506:
defense of intoxication failing, as getting voluntarily intoxicated is viewed as reckless by the courts, which is sufficient for basic intent offenses. Specific intent crimes demand proof of intention, and if the defendant did not form that mens rea, he cannot be guilty of the specific intent offense. However, often there is a basic intent offense as a fallback in such cases, e.g. if the defendant is charged with grievous bodily harm or wounding under s18 Offences against the Person Act 1861 but did not form the specific intent, he can be charged under s20 of that act, which has the same actus reus, but requires only intention or recklessness as to 'some harm' (making it a basic intent offense). However, there are some crimes that do not have this fallback position (e.g. theft).
356:. She then tried to marry a British citizen, after which she would have gained British citizenship, which she could never be subsequently deprived of. However, the marriage was refused and she was ordered to leave the UK that day (March 22). Instead, she went to the Irish Free State seeking a priest there to marry her and the man, George Drayton. No priest could be found and the Irish police ordered her to leave by April 17 under the Irish Constitution. Larsonneur still did not leave and on April 20 was taken into custody by Irish police where they were forced to deport her back from whence she had come, the UK. On arrival in the UK, she was arrested for being an 'illegal alien'. The defendant was not at fault as she did not intentionally re-enter the UK under the
376:, in this the courts look at both factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation uses the 'but for' test, asking: 'but for the defendant's act, would the result still have occurred?' If it would have occurred regardless of the defendant's acts, there is no factual causation and the defendant is not guilty. Factual causation was effectively established in the legal case of Pagett . However, in the case of White the result would still have occurred 'but for' the defendant's actions, so there was no criminal liability. Legal causation uses the 'operative and substantial' test. The defendant's acts must be the 'operative and substantial' cause of the result, as seen in the case of Smith .
364:(1983) where the defendant was admitted to hospital by a friend who was worried for his health. However when the hospital realized he was merely drunk to the point of being semi – unconscious, they discharged him from the hospital. The defendant, because of his intoxicated state, could not get home, and was liable for drunk and disorderly conduct. Even though he did not have intention for the crime, nor was he at fault, because the crime been one of state of affairs he was liable and charged as such.
176:
404:(1957), requires intention to cause a specific result. The mens rea of murder is the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. Intention is the most serious of states of mind the defendant can have, and this high level of fault is reflected in strict and long sentencing. Murder carries a mandatory life sentence, though the judge can impose a recommended minimum number of years as to which the defendant must serve before being eligible for release.
493:, work by establishing a lack of mental control or awareness on the part of the defendant. Still others, such as Duress and self–defense, operate by establishing that the defendant's conduct was justified or should be excused. Finally, the partial defenses to murder, such as loss of self-control (previously provocation), diminished responsibility, and suicide pact demonstrate a lesser degree of fault, resulting in conviction for the lesser offense of
74:
33:
334:, the defendant has committed the act in response to a threat of death or serious personal injury to himself or a loved one, or someone towards whom he feels responsible. Therefore he is removed of fault as his actions were done to prevent such harm being done. It would be considered unfair to place the defendant at fault of a criminal action which he committed under duress.
547:
can have an effect on the sentence, depending on when it is made. Making a guilty plea before the start of the trial can reduce the sentence imposed by up to one third but changing the plea to guilty once the trial has started can only reduce it by one tenth. This is because admitting fault after the
614:
in criminal law, in relation to both regulatory offences and offences of social danger. It can be argued that the interests of society as a whole can sometimes justify the imposition of liability without fault. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that the degree of fault still plays an important
505:
The use of intoxication as a defense is based on whether the offense is one of basic intent or specific intent, and also whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary. For example, getting voluntarily intoxicated and committing actual bodily harm (a crime of basic intent) will result in the
518:
is often only available to smaller offenses, such as Common
Assault and, possibly, Actual bodily harm (S.47). The Attorney General's Reference set s47 as a watershed, above which consent is unlikely to function as a defense as it is not reasonable to foresee that a person would consent to having
407:
However, if murder is done with a specific intent in the name of a religion, ideology, etc., or to particularly vulnerable groups of people such as children, or is done so continuously (such as terrorism or serial killing) then it may be that the defendant is given a whole life tariff (never sees
308:
require a voluntary act, or omission, for evidence of fault. There is also a requirement for a clear causation, there is no liability or fault if the defendant was not actually the sole cause of the act, this is so if there was an intervention of a third party, an unexpected natural event, or the
322:(1958) where the defendant injured a person by crashing his car into them. He argued that his action was not voluntary because he was unaware of what happened. However, he was found guilty because the judge held that sleepiness or drowsiness when driving does not amount to automatism.
272:. The basic principle is that a defendant should be able to contemplate the harm that his actions may cause, and therefore should aim to avoid such actions. Different forms of liability employ different notions of fault, in some there is no need to prove fault, but the absence of it.
456:
In all of these offenses, the defendant is liable for the offense and at fault if he commits the offense intending for the damage to be done, or being subjectively reckless as to whether the damage occurs. For this recklessness is sufficient to prove fault in the defendant.
424:(1957), where the defendant is not required to intend the consequence to come from his actions, but the defendant realized the risk that this consequence would occur and took the risk anyway. Such a state of mind is required in most non–fatal offenses, such as
387:
The mens rea involves the different states of mind which demonstrate the relationship between degree of fault and liability. Depending on the different state of mind of the defendant at the time of committing the unlawful act, different sentences will be given.
317:
If the criminal act is caused by an act of automatism, it means the act was caused by an involuntary movement of the limbs, and not controlled by neuron stimulation, removing the blameworthiness from the defendant. This was seen in the case of
691:
Certain activities must be prohibited for the public good and, so long as the penalty is not too severe, the public interest in, for example, preventing pollution outweighs the public interest in not convicting those who are without special
519:
serious harm done to them. However, cases are decided on an individual basis, and case law shows that a victim may effectively consent to even grievous bodily harm (e.g. in sport, in the case of Barnes ).
684:
Many strict liability offences concern the running of a business, and if the business runs properly the actus reus will never occur. This means that many strict liability offences keep many businesses in
695:
For some offences, it would be impossible to secure a conviction if guilty knowledge had to be proved, particularly where the defendant was a company rather than an individual.
342:
In such cases of a "state-of-affairs" crimes, the defendant may be found liable even if he or she did not purposefully or voluntarily commit a criminal act. This is seen in
849:
731:
664:
smoking. Even though she had no knowledge of the offence, it was on her property so she was liable without fault. This conviction was later quashed by the
583:
668:
on the grounds that knowledge of the use of the premises was essential to the offence. Since she had no such knowledge, she did not commit the offence.
360:; however she was still liable for the crime under Alien Act, as there was no need to prove the act was voluntary. This was also seen in the case of
825:
531:
imposed, and its severity, is in large part determined by the degree of fault shown by the defendant. This can also be seen in the impact of both
186:
785:
556:
also illustrate that fault is relevant to the sentencing process, whether the defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty in court.
866:
439:
443:
543:, as they break the relationship between the degree of fault present in the offence committed and the sentence imposed. A
138:
485:
Some defenses work by showing lack of fault through the involuntary nature of the defendant's conduct. Others, such as
110:
238:
220:
157:
60:
688:
A person or company taking a risk in order to make a profit ought to be liable if the risk causes problems to others
548:
trial has begun has wasted court time and money (for jury and judge etc.), so this is reflected in the sentence.
117:
95:
811:
757:
289:
when he commits the act and, if so, he is therefore liable for the crime. However, this is not necessary for
17:
124:
91:
46:
712:
532:
674:(1999) - relating to the sale of a lottery ticket to a person who had not attained the age of 16 years.
871:
829:
309:
victim's own act. Either of these can remove the legal blame from the defendant and remove the fault.
106:
432:
258:
term, refers to legal blameworthiness and responsibility in each area of law. It refers to both the
771:
470:
286:
202:
417:
84:
490:
598:
549:
449:
477:(1994), where the defendant was held to be negligent as he had "breached a duty of care".
8:
633:
293:
offences, where no particular state of mind is required to satisfy the burden of proof.
660:(1969) – where the defendant was found guilty of allowing her property to be used for
588:
573:
568:
540:
131:
805:
751:
637:
536:
194:
641:
611:
553:
466:
290:
198:
52:
661:
373:
357:
665:
593:
528:
428:
344:
860:
494:
276:
265:
713:"Sixth Form Law : Le guide des lois et des réglementations en France"
544:
260:
269:
772:"Sixth Form Law: Le guide des lois et des réglementations en France"
73:
486:
281:
515:
539:. This is why some people are opposed to the use of minimum and
578:
564:
Types of sentences will also reflect level of blameworthiness:
397:
349:
331:
255:
629:
No blameworthiness is required on the part of the defendant
615:
part in determining the sentence following a conviction
353:
647:
The advantages and disadvantages must be considered
98:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
678:
858:
792:. Archived from the original on November 5, 2006
738:. Archived from the original on January 25, 2003
672:Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and another
408:daylight again) to reflect his level of fault.
183:The examples and perspective in this article
61:Learn how and when to remove these messages
826:"Cases - manslaughter - gross negligence"
239:Learn how and when to remove this message
221:Learn how and when to remove this message
158:Learn how and when to remove this message
626:Only actus reus needs to be established
285:is used to decide if the defendant has
14:
859:
473:offences, such as seen in the case of
440:assault occasioning actual bodily harm
559:
452:, contrary to section 20 of that Act.
296:
726:
724:
722:
469:, which is the mens rea required by
444:Offences against the Person Act 1861
169:
96:adding citations to reliable sources
67:
26:
786:"The K-Zone: R v Cunningham (1957)"
605:
460:
396:A specific intent offense, such as
379:
304:Most requirements for a successful
24:
25:
883:
719:
42:This article has multiple issues.
442:, contrary to section 47 of the
362:Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent
348:(1933), where the defendant was
174:
72:
31:
619:Conditions for strict liability
500:
411:
83:needs additional citations for
50:or discuss these issues on the
867:Criminal law legal terminology
843:
818:
778:
764:
705:
679:Advantages of strict liability
13:
1:
699:
522:
312:
367:
337:
7:
480:
197:, discuss the issue on the
10:
888:
509:
465:The defendant can also be
372:There is also an issue of
810:: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
756:: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
732:"Strict Liability Issues"
433:Criminal Justice Act 1988
420:, such as in the case of
391:
325:
471:involuntary manslaughter
736:Strict Liability Issues
632:It normally applies to
438:The assault element of
431:(see section 39 of the
418:subjective recklessness
400:, seen in the case of
601:or Absolute discharge
599:Conditional discharge
610:There is a role for
450:grievous bodily harm
203:create a new article
195:improve this article
185:may not represent a
92:improve this article
634:regulatory offences
541:mandatory sentences
589:Community sentence
574:Suspended sentence
569:Custodial sentence
560:Types of sentences
537:mitigating factors
872:Legal terminology
638:health and safety
584:Extended sentence
554:minimum sentences
527:Both the type of
467:grossly negligent
249:
248:
241:
231:
230:
223:
205:, as appropriate.
168:
167:
160:
142:
65:
16:(Redirected from
879:
852:
847:
841:
840:
838:
837:
828:. Archived from
822:
816:
815:
809:
801:
799:
797:
782:
776:
775:
768:
762:
761:
755:
747:
745:
743:
728:
717:
716:
709:
642:traffic offences
612:strict liability
606:Strict liability
461:Gross negligence
352:and entered the
291:strict liability
244:
237:
226:
219:
215:
212:
206:
178:
177:
170:
163:
156:
152:
149:
143:
141:
107:"Fault" law
100:
76:
68:
57:
35:
34:
27:
21:
887:
886:
882:
881:
880:
878:
877:
876:
857:
856:
855:
850:The Independent
848:
844:
835:
833:
824:
823:
819:
803:
802:
795:
793:
784:
783:
779:
770:
769:
765:
749:
748:
741:
739:
730:
729:
720:
711:
710:
706:
702:
681:
658:Sweet v Parsley
608:
562:
525:
514:The defense of
512:
503:
483:
463:
414:
394:
385:
370:
340:
330:In the case of
328:
315:
302:
287:criminal intent
245:
234:
233:
232:
227:
216:
210:
207:
192:
179:
175:
164:
153:
147:
144:
101:
99:
89:
77:
36:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
885:
875:
874:
869:
854:
853:
842:
817:
777:
763:
718:
703:
701:
698:
697:
696:
693:
689:
686:
680:
677:
676:
675:
669:
666:House of Lords
654:
653:
649:
648:
645:
630:
627:
623:
622:
620:
607:
604:
603:
602:
596:
591:
586:
581:
576:
571:
561:
558:
524:
521:
511:
508:
502:
499:
482:
479:
462:
459:
454:
453:
446:
436:
429:common assault
422:R v Cunningham
416:There is also
413:
410:
393:
390:
384:
378:
369:
366:
345:R v Larsonneur
339:
336:
327:
324:
320:Hill V. Baxter
314:
311:
301:
295:
247:
246:
229:
228:
189:of the subject
187:worldwide view
182:
180:
173:
166:
165:
80:
78:
71:
66:
40:
39:
37:
30:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
884:
873:
870:
868:
865:
864:
862:
851:
846:
832:on 2009-02-23
831:
827:
821:
813:
807:
791:
787:
781:
773:
767:
759:
753:
737:
733:
727:
725:
723:
714:
708:
704:
694:
690:
687:
683:
682:
673:
670:
667:
663:
659:
656:
655:
652:Cases include
651:
650:
646:
643:
639:
635:
631:
628:
625:
624:
621:
618:
617:
616:
613:
600:
597:
595:
592:
590:
587:
585:
582:
580:
577:
575:
572:
570:
567:
566:
565:
557:
555:
551:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
520:
517:
507:
498:
496:
492:
488:
478:
476:
472:
468:
458:
451:
447:
445:
441:
437:
434:
430:
427:
426:
425:
423:
419:
409:
405:
403:
399:
389:
382:
377:
375:
365:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
346:
335:
333:
323:
321:
310:
307:
299:
294:
292:
288:
284:
283:
278:
273:
271:
267:
263:
262:
257:
253:
243:
240:
225:
222:
214:
204:
200:
196:
190:
188:
181:
172:
171:
162:
159:
151:
148:November 2022
140:
137:
133:
130:
126:
123:
119:
116:
112:
109: –
108:
104:
103:Find sources:
97:
93:
87:
86:
81:This article
79:
75:
70:
69:
64:
62:
55:
54:
49:
48:
43:
38:
29:
28:
19:
18:Fault (legal)
845:
834:. Retrieved
830:the original
820:
796:November 28,
794:. Retrieved
789:
780:
766:
742:November 28,
740:. Retrieved
735:
707:
671:
657:
609:
563:
526:
513:
504:
501:Intoxication
495:manslaughter
491:intoxication
484:
474:
464:
455:
421:
415:
412:Recklessness
406:
401:
395:
386:
380:
371:
361:
343:
341:
329:
319:
316:
305:
303:
297:
280:
277:criminal law
274:
266:mental state
259:
251:
250:
235:
217:
211:January 2012
208:
184:
154:
145:
135:
128:
121:
114:
102:
90:Please help
85:verification
82:
58:
51:
45:
44:Please help
41:
545:guilty plea
533:aggravating
475:R v Adomako
448:inflicting
402:R v Vickers
861:Categories
836:2009-04-12
790:The K-Zone
700:References
523:Sentencing
313:Automatism
306:actus reus
298:Actus reus
261:actus reus
118:newspapers
47:improve it
374:causation
368:Causation
358:Alien Act
338:Liability
270:defendant
199:talk page
53:talk page
806:cite web
752:cite web
662:cannabis
640:, minor
529:sentence
487:insanity
481:Defenses
381:Mens rea
282:mens rea
264:and the
193:You may
550:Tariffs
516:consent
510:Consent
383:element
300:element
268:of the
254:, as a
132:scholar
579:Curfew
398:murder
392:Murder
350:French
332:duress
326:Duress
279:, the
134:
127:
120:
113:
105:
692:fault
644:etc.)
256:legal
252:Fault
201:, or
139:JSTOR
125:books
812:link
798:2022
758:link
744:2022
685:line
594:Fine
552:and
535:and
489:and
111:news
275:In
94:by
863::
808:}}
804:{{
788:.
754:}}
750:{{
734:.
721:^
497:.
354:UK
56:.
839:.
814:)
800:.
774:.
760:)
746:.
715:.
636:(
435:)
242:)
236:(
224:)
218:(
213:)
209:(
191:.
161:)
155:(
150:)
146:(
136:·
129:·
122:·
115:·
88:.
63:)
59:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
