Principles%20of%20Criminal%20Liability

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, Alans friend, Carol, sprayed Bhu with red
  paint. A small amount of paint went into Bhus
  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 Bhus 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