Principles of Criminal Liability

1. Principles of Criminal Liability Exam Q Practice

2. Starter Activity • You have two crosswords in front of you – an easy one and a difficult one • Off you go!

3. Lesson Objectives • I will understand the make-up of a Unit 2a exam question • I will be able to answer a Unit 2a exam question to a good level

4. How is your exam made up? • You will answer sections A and B from the paper as we are not studying section C • The question starts with a short scenario that sets the scene and is the basis of your discussions for some of the questions • The questions are of two general types: • Theory questions – these require an explanation of terms used an no reference to the facts given in the scenario • Application questions – these usually require you to select the appropriate law or principles of sentencing and apply the law to the facts given in the scenario. You should assume that the facts as stated in the scenario can be proved

5. When you answer If a theory question: • State the law • Explain the principle • Support with evidence • Conclude where necessary If an application question: • Select the relevant principle(s) • Apply it to the question • Support with evidence • (Repeat if there is another side of the argument) • Conclude where necessary

6. Alan believed that Bhu, a fellow student, had stolen his mobile phone. Alan saw Bhu at college, went up to her and said, “We sort out thieves like you.” As Bhu hurried away in a panic, Alan’s friend, Carol, sprayed Bhu with red paint. A small amount of paint went into Bhu’s eyes. She was taken to hospital where her eyes were treated to remove the paint. As she went home, and just before her sight was fully recovered, she tripped up a kerb and fractured her skull.

7. Explain how there can be criminal liability for an omission. (7 marks) • Outline the rules on causation, and briefly discuss whether Carol caused Bhu’s fractured skull. (7 marks + 2 marks for AO3)

8. Explain how there can be criminal liability for an omission. (7 marks) • (A) Explanation of omissions, amounting to an actus reus, based on a duty. For example, contractual duty, public position requiring a person to act, Act of Parliament requiring action, creating dangerous situation, assumption of responsibility, special relationship • Note – any three areas explained can achieve full credit • Possible reference to statutory offences of omission, eg failure to display, stop, etc • Cases and/or examples, eg Stone and Dobinson; Miller; Dytham, etc • 7 - 6 The candidate deals with (A) as follows: one sound. • 5 - 4 The candidate deals with (A) as follows: one clear. • 3 The candidate deals with (A) as follows: one some. • 2 - 1 The candidate demonstrates limited capacity for explanation or mistakes and confusion fundamentally undermine a more substantial attempt at explanation. • 0 The answer contains no relevant information

9. (A) Outline of the meaning of causation. This can include • Factual: “but for” test; • Legal: significant and operative cause, novus actus interveniens: • Cases/examples to illustrate, eg medical negligence, contribution of others, pre-existing medical condition (Smith, Benge, Hayward), etc; possible action by victim • Application to the scenario of both ‘but for’ test and ‘operating and significant cause’ test • Conclusion (potentially either way if well argued) • 7 - 6 The candidate deals with (A) as follows: one sound. • 5 - 4 The candidate deals with (A) as follows: one clear. • 3 The candidate deals with (A) as follows: one some. • 2 - 1 The candidate demonstrates limited capacity for explanation and/or application but • neither is clear or mistakes and confusion fundamentally undermine a more substantial attempt at explanation and application. • 0 The answer contains no relevant information.

10. Your turn • Explain the meaning of the term ‘mens rea’. (7 marks)

11. Mark scheme • Potential Content • (A) Explanation of the meaning of mens rea in general terms (guilty mind). • Recognition that the courts have developed definitions of common states of mind found in criminal liability. These include: • Direct intent (definition + illustration, eg Mohan), • Oblique intent (definition + illustration, eg Woollin) and, • Recklessness (definition and illustration, eg Cunningham) • NB Marginal credit may be given to explanation of transferred malice – Max 1

12. The great debate • Should the main reason behind sentencing be based on protecting the public or rehabilitating the offender? • HW - Continue this debate on teachingwithcrump