The Crown Court and homicide 1.

Criminal justice: a recap Crimes are investigated by…… and prosecuted by … The magistrates’ courts hear... The Crown Court hears… We will begin by recapping / going over what we know about the criminal justice system Crimes are investigated by…… the police and prosecuted by … the CPS The magistrates’ courts hear...summary offences (less serious criminal offences) and some either-way offences The Crown Court hears…indictable-only offences (most serious criminal offences) and some either-way offences who decides whether an offence which is triable either-way will be heard in the magistrates' courts or the Crown Court? (weak stu, did last week) Offences of variable seriousness > 1) the magistrates can commit/send the case to the CC if they believe that their sentencing powers are insufficient 2) the defe can choose to elect a Crown Court trial 1. In the English criminal justice system: who investigates an offence? who prosecutes the offender? which cases are heard by the magistrates' courts? which cases are heard by the Crown Court? who decides whether an offence which is triable either-way will be heard in the magistrates' courts or the Crown Court?

In court If a case is tried in the Crown Court The judge will decide issues of law A 12-person jury will decide if the defendant is guilty If the defendant is convicted, the judge hands down the sentence. In court 2. What happens if a defendant pleads guilty? There will not be a trial, the case will go straight to the sentencing hearing > 3. What happens if a defendnat pleads Not Guilty in the Crown Court? If a case is tried in the Crown Court The judge will decide issues of law A 12-person jury will decide if the defendant is guilty If the defendant is convicted, the judge hands down the sentence, after a sentencing hearing.

Appeals Appeals lie to the Crown Court from … Appeals lie from the Crown Court to… Appeals lie to the Crown Court from …the magstrates’ courts and heard by a judge and two magistrates sitting together Appeals lie from the Crown Court to…the Court of Appeal Criminal Division and sometimes to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court (appeals on specific points of law)

Criminal liability and homicide

The elements of a crime actus reus – the specific act which constitutes the crime omissions very rarely constitute actus reus can be a “state of affairs” mens rea – the mental element of the crime (“the required state of mind”) direct intent recklessness Actus reus – specific act which constitutes the crime > can be an omission, omissions rarely constitute actus reus in English law. There is no duty to rescue, we have no equivalent to “non assistance à personne en danger”. An omission would only be criminal is there was a duty between the two parties for example a parent who didn’t feed their child. can be a “state of affairs” > the possession of controlled drugs is an offence, no need to prove how the defendnat got them (nb can be a defence that it is not actually a controlled drug. the mens rea requires you knew, so if thought sweets or it was planted in your car then no MR) Mens rea _ mental element of the crime> in order to find d guilty, p must prove he had a certain state of mind Some crimes must be committed intentionally Usually this involves Direct intent – D acts with intention of bringing about a certain consequence - D wants to kill V, he takes a knife and stabs him Oblique intent – Oblique intent can be said to exist where the consequence (for example someone’s death) was not the D’s purpose, but D knew that it would occur as a result of his actions. The jury can only find that there was intent if the result –was a virtually certain consequence of D’s acts, and D realised that Recklessness – a lower level of mens rea than intention >defintion of crime “recklessly” > D realises that there is a risk of a consequence happening, and decides to take the risk Strict liability – no requirement to prove mens rea in relation to one or more elements of the actus rea eg sex with a child under 13 is statutory rape, there is no need to prove that the D knew the child was under 13 Strict liability crimes: no requirement to prove mens rea in relation to one or more elements of the actus reus

Homicide Murder causing the unlawful death of a human being with the intention to kill or cause GBH (grievous bodily harm) carries a mandatory life sentence The most serious is murder What elements are required in order to prove murder? causing the unlawful death of a human being > actus reus With the intention to kill or cause GBH, which is serious bodily harm > mens rea English law carries a mandatory life sentence – usually a minimum of 15 years

Voluntary manslaughter If a partial defence is established D can be convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder: loss of control diminished responsibility suicide pact When might someone be convicted of voluntary manslaughter? However in some cases, even where both AR and MR are established, a def can use a partial defense. This does not allow him to escape punishment, but allows him to be convicted of a lesser offence voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. the partial defences all involve elements which mean D is not fully responsible for his acts loss of control which was triggered by the situation (used to be called provocation), can only be used in limited situations diminished responsibility > abnormaility of mind which impaired his responsibility suicide pact > responsibility not the same as a regular murder i To repeat, D cannot be charged with VM, can only be found guilty of VM as an alternative to murder The qualifying triggers are set out in s. 55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009. A qualifying trigger may only relate to: .55 (3) Where D's loss of self-control was attributable to D's fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person. or S.55 (4) Where D's loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which— (a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and (b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.The question of what constitutes circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged is decided objectively: (if raised, and has sufficient evidence is adduced, P have to prove not true beyond a reasonable doubt) DR – balance of probabilities D to prove There must be an abnormality of mental functioning   This abnormality of the mind must have been caused by a recognised medical condition The abnormality of the mind must substantially impair the defendant’s mental responsibility

Involuntary manslaughter Constructive manslaughter D intentionally committed a dangerous unlawful act which resulted in the victim’s death Gross negligence manslaughter D was in breach of a duty of care owed to the victim How is involuntary manslaughter different from murder? A defendant can be charged with IV manslaughter 2 types Constructive manslaughter > D intentionally committed a dangerous criminal act which results in V’s death > eg setting fire to a house which is occupied , even if there was no intention to harm or kill anyone (objective test > all sober and reasonable people would realise carried the risk of some harm) P was in breach of a duty of care owed to a victim e.g. a surgeon or an electrician who does his job so badly that someone dies as a result > not enough to be negligent must be very serious negligence if the jury is directed and finds that the defendant was in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, that the breach of duty caused the death, and that the breach of duty could be characterised as gross negligence and consequently a crime.