English criminal law concerns offences, their prevention and the consequences, in England and Wales. Criminal conduct is considered to be a wrong against the whole of a community, rather than just the private individuals affected. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, has responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly-funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes and common law, and why some forms of behaviour are considered criminal.
There is no English Criminal Code though such an instrument has been often recommended and attempted. Criminal offences are set out in disparate legislative provisions and in common law. The fundamentals of a crime are a guilty act (or actus reus) and a guilty mental state (or mens rea). The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that a defendant should have recognised or intended that they were acting wrongly, although in modern regulation a large number of offences relating to road traffic, environmental damage, financial services and corporations, create strict liability that can be proven simply by the guilty act.
Defences exist to crimes. A person who is accused may in certain circumstances plead they are insane and did not understand what they were doing, that they were not in control of their bodies, they were intoxicated, mistaken about what they were doing, acted in self defence, acted under duress or out of necessity, or were provoked. These are issues to be raised at trial, for which there are detailed rules of evidence and procedure to be followed.
History
England and Wales does not have a criminal code, though such an enactment has been often recommended and attempted (see English Criminal Code). Many criminal offences are common law offences rather than being specified in legislation.
In 1980, a Committee of JUSTICE said that, upon conducting a search, they found over 7,200 offences, and that they thought that there were probably many more. They said that "it is now impossible to ascertain the entire content of the criminal law at any given time".Breaking the Rules (1980) at page 53 In 1989, the Law Commission said that a hypothetical criminal code that contained all existing criminal offences would be "impossibly bulky".The Law Commission, Criminal Law:A Criminal Code for England and Wales (Law Com 177), Volume 1, paragraph 3.3 at page 12 In 2001, Peter Glazebrook said the criminal law was "voluminous, chaotic and contradictory".Glazebrook, P R. How Old Did You Think She Was? Cambridge Law Journal 26 at 30 In March 2011, there were more than ten thousand offences excluding those created by by-laws.Ormerod, David. Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law. Thirteenth Edition. Oxford University Press. 2011. pp. vii and 3. In 2006 it was widely reported that the Blair government had created 3000 new criminal offences since forming in 1997, although many of these were updates to existing offences.
In 1999, P J Richardson said that as the case for a moratorium on legislation in the field of criminal justice was becoming stronger and stronger, governments seemed ever more determined to bring forward more legislation.Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, preface, page vii
Important statutes and cases include:
Treason Act 1351 and Hanged, drawn and quartered. Petty treason and High treason in the United Kingdom Suppression of Heresy Act 1414 and John Wycliffe Carrier's Case (1473) YB Pasch 13 Edw. IV, f. 9., pl. 5, larceny Jesuits, etc. Act 1584 Bushel's Case (1670) 124 E.R. 1006 writ of habeas corpus Habeas Corpus Act 1679 Transportation Act 1717 Black Act 1723 Jacobite rising of 1745 and Transportation Act 1746 and 1768 Murder Act 1751 R v Pear (1779) 168 Eng Rep 208, larceny by trick Trial of Lord George Gordon (1781) for treason for the Gordon riots Case of the Dean of St Asaph or R v Shipley (1784) 4 Doug 73, seditious libel Burning of women in England and Treason Act 1790 Bazeley's Case (1799) 2 East P.C. 571, establishing crime of embezzlement Debtors' prison Offences Against the Person Act 1828 Bloody Code Forfeiture Act 1870 Capital punishment in the United Kingdom C UKHL 42 Clingham v RB Kensington and Chelsea UKHL 39 Collins v DPP UKHL 40 JTB UKHL 20 R v K UKHL 41 Norris v United States UKHL 16 R (Purdy) v DPP UKHL 45 R v Rahman UKHL 45 GG plc UKHL 17 R v Rimmington and Goldstein UKHL 63 R v Saik UKHL 18 R v Sheldrake UKHL 43 Hashnan and Harrup (2000) 30 EHRR 241
Criminal law elements The two basic elements of a crime are the act of doing that which is criminal, and the intention to carry it out. In Latin this is called the actus reus and the mens rea. In many crimes however, there is no necessity of showing a guilty mind, which is why the term "strict liability" is used.
Actus reus
Actus reus is Latin for "guilty act" and is the physical element of committing a crime. It is usually the application or threat of unlawful force, though exceptionally an omission or failure to act can result in liability. Simple examples might be A hitting B with a stick, or X pushing Y down a water well. These are guilty acts and the unlawful application or force. Alternatively, one may have a pre-existing duty to another person and by deliberately not performing it, one commits a crime. For instance, not giving food is an omission rather than an act, but as a parent one has a duty to feed one's children. Pre-existing duties can arise also through contract,R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37 - a railway worker who omitted to shut the crossing gates, convicted of manslaughter when someone was run over by a train a voluntary undertaking,e.g. the partner in Gibbons who was not a blood parent, but had assumed a duty of care a blood relation with whom one lives,R v Stone and Dobinson QB 354, where an ill tended sister named Fanny couldn't leave bed, was not cared for at all and literally rotted in her own filth. This is Gross_negligence Manslaughter. and occasionally through one's official position.R v Dytham QB 722, where a police man on duty just stood and watched three men kick another to death As the 19th century English judge, Lord Coleridge CJ wrote,
It would not be correct to say that every moral obligation involves a legal duty; but every legal duty is founded on a moral obligation.R v Instan (1893) 1 QB 450, where a bedridden aunt, ostensibly in her niece's care developed gangrene, a "slur on justice" were it not punishable.
Furthermore, one can become bound by a duty to take reasonable steps to correct a dangerous situation that one creates. In R v MillerR v Miller 1 All ER 978 a squatter flicked away a still lit cigarette, which landed on a mattress. He failed to take action, and after the building had burned down, he was convicted of arson. He failed to correct the dangerous situation he created, as he was duty bound to do.see also, R_v_Santana-Bermudez (2003) where a suspect with a needle failed to tell a policewoman searching his pockets that he had one In many countries in Europe and North America, Good Samaritan laws also exist, which criminalise failure to help someone in distress (e.g. a drowning child). On the other hand, it was held in the UK that switching off the life support of someone in a persistent vegetative state is an omission to act and not criminal. Since discontinuation of power is not a voluntary act, not grossly negligent, and is in the patient's best interests, no crime takes place.Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1 All ER 821
If someone's act is to have any consequence legally, it must have in some way caused a victim harm. The legal definition of "causation" is that "but for" the defendant's conduct, the victim would not have been harmed.e.g. R_v_Pagett Crim LR 393, where 'but for' the defendant using his pregnant girlfriend for a human shield from police fire, she would not have died. Note, Pagget's conduct foreseeably procured the heavy police response. If more than one cause for harm exists (e.g. harm comes at the hands of more than one culprit) the rule states that to be responsible, one's actions must have "more than a slight or trifling link" to the harm.R_v_Kimsey Crim LR 35, where 2 girls were racing their cars dangerously and crashed. One died, but the other was found slightly at fault for her death and convicted. Another important rule of causation is that one must "take his victim as he finds him". For instance, if P gives his friend Q a playful slap on the head, but Q suffers from a rare cranial condition and dies, then P can be guilty of manslaughter regardless of how unlucky he is to have bickered with Q. This is known as the thin skull rule.e.g. R v Blaue where a Jehovah's witness (who refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds) was stabbed and without accepting life saving treatment died.
Between the defendant's acts and the victim's harm, the chain of causation must be unbroken. It could be broken by the intervening act (novus actus interveniens) of a third party, the victim's own conduct,e.g. R_v_Williams where a hitchhiker who jumped from a car and died, apparently because the driver tried to steal his wallet, was a "daft" intervening act. cf R_v_Roberts Crim LR 27, where a girl jumped from a speeding car to avoid sexual advances and was injured and R_v_Majoram Crim LR 372 where thugs kicked in the victims door scared him to jumping from the window. These actions were foreseeable, creating liability for injuries. or another unpredictable event. A mistake in medical treatment usually will not break the chain, unless the mistakes are in themselves "so potent in causing death".per Beldam LJ, R v Cheshire 3 All ER 670; see also, R v Jordan 40 Cr App R 152, where a stab victim recovering well in hospital was given an antibiotic. The victim was allergic, but he was given it the next day too, and died. The hospital's actions intervened and absolved the defendant. For instance, if emergency medics dropped a stab victim on the way to the hospital and performed the wrong resuscitation, the attacker would not be absolved of the crime.R v Smith 2 QB 35, the stab was still an "operating" and "substantial" cause of death.
The interplay between causation and criminal responsibility is notoriously difficult, and many outcomes are criticised for their harshness to the unwitting defendant and sidestepping of hospitals' or the victim's own liability. In R v DearR v Dear Crim LR 595 a stab victim reopened his wounds while in the hospital and died. But despite this suicidal behaviour, the attacker was still held fully responsible for murder.
Important cases include:
R v Holland (1841) 2 Mood. & R. 351 break in causal chain R v Instan (1893) 1 QB 450 duty of care, to not omit to help some dying of gangrene R v Smith (Thomas Joseph) QB, negligence of medics does not stop murder R v Hughes UKSC 56, driver who was not as fault for a crash could not be responsible for others deaths although he was prosecuted for driving without a licence or insurance
Mens rea