Important Criminal Cases and Terminology
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)
Facts
The defendant (Fagan) was asked to move his car by the police officer
In doing so he accidentally ran over the policeman’s foot
The policeman asked him to move
The defendant refused and switched off the car
Fagan argued that the act of driving onto the policeman’s foot was accidental (therefore, without mens rea) and the refusal was an omission (without an actus reus), so the mens rea and actus reus never matched
Principle
The court held that Fagan was guilty of Battery
The act was ‘continuing’ and the initial driving and keeping the car on the foot (where Fagan formed the mens rea) was the whole offence
The actus reus and mens rea must coincide but the mens rea can be later placed onto an ongoing actus reus
Facts
The 4 defendants took a man to a hut, beat him over the head and believed he was dead
To make it look like an accident, they threw his body over a cliff
The victim died from being left at the bottom of the cliff and not the blow to the head
The defendants argued that the mens rea and actus reus did not match, when they intended to kill, the victim had not died, and when they threw him off the kill they did not have the intention to kill as they thought he was dead
Principle
The defendants were found guilty as the beating and throwing him off the cliff, was considered one continuing act
“it is much too refined a ground of judgment to say that, because they were under a misapprehension at one stage and thought that their guilty purpose had been achieved before in fact it was achieved, therefore they are to escape the penalties of the law." -Lord Reid
R v Thabo-Meli (1954)
R v Dudley and Stephens (1884)
Facts
D, S, B and P got stuck out at sea for weeks with no food or water
After 20 days Dudley and Stephens decided that someone should sacrifice themselves to help the rest
B stood down, D and S made the decision to kill P
The three of them ate P’s remains, and 4 days later were rescued
Is this murder?
Principle
The court found Dudley and Stephens guilty of murder
The defence of necessity does not stand up in court
“the temptation to the act which existed here was not what the law has ever called necessity…was it more necessary to kill him than the grown men? the answer must be No” - Lord Coleridge CJ
Facts
The defendant had been charged with rape of his wife
Principle
The court overturned the matrimonial exception to rape and R was convicted of rape
“one of the most important changes is that marriage is in modern times regarded as a partnership of equals, and no longer one in which the wife must be the subservient chattel of the husband. Hale's proposition involves that by marriage a wife gives her irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse with her husband under all circumstances and irrespective of the state of her health or how she happens to be feeling at the time. In modern times any reasonable person must regard that conception as quite unacceptable." - Lord Keith
R v R (1991)
MENS REA
- ‘guilty mind’ this is the mental state at the time, to distinguish between intentional and accidental
ACTUS REUS
- ‘Guilty Act’ this is the physical part of the crime and must be voluntary
- this is the legal standard of proof where the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt to a degree, that a rational person wouldn’t have any doubt
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
BURDEN OF PROOF
- this is the legal obligation that is put onto a party, typically the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt
STRICT LIABILITY
- this is where the prosecution does not have to prove the mens rea
DEFENDANT
- this is the accused
COMPLAINANT
- this is the person who brings the claim against the defendant
EXAMINATION IN CHIEF
- this is the first questioning of a witness, by the person that called them to the stand
CROSS EXAMINATION
- this is the questioning of the witness by the opposing party
RE EXAMINATION
- this is the final questioning of the witness, by the party that called the witness to the stand
