WJEC Eduqas A Level Law Book 1 sample

General elements of criminal liability 163 Actus reus: Guilty act • Conduct crimes: perjury • Result crimes: murder • State of affairs crimes: R v Larsonneur (1933) • Omissions Omissions: Not a crime to fail to act unless under a duty to act : • Statute: Road Traffic Act 1988 : breath sample • Contract: R v Pitwood (1902) • Duty arising out of a special relationship: R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) • Duty arising out of a person assuming responsibility for another: R v Stone and Dobinson (1977) • Defendant has inadvertently created a dangerous situation, becomes aware of it, but fails to take steps to rectify it: Miller (1983) Mens rea • Direct and oblique intention: virtual certainty test: Nedrick (1986) , Woolin (1998) • Recklessness: subjective: R v G and another (2003) • Negligence Strict liability crimes do not require proof of mens rea for at least one element of the actus reus Tends to cover regulatory offences e.g. food hygiene, parking offences, polluting Offences tend to be statutory but require statutory interpretation by judges, as Parliament doesn’t always make it clear whether an offence is strict liability Starting point for judges is presumption that mens rea is always required: Gammon (HK) Ltd v Attorney General (1985) Presumption can be rebutted by considering four Gammon factors: 1. Is the offence regulatory in nature or a true crime? Sweet v Parsley (1970) 2. Does the offence relate to an issue of social concern? Harrow London Borough Council v Shah (1999) 3. Did Parliament intend to create an offence of strict liability by using certain words in a statute? e.g. intentionally , knowingly . Non mens rea words include possession , cause : Alphacell v Woodward (1972) , Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) 4. The gravity of the punishment: Callow v Tillstone (1900) , Gammon (HK) Ltd v Attorney General (1985) Advantages of strict liability: • Reduces time and cost of proving mens rea • Protection of society by promoting a higher standard of care • Ease of imposing strict liability acts as a deterrent • Proportionality of appropriate punishment Disadvantages of strict liability: • Possibility of injustice • Role of judges in interpreting statutes can lead to inconsistency • Small penalties may reduce deterrence • Does strict liability breach the European Convention on Human Rights? R v G (2008) Proposals for reform: Criminal Liability (Mental Element) Bill (1977)