mens rea- above recklessness and knowledge, reserved
for most serious offences such as murder.
Oblique- when the harm is not D’s intention but it is certain to come about anyway-
foreseeable. Can’t be a wide test. Nedrick (established a two part test). Woollin is the leading
authority- there must be virtual certainty. Indirect intention- need to establish if the offence
element is certain to arise and the defendant recognises that it is a virtue certainty that the harm
will come about, and it is for the jury to find that this recognition amounts to an intention (three
part test).
Three part test- Where the offence element must be a virtual certainty, the subjective
part- where you look at whether the defendant must foresee the offence element as virtually
certain (if the jury believe that the defendant honestly did not foresee the offence element as a
virtual certainty, even if it was obvious to the reasonable person, then this part of the test will not
be satisfied and the jury are not entitled to find oblique intention). The jury are not obliged to find
intention (heavily criticised third part). <— must include in answer. Case law provides no criteria
for guiding the jury in their decision.
Test in Woollin (three stage test) was approved/endorsed by Matthews and Alleyne- a direction
to the jury in relation to a substantial risk is not sufficient.

We want to establish whether the defendant has intention- both lead to the same mens rea.

2. Does R v Woollin provide a clear definition of ‘intention’? And does the definition adopted in
R v Woollin mean that intention is clearly distinguishable from recklessness?
In R v Woollin a clear definition of intention is provided.
The definition does distinguish from recklessness but still does not clarify some overlap
Is the test in Woollin clear- would you feel comfortable using it and convicting someone of
murder?
Cunningham- affirmed in G (2003).
Cunningham recklessness two part test-
1. Subjective- The defendant must foresee a risk of the offence element being satisfied.
Whether the defendant foresaw the risk- question of fact for the jury. Need to establish
that the defendant foresaw the risk of damage/harm, and the size of the risk foreseen
is irrelevant, and how carefully the defendant considered the presence of the risk is
also irrelevant, and what the defendant thinks about the risk is irrelevant.
2. Objective- need to establish the defendant unreasonably continued to run that risk.
Recklessness- in criminal law has nothing to do with physical element- all to do with mens
rea.

3. Tom placed bombs in Guildford and Birmingham shopping centres. He issued warnings
designed to give the maximum time to leave before the bombs exploded. In Guildford the
bombs exploded after everyone except Bill left (he hung around to see what would happen).
He
died. In Birmingham everyone escaped, but a bomb disposal expert, Sally, was killed an hour
later while trying to defuse the bomb. Is Tom guilty of the murder of Bill or Sally?
Tom is guilty of the murder of Sally because it was reasonably foreseeable that people
would be injured from the bombs even with the warning. In the case of Bill, however, the chain
of causation may have been broken as he was careless and stayed back even when he
shouldn’t have, so Tom may not be liable for his death. It is reasonably foreseeable that bomb
defusers would be near the bombs and potentially killed, so Tom should be responsible for
Sally’s death.
Moloney- exact example of the scenario
Sally- oblique intention

1. Issues
2. Law
● Murder-
1. Actus reus- kill or cause GBH
2. Mens rea- direct or oblique intention

4. Would it be desirable and possible to have a statutory definition of ‘intention’ in the

criminal law?
It would be desirable as it would make the establishment of an intention in a case much
easier, and therefore easy to determine mens rea and guilt, however I do not think it is possible
as the definition would be too broad and impossible to apply, or too narrow and potentially leave
out important aspects of intention.
Criminal law seeks to establish certainty- there is a test but no definition

5. Is it ever appropriate to hold a defendant criminally responsible for a result of her actions
if she did not foresee that result? (Give examples and reasons).
No
Sweet v Parsley
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245
Cunningham
RvG

Yes
Caldwell

Test for foresight and the foreseeability element, virtual certainty test- all about
foreseeability.

Always start with the highest offence and work down from there. Check if the elements are
satisfied, if not, move down a level. Introduce academic sources of law- secondary sources, in
my answers.
TUTORIAL 3 – Homicide: Voluntary and Involuntary Manslaughter 24/11

Required Reading
Jonathan Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (OUP 2016) Ch 5
OR
Jeremy Horder, Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law (OUP 2016) Ch 8

Murder (Recap):
Actus Reus
Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
(i) What is death?
Bland [1993] 1 All E.R. 821
(ii) What is life?
Infant Life Preservation Act 1929
Offences Against the Person Act 1861, ss.58, 59
Abortion Act 1967
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1998] A.C. 245
Mens reas
See INTENTION (tutorial 2)

Voluntary Manslaughter
Loss of control
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, ss.54-56
R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim. 2
Dawes [2013] EWCA Crim. 322
Diminished Responsibility
Homicide Act 1957, s.2
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, ss.52
R v Asmelash [2013] 1 Cr. App. R. 33, [2013] Crim. L.R. 599

Involuntary Manslaughter
Constructive, or ‘unlawful act’ manslaughter
Church [1966] 1 Q.B. 59
Lamb [1967] 2 Q.B. 981
DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977] A.C. 500
Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38
Gross negligence manslaughter
Adomako [1995] 1 A.C. 171
Evans [2009] EWCA Crim. 650
Questions:

1. Why do partial defences to murder exist? In what way are they partial? And is it justifiable to
have partial defences to murder in the criminal law of England and Wales?
Partial defences- reducing sentences- murder is a life sentence and manslaughter is not,
a partial defence reduces to a lower offence; if there wasn’t oblique intention then it can’t be
voluntary manslaughter; gross negligent manslaughter can be committed by an omission; partial
defences include the element of fault, not the same as self-defence argument
General defence- something that applies to everything, not just murder, all criminal
offences;

2. ‘The partial defence of loss of control privileges people who display anger. That is a wrong
thing for the law to do. It also discriminates against victims of abuse who kill not through
anger but through despair. That too is a wrong thing for the law to do.’ Discuss.
s 55 Coroners and Justice Act- loss of self control does not need to be sudden- R v
Thornton (no longer good law)
Smith v Morgan
Old law was sudden and temporary loss of self control- now you cant rely on the loss of self
control if there were revenge purposes, not clear where the cut off is

3. Ahmed and Jane are married and have one child, Pete, who is twelve. Ahmed and Jane fight
often and Ahmed suspects that Jane is going to leave him. He has become very depressed and
a doctor has prescribed him high doses of anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medication.

Ahmed comes home from work one evening to find the house empty and a note on the fridge
from Jane telling him that she has gone to her mother’s house with Pete. Filled with rage, he
drives over to Jane’s mother’s house and waits outside in the car for an hour when he then
enters the house to confront Jane.

When Jane’s mother returns two hours later from work she finds Ahmed sitting at the kitchen
table with blood all over his face. He seems to be in a trance and does not respond to her when
she calls his name. She finds the dead bodies of Jane and Pete in the bedroom. Eventually
Ahmed tells her that when he entered the house Jane started screaming abuse at him. He told
her he only wanted to talk, but she would not stop. She told him that he ‘disgusted her’ with his
depression and that he ‘wasn’t a real man.’ He says that she then told him that she had been
having an affair with his best friend, Dave. He said he ‘became very upset’ and grabbed her
round the neck to ‘make her stop saying those things.’

At this point, Pete then came into the room and started hitting Ahmed on the head with a large
wooden cooking spoon. Ahmed responded by shoving Pete so hard into a wall that he
sustained a skull fracture and subsequently died.
Discuss the criminal liability of the parties. (Summer 2016 Exam Paper)

R v Clinton- on its own sexual infidelity cannot be used in relation to things said or done
but in conjunction with other factors can be taken into account
Woollin
Loss of self control, and maybe diminished responsibility for Jane
Battery as a base offence against Pete;
must be objectively dangerous and must cause death

The base offence must cause the victim’s death, this is a strict liability element. Ahmed’s
base offence must cause death but there is no requirement for Ahmed to have intended, known,
or foreseen, or had any mens rea at all as to this fault. In this way, unlawful act manslaughter is
a constructive crime. This means we are constructing liability by the accumulation of the strict
liability element in dangerousness (objective) and in relation to the base offence causing death
upon the base offence. The causation element requires us to apply the standard causation
rules- factual and legal causation.

4. Explain what reforms you would make to the law of involuntary manslaughter. (Summer
2011 Exam Paper)

Punishment is coercion- state deprives people of liberty when convicted

Where the victim is dead- start with murder (requires intention (direct or oblique(Woollin)) to
cause death or GBH- from Lord Coke; common law offence)

From intention there is voluntary manslaughter (Coroners and Justice Act 2009)- loss of
self-control (s 54-56 of CJA) or diminished responsibility

Loss of self control- made up of three elements: the defendant’s role in the killing resulted from
a loss of self control; there must be a qualifying trigger(s) (there are three: a fear of serious
violence; a thing or things done or said or both which constituted circumstances of a very grave
character and caused justifiable sense of being seriously wronged; combination of the two); a
hypothetical person of the defendants age and sex might have reacted in the same way- no
definition provided in the act, Jewell gave a definition- a loss of the ability to act in accordance
with considered judgment or a loss of normal power of reasoning
s54(4)- the defendant must not act in a considered desire for revenge

Diminished responsibility- section 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (amended section 2
of the Homicide Act 1957)- four elements to satisfy: a defendant must have an abnormality of
the mind (previously abnormality of mental functioning); the abnormality must have arisen from
a recognised medical condition, must be recognised by the court, R v Dawes- acute intoxication;
the element of diminished responsibility requires a causal link between the abnormality of the
mind and the killing.