Criminal Law Issues in the UK - Essay Example

What constitutes a crime varies across people, places and time. You are required to examine different definitions of crime and comment on the function of the criminal law in addressing crime levels in the UK.  One definition of crime defines it as “an act or omission that leads to penal sanction in accordance with the constitutionally valid procedures of that nation state” (Morrison, 16). Another definition states that crime is “any act or omission proscribed by the criminal law and thus punishable by the state through the criminal justice process” (Davies, 40). Both describe crime in its broadest sense but it does not tell us what constitutes crime. I believe that more than the definition of crime, citizens are more concerned on what makes an act or omission a crime. The latter keeps them out of trouble and out of the ambit of criminal justice system. Crime is relative. An act may be a crime in the UK but is legally permissible in another country. It all depends on the sovereign state’s law-making body whether or not to declare certain actions or inactions as crime. Although there are acts which are declared as crime in all jurisdictions, for instance, murder, there will never be a universal consensus as to what constitutes a crime. As a necessary consequence, there will never be a universal benchmark in measuring crime levels in each country. In the UK, I am of the opinion that our criminal laws and changes thereon does not necessarily result in changes in UK crime levels. This is because the Home Office has developed its own method of counting crimes and arriving at an annual crime statistics which is rather independent of our criminal laws. Noteworthy of this method is the “one crime per victim” and “no victim no crime” policy followed by the police force in recording crimes (“Overcoming Barriers”, 24). This policy departs from the principles of criminal law which tells us that a single act may result in one or more crimes. However, insofar as the police and its recording is concerned, when two or more crimes result from a single act, then only the most serious crime is recorded. It therefore, undermines the influence of our criminal laws in addressing crime levels in the country. More penal laws which mean more act or omission are declared as crime does not necessarily mean higher crime levels. Conversely, decriminalizing some crimes will not necessarily result in lower crime statistics in the UK. There is therefore an imperative for the official crime statistics to reflect the criminal laws enforced in the country. This will ensure that when citizens read the Home Office’s newly release crime statistics, it does reflect the true state of crime and security situation in the country. 2. Criminal offences usually require actus reus and mens rea, although some crimes are crimes of strict liability.  (i) Explain, using examples, the meaning of the term actus reus.  The term actus reus refers to the malfeasance and nonfeasance which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict the accused. Stated otherwise, actus reus means the overt act or the failure to act which when coupled with material circumstances and consequences produces a crime. It may also include a particular state of affairs which may come in combination with the act or omission. Actus reus is a material element of a crime. In order to incur criminal liability, an act must be voluntary. It must not be coerced or performed involuntarily as in the case of being in a state of hypnotism and automatism. However, when the accused came under the aforementioned state of involuntary movements under their own fault or will, these will not serve as exculpatory circumstance in favor of the accused. Needless to state, self-induced intoxication will never be a defense and will never bar prosecution for the crime committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Actus reus as an omission must stem from a lawful duty which may be established from statute, contract or relationship. A concrete example of actus reus by means of omission is the 1918 case of R v Gibbins & Proctor (13 Cr App R 134, CCA) where a seven-year-old child starved to death due to neglect by her father and his mistress. In this case, parents have the duty and obligation to care for the child. The court convicted the cohabitees for the crime of murder arguing that grossly neglecting the child, coupled with the necessary mens rea, may gives rise to a criminal liability, even for murder. (ii) Explain, using examples, the meaning of the term mens rea.  Mens rea refers to the guilty mind. This may come in the form of intention, knowledge, recklessness or mere carelessness. Stated otherwise, as a state of mind, intention is what drives a person to do or not do a certain act to achieve a desired result while knowledge, recklessness and carelessness are examined within the context of the circumstances surrounding the crime. In some case, an offence may arise out of a combination of two or more of these elements of mens rea. Like actus reus, men rea, too, needs to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. For instance, in the crime of murder, the mens rea is the intent to kill. This intent can be proved from the type of weapon or force used in inflicting the fatal wound, the type of injuries inflicted upon the victim and even the location of the wounds and injuries. Moreover, in the case of theft, the mens rea of the case is the intent to gain and to deprive the owner of his property. Absent proof of these intent, the can be no conviction for the crime of theft. Interestingly, within the purview criminal law, intention is different from motive. The court may deduce from the facts of the case that based on his overt acts, the accused did intend a certain result even though he did not desire for it. A case in point is R v Savage [1991] 4 All ER 698, HL where the House of Lords upheld the conviction of a woman for assault. The court argued that even though she did not intend for the actual injuries caused, her act of throwing an object against the victim clearly shows her intent to inflict injury. Such intention has satisfied the requirement for men rea for the crime of assault with actual physical injuries. (iii) Explain, using examples, the meaning of the term strict liability. The concept of strict liability is the exception to the rule that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of both mens rea and actus reus in a particular crime. Under this principle of criminal law, an accused may be convicted without need of providing proof of mens rea with regard to the actus reus of the offense. Whether or not there was intent, negligence or recklessness is immaterial to the case. The prosecution only needs to prove the actus reus and that this was voluntarily performed by the accused. Majority of offences which fall under this category are statutory, that is, they are declared by virtue of a duly promulgated statute. The imposition of strict liability by statute is determined by an examination of the letters of the law. The courts generally look into the operative words of the law and interpret the same as to whether or not the crime as laid down by law requires the existence and proof of men rea. An example of statutory strict liability is the offence of drunk driving, speeding and other driving offences. There are also strict liability offenses that derive their authority from common law. An example would be the offence of criminal contempt of court which involves acts which are prejudicial to the conduct of a fair trial. The fact that it is now covered under the Contempt of Court Act of 1981 is of no moment because it simply is a testament that our common laws provide the foundation for our statutory criminal laws. 3. Analyse the influence that the concepts of: (i) intention, (ii) recklessness, and (iii) gross negligence, have on criminal liability. Mens rea as a state of mind may come in the form of intention, recklessness or gross negligence. To a great extent, it determines the offender’s criminal liability because it determines what crime or crimes result from a particular act of the accused. Intention refers to the offender’s voluntary will to act or not to act. Although it is a mere state of mind, the offender’s intention can be inferred from his overt acts in committing the crime. The offender’s intention as shown by his overt acts determines the crime committed and the extent of his criminal liability. In the crime of murder, for instance, a stab on the back which pierces the lungs and heart clearly shows the offender’s intent to kill. Moreover, a shot to the hands or leg shows the defendant’s intention to incapacitate the aggressor in order to facilitate his flight or defense of himself. Recklessness refers to the offender’s disregard to the logical result or consequences of his acts, despite full knowledge of the same. Recklessness involves cases wherein the offender displays a lack of foresight which is expected to be exercised by any reasonable man. The offender’s criminal liability is determined by taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding the facts of case, including the offender’s level of knowledge or experience. An expert in a given field is expected to exercise more care and foresight than that of an average man. Finally, gross negligence refers to extreme neglect of duty, despite knowledge of the consequences which cold arise out of one’s failure to perform the duty which is imposed by law, contract or relationship. The extent of damage that results from the negligent act determines the offender’s criminal liability. For instance, in the 1902 case of R v Pittwood (19 TLR 37), the gatekeeper who negligently left the gate open was convicted of manslaughter when a carter was hit by a train and died. 4. Jenny had an argument with her partner, David. This resulted in David hitting her with a baseball bat. Jenny suffered a very badly broken leg that needed surgery. David, who has several previous convictions for violence, denies that he was involved. Discuss the criminal liability of David for the injuries suffered by Jenny. David is criminally liable for the injuries suffered by Jenny. David cannot put up the defense that Has no involvement in the infliction of injury upon jenny, neither can he claim that he has no knowledge about how the injuries came to be. We can infer from the facts that their argument went physical which ended with jenny having a broken leg. Apparently, David wanted to silence Jenny and end the fight by hitting her with a baseball bat. David wanted to physically coerce Jenny into accepting his arguments and agreeing with him during their heated altercation. The mens rea in this case is David’s intent to assault Jenny and inflict bodily harm by hitting her with a baseball bat. In order to channel David’s state of mind into action, he picked the baseball bat and swung it into the direction of Jenny and actually hit her. Considering that he already has prior conviction for acts of violence, it is clear that violence is a handy tool insofar as David is concerned. The act of intentionally and voluntarily hitting Jenny with the bat constitutes the actus reus of the crime of physical injuries. It is the overt act from which, coupled with the circumstances of the case, highlights David’s intention and the the mens rea of the case. In view of the foregoing, David is criminally liable for the injuries he had inflicted upon Jenny. Works cited: Davies, M., Croall, H., and Tyrer, J. Criminal Justice. 4th ed. Morrison, W. What is crime? Contrasting de?nitions and perspectives. Oxford University Press. Available [online]: http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199227297/hale2e_ch01.pdf (accessed May 29, 2011) Thornberry, T. and Krohn, M. The Self-Report Method for Measuring Delinquency and Crime. Available [online]: http://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_4/04b.pdf (accessed May 29, 2011) UK Statistics Authority. (May 2010) Overcoming barriers to trust in crime statistics: England and Wales. Read More