The learner can: 1.1 Define what is meant by a crime

Transcription

1 Tech Level Unit Title: LAW OF CRIME Level: Level 3 Credit Value: 10 Guided Learning Hours 60 Learning outcomes The learner will: 1. Understand the principles of criminal liability Assessment criteria The learner can: 1.1 Define what is meant by a crime 1.2 Distinguish between the objective of the criminal courts and the civil courts in respect of sanctions Knowledge, understanding and skills 1.1 Meaning of crime: conduct the state wishes to prohibit. 1.2 Objective of criminal law as punishment and civil law as providing compensation (damages). Purpose of sentencing including: deterrence, rehabilitation etc. 1.3 Understand the essentials of a crime Actus reus Mens rea o intention o recklessness o gross negligence o Presumptions: o presumption of intention o presumption of innocence concept of continuing act 1.3 Basic principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Meaning of actus reus the guilty act; elements including: conduct, consequences, state of affairs, liability for omissions; relevant case law including: Larsonneur (1933), Pittwood (1902), Stone and Dobinson (1977). Meaning of mens rea the guilty mind. Meaning of intention: direct and indirect; s8 CJA 1967; relevant case law including: R v Woollin (1999). Meaning of recklessness: subjective and objective; relevant case law including: R v Cunningham (1957), R v G and Another (2003). Meaning of gross negligence; relevant case law including: R v Adomako (1994). Presumption of intention from DPP v Smith (1960) reversed by s8 Criminal Justice Act Presumption of innocence burden of proof on

2 prosecution. Requirement of coincidence of actus reus and mens rea; concept of continuing act ; case law including: Fagan v MPC (1969), Thabo Meli v R (1954). 2. Understand strict liability 2.1 Explain what is meant by strict liability 2.2 Identify examples of activities to which strict liability applies 2.3 Explain the presumptions relating to mens rea and strict liability 2.1 Exception to the general rule requiring mens rea; relevant factors including: absence of words relating to mens rea in the legislation, issues of public safety, nature of the sanction, whether the offence is truly criminal ; relevant case law including: Gammon v A-G of Hong Kong (1985). 2.2 Examples to include legislation regarding the sale and preparation of food, drink, pharmaceuticals etc., road traffic, health and safety, consumer protection, environmental protection. 2.3 Presumption of mens rea; relevant case law including: Sweet v Parsley (1970). 3. Understand liability for homicide 3.1 Define homicide with reference to it being: Lawful Unlawful o murder o manslaughter o infanticide 3.2 Define murder with reference to: Of sound mind Unlawfully kills Any reasonable creature In being Under the Queen's Peace 3.1 Appropriate definition of homicide. Meaning of justified or excusable homicide e.g. killing of enemy in wartime, presence of justificatory defence. Actus reus elements of unlawful homicide including: concept of killing, factual causation (the but for test) and legal causation ( operating and substantial requirement, the thin skull rule, new intervening acts); relevant case law including: R v White (1910), R v Smith (1959), R v Cheshire (1991), R v Blaue (1975). Differing mens rea requirements for murder and manslaughter. Definition of infanticide (Infanticide Act 1983 S1, as amended by Coroners & Justice Act 2009). 3.2 Definition from Sir Edward Coke.

3 With intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm 3.3 Explain the actus reus of murder 3.4 Explain the mens rea of murder 3.3 Actus reus of unlawful homicide (killing must be unlawful; meaning of human being, factual and legal causation - see above); effect of Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act Meaning of malice aforethought intention to kill or cause serious harm: R v Vickers (1957). Meaning of intention direct and oblique; relevant case law including: Hyam v DPP (1974), R v Moloney (1985), R v Hancock and Shankland (1986), R v Nedrick (1986), R v Woollin (1999), R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003). 3.5 Explain the statutory defences available under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009: o diminished responsibility o loss of control 3.5 Meaning of diminished responsibility ; s2(1) Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s52 Coroners & Justice Act 2009; requirements including: abnormality of mental functioning, recognised medical condition, substantial impairment of D s ability to understand the nature of his conduct etc.; relevant case law including: Byrne (1960), Ahluwalia (1992), Martin (2001). Meaning of loss of control ; s54 Coroners & Justice Act 2009; requirements including: loss of control, presence of qualifying trigger, reasonable person of D s sex and age might have reacted in the same/similar way, D did not act in revenge; relevant case law including: R v Pearson (1992), A-G for Jersey v Holley (2005), R v Clinton, Parker and Evans (2012), R v Dawes, Bowyer and Hatter (2013). 3.6 Explain the effect of the statutory defences on liability 3.6 Reduction of charge from murder to manslaughter; wider range of sentencing options; partial defences which only apply in cases of murder.

4 3.7 Define manslaughter: voluntary o diminished responsibility (see above) o loss of control (see above) involuntary o gross negligence o unlawful and dangerous act 3.8 Identify statutory homicide offences 3.7 Meaning of voluntary manslaughter: mens rea of murder is present, but one of the statutory defences (above) applies. Meaning of involuntary manslaughter: actus reus of homicide is present but mens rea of murder is not. Meaning of gross negligence manslaughter as defined in R v Adomako (1994); elements including: duty of care, breach of duty, need for breach to be gross, mens rea requirement; relevant case law including: R v Adomako (1994), R v Bateman (1925), A-G s Reference (No. 2 of 1999) (2000), R v Misra (2004).Meaning of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter; elements including: unlawful act, the act is criminal, the act is dangerous, causation; relevant case law including: A-G s Reference (No. 3 of 1994) (1997), R v Franklin (1883), R v Church (1996). 3.8 Examples to include: causing death by dangerous or careless driving (ss1, 3A Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended; ss20,21 Road Safety Act 2006), corporate manslaughter (Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007), familial homicide (s5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004) 4. Understand liability for theft 4.1 Define what is meant by theft with reference to the Theft Act Explain the actus reus of: theft robbery burglary 4.1 Definition of theft from s1 Theft Act Actus reus of theft: meaning of appropriation (s3), property (s4), belonging to another (s5); relevant case law including: Lawrence v MPC (1972), R v Morris (1984), R v Hinks (2000), R v Turner (1971). Actus reus of robbery: s8 Theft Act 1968; elements including: theft, need for force, immediacy requirement; relevant case law including: R v Hale (1978), R v Dawson and James (1976). Actus reus of burglary: ss9&10 Theft Act 1968; meaning of entry, building, trespasser ; ulterior

5 offences; differences between s9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) burglary; relevant case law including: R v Ryan (1996),Stevens v Gourley (1859), B & S v Leathley (1979), R v Collins (1973), R v Jones and Smith (1976), R v Walkington (1979) 4.3 Explain the mens rea of theft: the test for dishonesty intention to permanently deprive 4.3 Meaning of dishonesty: s2 Theft Act 1968; test from R v Ghosh (1982). Meaning of intention to permanently deprive : s6 Theft Act 1968; relevant case law including: R v Lloyd (1985), R v Velumyl (1989). 5. Understand the defences available 5.1 Explain the circumstances giving rise to, and the effect of, the following defences: Insanity Diminished responsibility Loss of control Automatism Intoxication Mistake Duress Defence of: o Self o Others o Property 5.1 Meaning of insanity: criteria laid down in M Naghten s case (1843) ; elements including disease of the mind, defect of reason, inability to understand nature and quality of act; burden of proof; relevant case law including: R v Kemp (1957), R v Sullivan (1984), R v Burgess (1991), R v Codere (1916). Meaning of diminished responsibility (see above). Meaning of loss of control (see above). Meaning of automatism: elements including: external factor, involuntary conduct, lack of fault on D s part; relevant case law including: Hill v Baxter (1958), Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland (1963), R v Quick (1973), R v Bailey (1983). Meaning of intoxication; voluntary and involuntary intoxication; dangerous and non-dangerous intoxicants; relevance to crimes of basic and specific intent, Dutch courage rule; relevant case law including: DPP v Majewski (1977), A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963), R v Kingston (1995), Meaning of mistake; need for mistake to be honest; interaction with other defences; relevant case law including: DPP v Morgan (1976), R v Williams (Gladstone) (1984), Jaggard v Dickinson (1981), R v O Grady (1987). Differing requirements for defences of duress by threats and duress of circumstances; limitations on the availability of these defences; relevant case law including: R v Graham (1982), R v Howe (1987), R v Hasan (2005), R v Martin

6 (1989), R v Pommell (1995). Public and private defence: s76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008; response to actual or perceived threat; meaning of reasonable force; need for proportionality; relevant case law including: Beckford v R (1988), R v Williams (Gladstone) (1984), R v Clegg (1995), R v Martin (2001). 6. Understand how to apply Criminal Law 6.1 Apply Criminal Law to a given situation 6.1 Application of the law to a scenario.

7 Additional information about the unit Unit aim(s) The learner will understand key concepts, terms and processes in the Law of Crime Name of the organisation submitting the unit CILEx (The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) Availability for use Only available to owning awarding body Availability for delivery 1 September 2016