• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Criminal law 101

anglolawyer

Banned
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
13,037
Location
Guilford
There is a lot of discussion of and interest in crime here and not a little confusion about criminal law so I thought I would put that right for anyone interested. I am an English solicitor with about ten years' criminal practise under my belt (long time ago) mostly small potatoes but with the odd smidgen of serious stuff in there too. I still take the occasional criminal case now but always within a narrow sphere of corporate or regulatory crime, not the exciting stuff.

English criminal law gives a very solid basis for understanding the criminal laws of North America and the ANZAC countries (and vice versa, no doubt) and a good enough feel for everywhere else I've come across so far (South Africa, Italy, Germany etc etc) since these laws address universal problems. To begin:

Actus reus and mens rea

Wrongful act, wrongful thought or intent. Aside from some special cases, all crimes have these two. There are no thought crimes. There must be an act. This pair of concepts is fundamental.

Definition

This part comes with a test, so concentrate :). Crimes must be defined because the consequences of infringement are serious. The definitions tend to be very precise and clear. The definitions contain elements (not a term of art) each of which must be present. Thus:

murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought

The elements are:

unlawful = not self defence or other justified killing
killing = death must ensue
reasonable creature = human being but not an unborn foetus (contrast California where it is possible to murder a foetus)
under the Queen's Peace = not an enemy combatant
malice aforethought = means intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm (the men's rea of the offence)

Subtract any one of these and, whatever the crime is, it cannot be murder. Often, the definition of a crime includes a lesser one. Thus, murder includes manslaughter, malicious wounding and plain old assault. So, you can prosecute for murder and secure a conviction for a lesser offence, even though not separately charged, if all its elements are proved even though murder itself is not made out because one of them is missing.

Test: without using google, define theft.

Joint enterprise

If you aid, abet, counsel or procure a crime you are liable to be convicted as a principal. The guy who keeps the motor running in the getaway car is just as liable for robbery as the guys holding up the bank, although if they shoot and kill someone in the process his liability for murder will depend on his mental state.

Burden and standard of proof

The prosecution has the burden of proving all the elements of the crime alleged beyond reasonable doubt. Mr Justice Sweeney in the trial of Vicky Pryce was asked by the jury what 'reasonable doubt' means and he answered that 'reasonable doubt means a doubt that is reasonable' before dismissing the dopes for being unable to reach a decision and presiding over a second trial in which she was convicted and jailed for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

It's that simple. Forget Bayesian statistics and 95% probabilities and all that nonsense. If after taking account of all the evidence any reasonable doubt remains the jury must acquit. Although opinions will differ, in mine, the acquittal of Oscar Pistorius of the charge of murder is a good example of reasonable doubt in operation while two that go the other way are Jodi Arias and Scott Peterson because the remaining areas of doubt in those cases are fanciful in the extreme. It will almost always be possible to contrive by some extraordinary construction of the facts a scenario consistent with innocence but that will not give rise to a reasonable doubt.

Scott Peterson's heavily pregnant wife might just have decided to head off for a swim in San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve, without telling anybody and coincidentally in the same place he went 'fishing' that same day, also without telling anybody, and that would explain how her remains washed up ashore a few months later otherwise than as a result of being murdered and deposited in the bay by him, but it is not reaonable to think that she did.

That's about it, except for the general defences. Have a crack at the test and see if you can get all the elements. Precise language is not required but the elements are.
 
Last edited:
What about conspiracies to commit crimes?

anglolawyer,

Can you clarify one point? Suppose someone engages in a conspiracy to commit murder, say, by hiring a hit man. Then the crime itself does not happen, either because the police intervene, or the person changes his or her mind. Is that person still guilty of a crime, and if so, is that one of your exceptions above?
 
anglolawyer,

Can you clarify one point? Suppose someone engages in a conspiracy to commit murder, say, by hiring a hit man. Then the crime itself does not happen, either because the police intervene, or the person changes his or her mind. Is that person still guilty of a crime, and if so, is that one of your exceptions above?

No, it's not an exception and it is, in England and Wales, a crime. The crime of conspiracy to murder. Conspiracy is not a crime in all jurisdictions. It is committed where two or more people agree upon a course of conduct that would itself involve a crime. The actus reus is the making of the agreement itself and the mens rea is the intention that the planned crime should be committed.

Conspiracy is one of three 'inchoate' offences, so-called because nothing actually happens. The other two are attempt and incitement. If I attempt to climb over your wall to commit a burglary but get impaled by the broken glass embedded at the top, I commit the crime of attempted burglary. If I encourage you to kill your mother to collect your inheritance early I commit the crime of incitement to murder. Each of these inchoate offences has both a wrongful act and a wrongful thought.

Crimes without a wrongful thought (there are none without a wrongful act) are called crimes of 'strict liability'. Driving without insurance is one such. It doesn't matter whether you genuinely believed your insurance policy was still current, just the fact of having no insurance is enough.
 
Last edited:
.....
Conspiracy is one of three 'inchoate' offences, so-called because nothing actually happens.
.....

Conspiracy is one of those crimes that often seems incomprehensibly vague. There are people doing hard time in U.S. prisons on drug charges because somebody who turned out to be an informant asked them something like "Who's got the pills around here?" and they responded "Well, I hear Tommy down at the bar does some deals." People who never bought, sold or possessed illegal drugs or profited from anybody else's buying, selling or possession can still be convicted. There are circumstances where conspiracy convictions really do look like punishment for thought and speech, not overt action.
 
Conspiracy is one of those crimes that often seems incomprehensibly vague. There are people doing hard time in U.S. prisons on drug charges because somebody who turned out to be an informant asked them something like "Who's got the pills around here?" and they responded "Well, I hear Tommy down at the bar does some deals." People who never bought, sold or possessed illegal drugs or profited from anybody else's buying, selling or possession can still be convicted. There are circumstances where conspiracy convictions really do look like punishment for thought and speech, not overt action.

Yes, as I said, it's not even a crime in all jurisdictions. In E & W it's treated very seriously for some reason.
 
Crimes without a wrongful thought (there are none without a wrongful act) are called crimes of 'strict liability'. Driving without insurance is one such. It doesn't matter whether you genuinely believed your insurance policy was still current, just the fact of having no insurance is enough.
Suppose I sell powdered milk. I have no idea that someone put cocaine into it. A baby drinks it and dies. Am I guilty of manslaughter under strict liability?
 
The news media (and laymen...) mix up terms like "robbery" and "burglary" all the time. They will use "robbery" to describe a burglary, or even a car break-in.

A robbery is stealing by force or threat of force. An armed robbery involves a weapon, and a "strongarm robbery" (such as the Brown case) involves physical force but no weapon.

A burglary is "breaking and entering" into a dwelling or other structure with the intent to commit a crime therein. The crime is usually stealing, but need not be.
Burglary in the first degree is breaking into an occupied dwelling. 2nd degree is breaking into an unoccupied dwelling or business.
Various conditions worsen the crime....Burglary with explosives.. Such as blowing a safe, is more serious than just say, stealing the safe.

A "home invasion" is an armed robbery of a residence.
 
People do mix those up, yes. Robbery is theft with the use or threat of force. We split burglary into basic and aggravated versions. Aggravated involves carrying a weapon and is treated much more seriously.
 
anglolawyer,

Can you clarify one point? Suppose someone engages in a conspiracy to commit murder, say, by hiring a hit man. Then the crime itself does not happen, either because the police intervene, or the person changes his or her mind. Is that person still guilty of a crime, and if so, is that one of your exceptions above?


Yes. One is guilty of conspiracy to commit an illegal act when two or more people agree to commit an illegal act and at least one person performs some action in furtherance of the conspiracy.

If you and I decide to rob a bank and you go to purchase a ski mask, we are guilty of conspiracy to rob the bank - even though purchasing a ski mask is itself a legal act, and even if I don't know you purchased a ski mask.

If I hire a hit man, paying the guy is enough to get us both convicted of conspiracy (although prosecutors will probably charge me for hiring a hit man which is a crime in itself).
 
Suppose I sell powdered milk. I have no idea that someone put cocaine into it. A baby drinks it and dies. Am I guilty of manslaughter under strict liability?


The main question is what you mean by "no idea." Do you mean that you took all reasonable steps and still didn't know? Did you just turn a blind eye to a whole cocaine-smuggling operation? Did you produce powdered milk without even the most basic of safety precautions?

Generally, if you have no idea that you are committing the act that is criminal, you are not criminally liable. If I rent a car and drive it from Mexico to the US, I am not liable if it turns out to be full of cocaine.
 

Back
Top Bottom