TOPIC 1

INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL LAW

INTRODUCTON

 In order to determine the scope of criminal law and the limits within which crime and law
interact, it is necessary first to define crime.

 Lord Tucker (1957) : “a crime is unlawful act...which is an offence against the public and
renders the person guilty of the act...liable to legal punishment.”

 Williams, Glanville (1955) practical definition has been highly influential, and though criticised
as circular-emphasises the procedural nature of the law (a positivist?):
“A crime is an act capable of being followed by criminal proceedings having a criminal
outcome. Criminal law is that branch of law which deals with conduct... by prosecution in the
criminal courts.

 Blackstone's 18h century definition, on the other hand, focuses upon the public harm suffered
as a result of criminal conduct:
“A crime or misdemeanour is an act committed, or omitted, in violation of a public law, either
forbidding or commanding it... public wrongs, or crimes and misdemeanours, are a breach and
violation of the public rights and duties, due to the whole community”.

 In Malaysia, Penal Code Act is silent on the definition of crime

CONDITION

There are 4 conditions that must be met when determining whether something is a crime or
not.

1) The action must be considered wrong by society

2) It must cause harm to society in general, or to those in need of protection
3) The harm must be serious both in nature and degree
4) The action must be dealt with through the criminal justice, in order to ensure that the accused
is discouraged from committing similar offence in future.

HOW IT IS DIFFERENT FROM TORT?

 Crime-Public Law; whereas tort falls under the Private (Civil) Law

 Remedies: Criminal Law-punishment, Tort-compensation (damages)

STANDARD AND BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL LAW

 Defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

 Burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable ground that the defendant
is guilty of the offence

 The Prosecution Standard of proof: the test/what needs to be proven"prove beyond

reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty of the offence.

 Example of Case:

Woolmington v DPP (1935)

Facts

• Woolmington showed his wife a gun and said he would commit suicide if she left him to live
elsewhere. The gun discharged, killing the wife

Issue

• Could the conviction be quashed on the grounds that the judge said it was for the jury to
decide whether Woolmington had proved that the evidence was in his favour?

Decision

• Appeal allowed plea of not guilty.

Reasoning

• The House of Lords holds that the jury instruction means that the onus is on Woolmington to
prove that he did not intend to kill his wife. This seems to have obviously violated the
presumption of innocent principle in criminal law.

WHAT AMOUNTS TO "REASONABLE DOUBT"?

 "Beyond reasonable doubt" There must not be any degree of "reasonable doubt

 Almost saying that the judge/jury has to be absolutely certain that the defendant is guilty/not
guilty of the offence.