Criminal law has three main objectives: to protect people, maintain order, and punish criminals. A crime harms society and is prosecuted by the state, not private individuals. For an act to be a crime it must be forbidden by law, cause social harm, and the harm must be serious enough to warrant criminal prosecution. There are different categories of crimes such as offenses against persons or property. The government aims to prevent crime through both reactive measures like law enforcement and proactive strategies targeting social factors linked to criminal behavior. For criminal liability, an act must involve both an unlawful act and criminal intent, and the act must cause harm.

1. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 1
CIPRIANI COLLEGE OF LABOUR AND
CORPORATIVE STUDIES
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAW 120
Lecture 3
What is Criminal Law?
Criminal Law has three main objectives: to protect people, to maintain order in society, and to
punish criminals. Criminal law is the body of laws that prohibit and punish acts that injure people,
property, and the entire community. These laws protect people and property, maintain order, and
preserve standards of public decency. A crime, by definition, harms society as a whole. For this
reason, while not undermining the impact that crimes have on particular victims, crimes are
prosecuted by the state, i.e. it is not the role of the victim to prosecute the person(s) committing
the crime.
However, not all criminal law is passed by the state: sometimes the rulings of judges create new
criminal definitions by creating a consistent case history that creates a new criminal classification,
as it did in the case of marital rape.
The Nature of Crime
A crime is any act or omission that is forbidden by law (or penal code) as a violation of the public
interest. Although the actual victim of a crime is often a person, legally the victim is the
community. By definition, therefore, a crime involves social harm and requires vindication through
a public process. It is prosecuted by government attorneys who represent the community as a
whole, not the individual or individuals who have been victimized by the specific offense. A victim
may initiate the investigation that leads to prosecution by going to the police, and may aid the
prosecution by testifying at the criminal trial, but does not actually prosecute a perpetrator for a
criminal act. Thus, criminal cases have names such as State v. Jones, showing that the defendant
is accused of violating the laws of an entire society and must answer in turn to that society.
Our laws developed from English common law, which recognized the importance of holding
individuals accountable for immoral actions that deserve punishment. What is considered immoral
and deserving of punishment, however, can vary considerably depending on the time and culture.
Consider that acts such as breaking the Sabbath, smoking (for women), and interracial marriage

2. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 2
were once illegal in some American jurisdictions. Therefore, definitions of “immoral” and
“deserving of punishment” are extremely flexible, depending on who defines them and when.
An important aspect of crime is punishment. Whereas a person who commits a civil wrong may
have to pay damages or perform some specific act to compensate for the wrong, a person convicted
of a crime is punished. Punishment can take many forms, all of which carry one essential
characteristic that distinguishes criminal from civil wrongdoing in Anglo-American law: the
condemnation and stigma that accompanies conviction of a crime. For example, even if a
punishment is only a fine, such a fine serves a different purpose than an award of damages in a
civil case. The criminal punishment (or sanction) of a fine expresses social disapproval; it is not a
method of compensating an individual. Such differences in the nature and aims of civil judgments
and criminal sanctions help to explain why they are handled though separate court systems.
A crime can be defined as any act or omission of duty that results in harm to society and which is
punishable by the state. Four conditions must exist for an act or omission to be considered a crime:
a) the act is considered wrong by society;
b) the act causes harm to society in general or those in need of protection;
c) the harm is serious; and
d) the remedy must be handled by the criminal justice system.
Categories of Crime
Including offences against the person, offences against the sovereign, economic offences
(property/white collar/computer), drug offences, driving offences, public order offences,
preliminary crimes (attempts and conspiracy)
1. Offences against persons: involve the intended causing of injury to a person e.g. assault,
manslaughter.
2. Offences against the State: involve criminal acts against the government, e.g. Treason
which involves the commission of acts aimed at bringing down the government or head of
state, or Sedition which involves the incitement of hatred and/or violence against the
government or head of state.
3. Economic offences which involves the infliction of economic loss upon the victim, e.g.
Loss or damage to the victim‟s property such as robbery or larceny; White collar crime,
so called because it is committed by office workers working in a business environment

3. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 3
e.g. embezzlement, the taking of money by an employee from a business, or tax evasion
and Computer crime, e.g. identity theft, unlawful downloading of material which is
subject to copyright such as films, songs, images.
4. Drug offences which involves the use, supply and possession of prohibited drugs. Most
offences are covered in the Dangerous Drugs Act Chapter 11:25.
5. Driving offences which involves breaches of traffic laws. Many traffic offences are strict
liability offences such as speeding. Other, non-strict liability offences include dangerous
driving occasioning death and driving in a manner dangerous to the public.
6. Public Order offences which involves acts, which the reasonable person would deem
unacceptable behaviour. Such offences aim to achieve a measure of social control and
cohesion through regulation, e.g. using obscene language in a public place.
7. Preliminary Offences which involves attempting to or planning to commit a crime, both of
which are themselves criminal acts e.g. loitering with intent or Conspiracy involving two
or more people agreeing to commit a crime, e.g. planning to rob a bank.
Why People Commit Crimes
People commit crimes for many reasons and are usual influenced by various factors. As such, there
is no clear concise formula that answers the question as to why an individual engages in criminal
activity. However, there are certain recognised broad reasons that act guidelines that we can use to
understand criminal activity within our country. These being:
1. Social: People, and in particular, their attitude to the law and the authority of the state, are
shaped in part by the society they live in. Factors such as upbringing and personal networks
can impact, often negatively, upon a person‟s view of the law and respect, or lack of, for
it.
2. Economic: People who suffer economic disadvantage can feel “disconnected” from
mainstream society and its value and hence may feel less respect for the law. Further,
poverty, in terms of need can also be a factor, particularly in property offences.
3. Genetic: This is a controversial theory, rooted in 19th century phrenology studies and more
recently in DNA analysis that suggests there is an inherited genetic basis to some criminal
behaviour, particularly behaviour that is violent. This theory has been popularised by the
media. However there is no conclusive evidence to support a genetic based theory of
explaining criminal behaviour.

4. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 4
4. Political: Individuals and organisations may oppose certain criminal laws, or even the
whole notion of the state in the case of radicals, on political grounds. They therefore believe
that the law is wrong or unjust and may not feel compelled to comply with the law. Political
motives cover the spectrum of criminal behaviour from public order type offences through
to violent criminal behaviour.
5. Self-interest: Self-interest and greed can motivate people to commit crime; it can be seen
as an easy road to power or wealth.
Part II
Government and Crime Prevention
It is the responsibility of the government of any country, to adopt policies/measures that will
combat crime. Most of these policies are reactive measures which manifest in the form of the
police, the courts and corrective services.
The aim of crime prevention strategies is to focus on a more proactive approach to reducing crime.
The government has, in recent years, placed an increased emphasis on the need to prioritise crime
prevention strategies.
Crime prevention strategies can be categorised into two broad types:
a) Situational Crime Prevention: Such strategies aim to either make the crime more difficult
to commit, e.g. bars on windows to prevent a break, enter and steal; increase the likelihood
of detection including a house alarm; or reduce the reward from the crime such as engraving
owner identification on valuables. In addition, specific laws are premised on a situational
crime prevention approach, e.g. imposing the breathalyzer test.
b) Social Crime Prevention: Social crime prevention aims to break the cycle of crime by
targeting social factors such as poor parenting, high truancy rates, low levels of education
and economic disadvantage, all of which increase the likelihood of criminal activity
occurring. Social crime prevention is not a quick fix solution and for this reason often
receives bad press as it can be wrongly interpreted as being soft on crime and therefore not
worthy of government funding.
Further examples of social crime prevention strategies include:

5. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 5
 Drug and alcohol education programs for young people.
 The provision for Youth Justice Conferences
PART III
BASIC ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Criminal liability requires a concurrence, or unity, of two general criteria:
(a) an act or physical element, known as the actus reus; and
(b) a certain mental state or intent, known as the mens rea .
In addition, under the general principles of criminal responsibility developed from the common
law tradition, the physical act must be voluntary and cause social harm. Criminal responsibility or
liability, therefore, has five elements:
1. The actus reus .
2. The mens rea .
3. A unity of actus reus and mens rea .
4. Causation.
5. Resulting social harm.
ACTUS REUS
The actus reus in criminal law consists of all elements of a crime other than the state of mind of
the defendant. In particular, actus reus may consist of: conduct, result, a state of affairs or an
omission.
1. Conduct - the conduct itself might be criminal in other words the actus reus is the
prohibited conduct itself. Eg. the conduct of lying under oath represents the actus reus of
perjury. It does not matter that whether the lie is believed or if had any effect on the
outcome of the case, the actus reus of the crime is complete upon the conduct.
Examples of conduct crimes:
 Perjury

6. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 6
 Theft
 Making off without payment
 Rape
 Possession of drugs or a firearm
2. Result - The actus reus may relate to the result of the act or omission of the defendant.
The conduct itself may not be criminal, but the result of the conduct may be in other words,
the actus reus of the offence requires proof that the conduct caused a prohibited result or
consequence. Eg it is not a crime to throw a stone, but if it hits a person or smashes a
window it could amount to a crime. Causation must be established in all result crimes.
Examples of result crimes:
 Assault
 Battery
 Wounding and Grievous Bodily Harm
 Murder & Manslaughter
 Criminal damage
3. "State Of Affairs" Cases - One group of cases which cannot be discussed in terms of
voluntary acts are often referred to as the "state of affairs" cases. These crimes are defined
not in the sense of the defendant doing a positive act but consisting in the defendant "being
found", "being in possession" or "being in charge" etc.
In some such cases all the prosecution needs to prove are the existence of the factual
circumstances which constitute the crime - the existence of the state of affairs. See:
 Duck v Peacock [1949] 1 All ER 318 King's Bench Division - The defendant was charged
with the offence of being drunk in charge of a vehicle. At the time of his arrest he was
sleeping in the car having been out for the evening drinking. The Magistrate did not impose
a disqualification but on a case stated appeal, a disqualification was ordered. Lord Goddard
CJ
'This is a question, not of driving, but of being in charge of a car. If what is suggested here
were a special reason, it would mean that a man who had taken too much to drink so that
he was unfit to manage the car or be in charge of it could escape the penalty of
disqualification merely by stopping and going to sleep in the car. The court is not going to
give any countenance to such a reason as that. In my opinion, on the facts found by the
magistrate there was no ground for saying that any special reason existed for not imposing
the disqualification which Parliament has decreed shall otherwise be imposed. Therefore,

7. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 7
this case must be remitted to the magistrate with an intimation that we think he was wrong
in law, and the respondent must be disqualified for the statutory period.‟
 R v Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App R 74 - The defendant, a French woman, was deported
against her will, from Ireland to England, by the Irish authorities. Upon her arrival she was
immediately charged with the offence of 'being' an illegal alien. Her conviction was upheld
despite the fact that she had not voluntarily come to England.
Duty Arising From Statute
Liability for failing to act will be imposed where the defendant can be shown to have been under
a statutory duty to take positive action.
 Greener v DPP (1996) The Times, Feb 15 1996 - The defendant was the owner of a young,
powerful Staffordshire Bull Terrier. He had left the dog chained in an enclosure in his back
garden. The dog had strained and bent the clip releasing its chain. It had escaped from the
enclosure and entered a nearby garden where it bit the face of a young child. Section 3(3)
of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 provides that if the owner of a dog allows it to enter a
place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there it
injures any person, he is guilty of an offence.
It was held by the Divisional Court that an offence under s3(3) could be committed by
omission. The word "allows" included taking and omitting to take a positive step. In the
present case the defendant had failed to take adequate precautions. Similar precautions had
been taken in the past but they were obviously inadequate as the fastening was not good
enough and the enclosure not secure.
Duty Arising From a Contract
Where a person is under a positive duty to act because of his obligations under a contract, his
failure to perform the contractual duty in question can form the basis of criminal liability. See:
 R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 37 - The defendant was employed by a railway company to man
the gate at a level crossing. The defendant lifted the gate to allow a cart to pass and then
went off to lunch failing to put it back down. A train later collided with a horse and cart
killing the train driver. The defendant was liable for the death of the train driver as it was
his contractual duty to close the gate.
Omissions

8. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 8
Can a person be held criminally responsible for a failure to act? The general rule is that there can
be no liability for failing to act, unless at the time of the failure to act the defendant was under a
legal duty to take positive action:
The actus reus can be committed by an omission where there exists a duty imposed by law. There
are three situations in which a duty may be imposed by law. These are where the defendant creates
a dangerous situation, where there has been a voluntary assumption of responsibility and
misconduct in a public office. Additionally an omission may be classified as part of a continuing
act.
Voluntary Assumption Of Responsibility/Reliance
There is a common law duty of care where there is a relationship of reliance between defendant
and victim. Thus if someone voluntarily assumes responsibility for another person then they also
assume the positive duty to act for the general welfare of that person and may be liable for
omissions which prove fatal.
 R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 354 - Ted Stone was 67, totally blind, partially deaf
had no appreciable sense of smell and was of low intelligence. He lived with his
housekeeper and mistress of 8 years, Gwendolyn Dobinson aged 43 who was described as
ineffectual and inadequate. Ted's sister Fanny came to live with them. She had previously
lived with another sister but had fallen out with her. She had mental problems and was
suffering from anorexia nervosa. Ted and Gwendolyn took her in and agreed to look after
her. However, Fanny's condition deteriorated and she was found dead in her bed in
appalling conditions.
Stone and Dobinson were found liable for her death as they had assumed a responsibility
to her by taking her in. They failed to look after her and ensure she got the medical help
she needed.
Duty Due To Defendant's Prior Conduct
If the defendant accidentally commits an act that causes harm, and subsequently becomes aware
of the danger he has created, there arises a duty to act reasonably to avert that danger.
 R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 House of Lords -The defendant had been out drinking for the
evening. He went back to the house he had been staying in and fell asleep on a mattress
with a lighted cigarette in his hand. He awoke and saw that the cigarette had started a small
fire. Upon seeing the fire, he then got up and went to another room and went back to sleep.
At his trial, the prosecution did not rely on the acts of the defendant in falling asleep with

9. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 9
a lighted cigarette as being reckless, but relied solely on the grounds that upon becoming
aware of the fire he failed to take steps to put the fire out or call the fire brigade.
Held: The defendant had created a dangerous situation and owed a duty to call the fire
brigade upon becoming aware of the fire. He was therefore liable for his omission to do so.
Misconduct In A Public Office
 R v Dytham [1979] QB 722 - The defendant was a police officer. He stood by whilst a
bouncer kicked a man to death. He was charged with the offence of misconduct in a public
officer. He argued that the offence could not be committed by an omission as it specifically
requires misconduct.
Held: The offence of misconduct in a public offence can be committed by an omission.
The defendant's conviction was upheld.
An Omission Can Also Be ClassedAs Part Of A Continuing Act:
 Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439 - A policeman was directing the defendant to park his car.
The defendant accidentally drove onto the policeman's foot. The policeman shouted at him
to get off. The defendant refused to move. The defendant argued at the time of the actus
reus, the driving onto the foot, he lacked the mens rea of any offence since it was purely
accidental. When he formed the mens rea, he lacked the actus reus as he did nothing.
Held: The driving on to the foot and remaining there was part of a continuing act.
The Actus Reus Must Be Voluntary
The accused's conduct must be "voluntary" or "freely willed" if he is to incur liability. It may be
involuntary for a variety of reasons:
 Automatism
Automatism occurs where the defendant performs a physical act but is unaware of what he
is doing, or is not in control of his actions, because of some external factor.

10. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 10
 Reflex Actions
Sometimes people can respond to something with a spontaneous reflex action over which
they have no control. Although slightly different, this is sometimes classed as a form of
automatism.
 Physical Force
The conduct may be involuntary in that it is physically forced by someone else, in which
case there will be no actus reus.
CAUSATION
When the definition of an actus reus requires the occurrence of certain consequences, the
prosecution must prove that it was the defendant's conduct which caused those consequences to
occur.
For example, in murder the prosecution must prove that the victim died; in section 18 of the
offences Against the Person Act 1861 that the victim was wounded or caused grievous bodily
harm; and in criminal damage that the property was destroyed or damaged.
There are two types of causation:
(a) Causation in Fact, for which the "But For" Test is used:
 R v White [1910] 2 KB 124 - The defendant put some poison in his mother's milk with the
intention of killing her. The mother took a few sips and went to sleep and never woke up.
Medical reports revealed that she died from a heart attack and not the poison. The defendant
was not liable for her murder as his act of poisoning the milk was not the cause of death.
He was liable for attempt.
This case established the 'but for' test. ie would the result have occurred but for the actions of the
defendant? If the answer is yes the defendant is not liable.
(c) Causation in Law, for which, for example in homicide cases, the defendant's act must be
the "operating and substantial cause of death".

11. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 11
MEN'S REA
Actus reus makes up only one part of the criminal culpability requirement. Only in rare
circumstances can someone be convicted of a crime without both the physical act and the guilty
mind. (Statutory rape, for example, is a strict liability crime in which only the physical act needs
to be proved to obtain a conviction.) The guilty mind is known as mens rea; it is also called intent
or culpability .
Broadly speaking, mens rea is the mental state that a person has at the time that he or she performs
the acts that constitute the commission of a crime. For example, if the accused stabbed the victim
with desire to cause the victim‟s death, then the accused had the mens rea of “specific intent to
kill,” which is one variety of mens rea that makes a person criminally liable for murder.
Types of Mens Rea
Intention is the most culpable from of mens rea. This is because it is more blameworthy to cause
harm deliberately (intention) than it is to do so carelessly (recklessness). Therefore, intention is
used in more serious offences such as murder, which requires intention to kill or cause grievous
bodily harm which sets it apart from other, less culpable, forms of homicide.
Intention
Intention may come in two forms:
Direct Intention– this corresponds with the everyday meaning of intention. A person who causes
death as his aim, purpose or goal has direct intention to kill.
Oblique Intention - This is broader than direct intention and includes the foreseeable and
inescapable consequences of achieving a desired result, even if the consequence itself is not
desired.
Students tend to find oblique intention difficult, probably because it differs from the ordinary
meaning of intention. It may help to think about the reasons why the courts expanded the definition
of intention. This was done to widen the net to catch more defendants, particularly in relation to
murder, as murder has no alternative mens rea of recklessness, defendants cannot be liable unless
they fall within the scope of intention.

12. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 12
If limited to direct intention, a defendant would only be liable if his purpose was to cause death.
A defendant who caused death in pursuit of some other end would not be liable for murder even
if in achieving his primary purpose death was inevitable. For example, if the defendant wants to
destroy a package on an airplane to collect the insurance, he would not be liable for murder if he
planted a bomb timed to go off in mid-flight unless the definition of intention went beyond direct
intention.
 Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 - The defendant, in order to frighten Mrs Booth, her rival for
the affections of Mr X, put burning newspaper through the letterbox of Booth's house and
caused the death of two of her children. She claimed that she had not meant to kill but had
foreseen death or grievous bodily harm as a highly probable result of her actions. Ackner
J directed the jury that the defendant was guilty if she knew that it was highly probable that
her act would cause at least serious bodily harm.
Although Lord Hailsham LC stated that he did not think that foresight of a high degree of
probability is at all the same thing as intention, and it is not foresight but intention which
constitiutes the mental element in murder, the House of Lords (by a 3-2 majority), held that
foresight on the part of the defendant that his actions were likely, or highly likely, to cause
death or grievous bodily harm was sufficient mens rea for murder.
 R v Moloney [1985] AC 905 House of Lords - The defendant shot his step father killing
him. Evidence was produced that the pair had a good relationship. They had been
celebrating the defendant's grandparents‟ ruby wedding anniversary and had consumed a
quantity of alcohol. The rest of the family had retired to bed and the two stayed up drinking.
The defendant told his step father that he wanted to leave the army. The step father was not
happy at the news and berated the defendant. He told him he could load, draw and shoot a
gun quicker than him and told him to get the guns. The defendant returned with two guns
and took the challenge. The defendant was first to load and draw and the step father said,
"I don't think you have got the guts but if you have pull the trigger". The defendant pulled
the trigger but in his drunken state he did not believe the gun was aimed at the step father.
The trial judge directed on oblique intent and the jury convicted. The Court of Appeal
dismissed the appeal and the defendant appealed to the House of Lords.
Held: The defendant's conviction for murder was substituted for manslaughter. It was not
a case of oblique intent and the judge should not have issued a direction relating to further
expansion of intention.
Lord Bridge: "The golden rule should be that, when directing a jury on the mental element
necessary in a crime of specific intent, the judge should avoid any elaboration or paraphrase
of what is meant by intent, and leave it to the jury's good sense to decide whether the

13. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 13
accused acted with the necessary intent, unless the judge is convinced that, on the facts and
having regard to the way the case has been presented to the jury in evidence and argument,
some further explanation or elaboration is strictly necessary to avoid misunderstanding."
Lord Bridge also gave guidance on the approach for the test on oblique intent:
"In the rare cases in which it is necessary to direct a jury by reference to foresight of
consequences, I do not believe it is necessary for the judge to do more than invite the jury
to consider two questions. First, was death or really serious injury in a murder case (or
whatever relevant consequence must be proved to have been intended in any other case) a
natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee
that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? The jury should then be told
that if they answer yes to both questions it is a proper inference for them to draw that he
intended that consequence."
 R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] 2 WLR 257 - The defendants were striking miners
who threw a concrete block from a bridge onto the motorway below. It struck a taxi that
was carrying a working miner and killed the driver. The defendants argued that they only
intended to block the road but not to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The trial judge
directed the jury on the basis of Lord Bridge's statements in Moloney (ie, was death or
grievous bodily harm a natural consequence of what was done, and did the defendants
foresee that consequence as a natural consequence?) and the defendants were convicted of
murder.
On appeal a verdict of manslaughter was substituted by the House of Lords who reaffirmed
that the prosecution has to establish an intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm on the
part of the defendant. Lord Scarman felt that the Moloney guidelines on the relationship
between foresight and intention were unsatisfactory as they were likely to mislead a jury.
Lord Scarman expressed the view that intention was not to be equated with foresight of
consequences, but that intention could be established if there was evidence of foresight.
The jury should therefore consider whether the defendant foresaw a consequence. It should
be explained to the jury that the greater the probability of a consequence occurring, the
more likely that it was foreseen, and the more likely that it was foreseen, the more likely it
is that it was intended. In short, foresight was to be regarded as evidence of intention, not
as an alternative form of it.
 R v Nedrick (1986) 83 Cr App 267 - A child had burned to death in a house where the
defendant had, without warning, put a petrol bomb through the letter box. He admitted to
starting the fire but stated that he only wanted to frighten the owner of the house. The Court

14. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 14
of Appeal overturned the murder conviction and substituted a verdict of manslaughter as
the judge had misdirected the jury.
Lord Lane CJ provided a model direction for a jury about intent in a murder case where the
defendant did a manifestly dangerous act and someone died as a result. Lord Lane CJ
suggested that when determining whether the defendant had the necessary intent, it might
be helpful for a jury to ask themselves two questions: (1) How probable was the
consequence which resulted from the defendant's voluntary act? (2) Did he foresee that
consequence?
Formulating a definition which captured the appropriate level of fault is difficult and ever
changing. The current definition is taken from R v Woollin(1999):
In this case, the appellant threw his 3 month old baby son on to a hard surface. The baby suffered
a fractured skull and died. The trial judge directed the jury that if they were satisfied the defendant
"must have realised and appreciated when he threw that child that there was a substantial risk that
he would cause serious injury to it, then it would be open to you to find that he intended to cause
injury to the child and you should convict him of murder." The jury convicted of murder and also
rejected the defence of provocation. The defendant appealed on the grounds that in referring to
'substantial risk' the judge had widen the definition of murder and should have referred to virtual
certainty in accordance with Nedrick guidance. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal holding
that there was no absolute obligation to refer to virtual certainty.
House of Lords held: Murder conviction was substituted with manslaughter conviction. There
was a material misdirection which expanded the mens rea of murder and therefore the murder
conviction was unsafe. The House of Lords substantially agreed with the Nedrick guidelines with
a minor modification. The appropriate direction is:
"Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the
jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel
sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen
intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was
the case.
The decision is one for the jury to be reached upon a consideration of all the evidence."
Recklessness

15. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 15
Recklessness is a less culpable form of mens rea based on unjustified risk-taking. The law on
recklessness has been subject to change over the years as the courts fluctuated between a subjective
and an objective approach.
Caldwell 1982 (objective) recklessness:
Test: ‘did the defendant create an obvious and serious risk that property would be damaged or
destroyed? If so, did he fail to recognize a risk that should have been obvious to the reasonable
man?’
The risk of damage from an out-of-control fire would be obvious to the reasonable man.
R v G 2004 (subjective) recklessness
Test: ‘was the defendant aware of the risk of the damage/destruction of property and in the
circumstances, was it unreasonable for her to take that risk?’
This test is subjective so it focuses on what the particular defendant knew and expected to result
from her actions.
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396.- The defendant had broken a gas meter to steal the money in
it with the result that gas escaped into the next-door house. The victim became ill and her life was
endangered. The defendant was charged under s23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
with "maliciously administering a noxious thing so as to endanger life". The Court of Appeal,
allowing the defendant's appeal held that for a defendant to have acted "maliciously" there had to
be proof that he intended to cause the harm in question, or had been reckless as to whether such
harm would be caused. In this context recklessness involved the defendant in being aware of the
risk that his actions might cause the prohibited consequence.
 MPC v Caldwell [1982] AC 341.- The defendant, who had been sacked from his
employment at an hotel, became drunk and returned at night to the hotel, setting it on fire.
There were ten people resident in the hotel at the time, but the fire was discovered and
extinguished before any serious harm could be caused. The defendant pleaded guilty to
criminal damage but pleaded not guilty to the more serious charge of criminal damage with
intent to endanger life or recklessness as to whether life would be endangered. he argued
that due to his drunken state it had never crossed his mind that lives might be endangered
by his actions, he had simply set fire to the hotel because of his grudge against his former
employer.

16. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 16
The House of Lords re-affirmed Cunningham as a form of recklessness in criminal law,
but introduced an alternative form of recklessness based upon the defendant's failure to
advert to a risk which would have been obvious to the reasonable person. Lord Diplock
held that a defendant was reckless as to whether he damaged property if he created a risk
of damage which would have been obvious to the reasonable man and either -
• had not given any thought to the possibility of such a risk when he carried out the
act in question, or
• * had recognised that there was some risk involved and nonetheless went on to carry
it out.
 Elliot v C [1983] 1 WLR 939. - The defendant, an educationally subnormal 14-year-old
schoolgirl, had entered a neighbour's garden shed, poured white spirit on the floor and
ignited it. The defendant then fled as the shed burst into flames. The magistrates dismissed
the charge of criminal damage on the basis that she gave no thought to the risk of damage,
and that even if she had, she would not have been capable of appreciating it. The
prosecution appealed and the Divisional Court, allowing the appeal, held that this was
irrelevant to the issue of recklessness. When the court in Caldwell had talked about an
"obvious" risk, they had meant obvious to the reasonable man if he had thought about it,
and not obvious to the defendant if he had thought about it.
 R v Coles [1994] Crim LR 820.-The defendant, aged 15 at the time of the offence and of
lower than average mental capacity, had been playing in a hay barn with other children.
The evidence was that he had tried to set fire to the hay whilst other children were in the
barn. The children escaped unhurt. The defendant was charged with arson, being reckless
as to whether the lives of others would be endangered. During the trial it was submit ted
that the Caldwell direction should be amended so that the assessment of whether or not the
appellant had, by his actions, created an obvious risk of harm, should be made more
subjective. The trial judge rejected this submission stating that the test was whether or not
the risk would have been obvious to the reasonable prudent adult person.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal. It was held that the first limb of the
Caldwell direction was objective and the state of mind of the accused was irrelevant to the
question of whether or not he had, by his act or omission, created an obvious risk of harm
to persons or property.
On appeal, the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant had been broadened to
encompass the proposition that the second limb of the Caldwell test should have some
regard to the defendant's capacity to foresee risk. The appeal court took the view that such
an argument had failed in Elliot v C [1983] 1 WLR 939 and that that decision had been

17. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 17
confirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v R (Stephen Malcolm) (1984) 79 Cr App R 334. It
was not predisposed to depart from its own previous decision.
 R v G & R [2003] 3 WLR House of Lords - The two appellants, aged 11 and 12, went
camping for a night without their parents‟ permission. The boys found some old
newspapers outside the Co-op which they lit with a lighter and then threw them under a
wheelie bin. They then left without putting them out assuming they would naturally burn
out. In fact the burning newspapers set light to the wheelie bin and the fire spread to the
Co-op shop and caused over £1m of damage.
Held: The defendants' convictions were quashed. The House of Lords overruled MPC v
Caldwell [1982] AC 341. The appropriate test of recklessness for criminal damage is:
"A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act
1971 with respect to –
i. a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;
ii. a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur; and
iii. it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk."
Transferred Malice
Transferred malice is a means of imposing liability for the unplanned consequences of deliberate
wrongdoing. If the defendant has the mens rea of murder in relation to A but brings about the
actus reus i.e. causes death, in relation to B he may still be liable. Transferred malice only operates
if the actus reus of the offence committed matches the actus reus of the offence planned.
 R v Saunders (1573) 2 Plowd 473 - The defendant gave his wife an apple which he had
poisoned with arsenic. He wanted to kill her so that he could marry another. The wife took
a bite from the apple then gave it to their daughter. The daughter died.
Held: The defendant was liable for the murder of his daughter. His intention to kill his wife
was transferred to the daughter.
 R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359 - The defendant got into a fight in a pub with another
man. He took off his belt and hit the man with the belt. The belt ricocheted off and hit a
woman in the face.

18. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 18
Held: The defendant was liable for the injuries inflicted on the woman despite the fact that
he did not intend to harm her. The mens rea he had to cause harm to the man was
transferred to the woman.
Transferred malice does not operate where the crime which occurred was different from that
intended:
 R v Pembliton (1874) LR 2CCR 119 - The defendant threw some stones into a crowd of
people. He wanted to disperse the crowd. A stone hit and smashed a window. He was
convicted of criminal damage and appealed.
Held: Conviction quashed. His mens rea for an offence against the person could not be
transferred to a property offence as they are entirely different offences.
Problems Arising with the Simultaneous Combination of Actus Rea and Mens Rea
It is not enough that the defendant has committed the guilty act and then later formed the guilty
state of mind or vice versa: the two must coincide. This means that the defendant must possess
the guilty state of mind at the time that the actus reus is committed.
Problems arise in fixing liability if there is a lapse in time after the actus reus, before the mens rea
comes into being and equally in situations where the mens rea precedes the actus reus.
Actus Reus occurring before the Mens Rea.
This means that the defendant completes the prohibited act before he forms the prohibited state of
mind.
Two distinct approached have been used to secure a conviction in situations where the actus reus
is complete prior to the formation of mens rea.
 Treating the actus reus as a continuing act : Fagan v The Metropolitan Police
Commissioner (1969);
 Basing liability on failure to act after creating a dangerous situation: R v Miller (1983).
Mens Rea occurring before the Actus Reus.

19. Prepared by: Medford Waldron, 766-6209 Page 19
Neither of the solutions formulated in Fagan or Miller are able to deal with situations in which
the mens rea occurs prior to the actus reus so further judicial creativity was necessary. This resulted
in the single transaction view: R v Church 1966.
The Exception of Strict Liability Offences
Strict Liability offences do not require mens rea in relation to all parts of the actus reus. This
means that a defendant can be convicted even if he was unaware of essential matters relevant to
the offence:
 A defendant can be convicted of driving whilst disqualified even if he believes his
disqualification period has ended;
 Liability can be imposed for selling lottery ticket to a person under the age of 16 even if
the defendant did not realize the age of the customer.
Strict Liability offences are almost inevitably created by statute and are often regarded as
„regulatory offences‟ where there is no moral content to the offence, such as laws relating to
trading standards and road traffic offences. Strict liability offences are seen as a way of enforcing
particular standards of behaviour and thus protecting the public from harm.