About the Lawcards Series

Criminal Lawcards Glossary

Click on the glossary term to see the definition

Chapter 1

Actus reus

the prohibited act, omission or state of affairs

Mens rea

the required state of mind, such as intent or recklessness

Conduct crime

a crime which only requires the defendant to have acted and the outcome of those actions are irrelevant

Result crime

The actus reus of this type of crime requires the defendant’s conduct to have caused the stated harm

Causation

the defendant must be both the factual cause of harm and the legal cause of harm

Factual causation

As a matter of fact, the defendant’s act must be a cause of the prohibited consequence. The question is best answered using the but for test

Legal causation

The defendant’s actions must be a substantial cause of the prohibited consequence and there must be no break in the legal chain of causation

Chain of causation

This is relevant to questions of legal causation. It can be broken by a new intervening act

Novus actus interveniens

An intervening act either by a third party, the victim, or an unforeseeable natural event which breaks the chain of causation

Liability for omissions

this only arises where there is a positive duty on the defendant to act

Recklessness

following R v G the defendant must have foreseen the relevant and unjustified risk

Negligent

Negligence is the failure to take reasonable care against a reasonably foreseeable risk. A defendant is negligent if they fall below the standard of the reasonable person

Strict Liability

An offence of strict liability is one where the prosecution do not have to prove any mens rea in relation to one or more elements of the actus reus.

Chapter 2

Incitement

a common law offence abolished by Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007

Conspiracy

a statutory offence mostly (s 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977). It involves the agreement of two or more parties that one or more of them will pursue a course of conduct which, if carried out in accordance with their intentions will necessarily amount to a crime. The mens rea is an agreement and the intention that the crime planned will be committed. Once the agreement is reached the relevant mens rea the offence is complete.

Attempt

governed by s 1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and occurs when an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence takes place. This is judged by the jury. The mens rea is the intention to commit the substantive offence.

Impossibility

a person can be liable for an attempted offence or a conspiracy of an offence even where it was impossible to commit the substantive offence.

Secondary Party

the accomplice or accessory to a crime

Accessory

one who aids, abets procures or counsels the commission of the offence according to s 8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861

Principal

the actual perpetrator of the offence

Aid

to assist or help the principal before or during the commission of the offence

Abet

to encourage during the offence

Counsel

to encourage or before the offence

Procure

to cause the offence

Secondary liability

A is liable as a secondary party when the Principal commits the offence (Actus reus) and A has aided, abetted, counselled or procured the Principal (Actus reus) and A intended to aid or abet etc and knows or realises that there is a real possibility that P will commit the offence (mens rea)

Joint Enterprise

this occurs when P and A agree to embark upon the commission of one offence. Under this principle A will be liable for any further offences committed by P during the commission of the agreed offence if these were foreseen as possible outcomes by A.

Encouraging or assisting crime

Sections 45 to 46 of the Act create three new inchoate offences which occur where the defendant encourages or assists believing there is a criminal end / intending there is a criminal end / believing that one or more offences will be committed

Chapter 3

Common Assault

this term refers to both or either an assault or a battery

Assault

common law offence where a defendant with intention or recklessness causes the victim to fear immediate and unlawful force

Battery

common law offence which occurs when a defendant, with intention or recklessness, inflicts unlawful force to the victim

Assault occasioning Actual Bodily harm

a statutory offence (s 47 OAPA 1861) occurs where a defendant has the mens rea for assault or battery and his actions results in actual bodily harm

Actual Bodily Harm

An injury that interferes with the health or well being of the victim either physically or psychiatric. It may not be a permanent harm but is more than trifling.

Section 20

the offences of maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm

Maliciously

the intention or recklessness as to some harm albeit of a lesser nature than the harm actually caused

Section 18

includes the offences of malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent. It also includes the malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm to resist or prevent a lawful arrest

Wounding

requires a break in both layers of the skin (Eisenhower)

Grievous Bodily Harm

is serious harm (Smith)

Rape

The penetration of vagina, anus or mouth by penis without consent, contrary to section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Assault by penetration

The penetration of vagina or anus by anything else (if sexual) without consent, contrary to section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Sexual assault

Sexual touching without consent, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Chapter 4

Homicide

An umbrella term to describe all unlawful killings.

Murder

the unlawful killing of a human being (actus reus) with malice aforethought. A common law offence that carries a mandatory life sentence

Malice aforethought

The mens rea for murder, satisfied by (direct or oblique) intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.

Voluntary manslaughter

the defendant had the mens rea and actus reus of murder but has a partial defence of either diminished responsibility, provocation or suicide pact.

Diminished Responsibility

is a partial defence to murder only, governed by s2 Homicide Act 1957. D must prove that they had an abnormality of mind, due to arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes of disease or injury, and that the abnormality substantially impaired their responsibility

Provocation

is a partial defence to murder only, governed by s 3 Homicide Act 1957. It is for the Prosecution to disprove that the defendant was provoked by things said or done or both that caused the defendant to lose self-control and that a reasonable person would have done as D did

Involuntary manslaughter

The defendant completed the actus reus of murder but did not have malice aforethought. The forms of involuntary manslaughter are constructive manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter and reckless manslaughter

Subjective manslaughter

This requires the defendant to have done an intentional act, which was criminally unlawful and dangerous which resulted in the victim’s death

Constructive manslaughter

requires D to have done an intentional act, which was criminally unlawful and dangerous which resulted in the victim’s death

Gross negligence manslaughter

For this offence it must be shown that defendant owes a duty of care to the victim, the duty had been breached, that breach involved a risk of death and the breach was the cause of death. In such circumstances the jury will consider whether a criminal conviction is justified.

Subjective manslaughter

is where D foresaw that serious injury was highly probable

Chapter 5

Theft

according to s 1 Theft Act 1968 a person is guilty of theft where they dishonestly (s.2) appropriates (s.3) property (s.4) belonging to another (s5) with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it(s.6).

Actus reus of theft

the appropriation of property belonging to another

Appropriation (s. 3)

is the assumption of one or more rights of the owner regardless of consent. It does not require physical possession of the property

Property (s.4)

includes money and personal property and things in action

Belonging to another (s. 5)

where someone has possession or control of the property

Mens rea of theft

the dishonest intent to permanently deprive

The Ghosh test

the test for dishonesty which first asks: was the defendant dishonest according to the standards of ordinary decent people? If yes, did the defendant realise that what he/she was doing was dishonest by these standards?

Robbery

defined under s 8 Theft Act 1968 and requires a theft, use or threat of force on any person, immediately or at the time of the theft in order to steal

Burglary contrary to s 9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968

requires an entry, into a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intent to steal, do grievous bodily harm or criminal damage on entry.

Burglary contrary to s 9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968

requires an entry, into a building or part of a building as a trespasser and once inside the building D does steal or inflicts grievous bodily harm or attempts to steal or inflict grievous bodily harm

Criminal Damage

this is contrary to s 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 and occurs when property belonging to another is damaged or destroyed either intentionally or recklessly without any lawful excuse

The Fraud Act 2006

this abolishes the concept of deception and creates one the offence of Fraud (s1) that can be committed in one of three ways. These are by false representation (s2), failing to disclose information (s 3) and by abuse of position (s 4)

Making off without payment

A defendant who knowing that payment on the spot is required dishonestly makes off without having paid with intent to avoid payment is guilty under section 3 of the Theft Act 1978

Chapter 6

Insanity

This defence applies if at the time the offence was committed, the defendant had a defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind so that he/she did not know the nature and quality of their act or, did not know that what they were doing was wrong.

Unfit to plead

this may be claimed by the defendant if they have become insane at the time of trial

Doli incapax

term means that a person is incapable of forming the necessary mens rea for an offence. All children under the age of 10 are considered doli incapax under s 50 Children and Young Persons Act 1933

Voluntary intoxication

this may be used as a defence if the defendant consumed so much alcohol or dangerous substance that they were unable to form the necessary intent for the crime. Following Majewski this defence is only available to specific intent crimes. This does not apply if the defendant became intoxicated in order to give themselves courage to commit the offence

Involuntary intoxication

this is a defence to all crimes if the defendant lacked the mens rea for the offence.

Mistake of fact

this can be used as a defence if the mistake prevented the defendant from forming the necessary mens rea for the offence

Self defence and prevention of crime (s 3 Criminal Law Act 1967)

these are complete defences where a person may use reasonable force. The force used must be reasonable (objectively) in the circumstances as the defendant believes them to be (subjectively). It does not matter that he was mistaken

Automatism

Automatism is a complete defence, which applies if the defendant’s involuntariness is caused by an external cause and where there is a total loss of voluntary control.