Higher National Diploma in Law: Criminal Law Assignment Analysis

This Criminal Law assignment addresses core principles of criminal law. Task 1 examines the 'Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea' maxim, exploring its exceptions, particularly strict liability offences. Task 2 critically analyzes the law's imposition of liability for omissions, discussing the extent to which the law restricts human freedom and the significance of duty. Task 3 provides a critical analysis of the significance of defenses in criminal law, differentiating between complete and partial defenses and their roles in negating the elements of a crime. The assignment covers key cases and legal principles, providing a comprehensive overview of these critical areas within criminal law.

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL LAW
Task 1 :
“Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” – An act does not make a person guilty
of a crime unless the mind is also guilty.
Does this principle always apply? Discuss the exception to this as well as
discussing the general principle.
Answer :
Introduction
A criminal is an individual who commits a crime. For an act to be considered as a
crime two separate elements are required to be present.1 The first element is Actus Reus and
the second element is mens rea2. The Latin term ‘Actus Reus’ means the action that has been
conducted and the term ‘Mens Rea’ refers to the mental state of the person while committing
an act. In other words, mens rea can be described as the guilty state of mind and Actus Reus
is the act of crime of itself which is considered as having negative effect on the society even
if the offense has been committed on an individual person.3 If a person commits an action or
omits an action against another individual or property that is considered as unlawful and is
punishable by law, it is defined as crime.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
‘Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea’ can be defined as the common law maxim stating
that for an act to be wrong it should be done with a wrongful intent. As per the Latin term
1 Turvey, B.E., 2014. Criminal profiling. The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology, pp.1-6.
2 Bartol, A.M. and Bartol, C.R., 2014. Criminal behavior: A psychological approach. Boston: Pearson, c2014.
xxiii, 644 pages: illustrations; 24 cm..
3 Hasitha, S. and Jain, A., 2019. Actus reus and mens rea.

2CRIMINAL LAW
any person would not be considered as guilty of committing a crime unless he has a guilty
mind. Therefore in absence of an unlawful or criminal intention a wrongful act would not be
considered to be criminal. In furtherance to this, the guilty intention is required to be proved
‘beyond any reasonable doubt’. The principle of 'Actus non facit reum nisi men sit rea' can
also be observed as having certain exceptions as well. The exception towards the mens rea
principle is the crimes under strict liability principles.4 The strict liability principle does not
require an act to constitute mens rea to consider it as a crime. However, for an Actus Reus
intentional recklessness is often considered as a necessary element under strict liability
principles. Strict liability offences are observed as including statutory rapes, various traffic
related offences like speeding, crimes against the health and safety of the public, crimes
related to pollution control, keeping drugs and weapons in possession unlawfully5. In their
judgment in R v Sheldrake (2004)6 the judges were seen as charging the defendant for being
in charge of a vehicle after consumption of alcohol beyond the prescribed limit. In another
judgment in Callow v Tillstone (1990)7 the defendant was charged for selling meat that was
considered to be unsafe for consumption even though the meat was declared to be safe for
consumption by a doctor. In their judgment in R v Lemon (1979)8 the court was observed to
hold the defendant guilty of blasphemous libel because of the publication of a poem by the
defendant about Christ which was considered by the court to be an insult towards the religion
of Christianity. In their judgment in Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957) 9the court
was observed to hold the defendant guilty for misusing splinters and stones because of which
dust and vibrations was caused that was observed to affect the neighbor. All these cases have
been an example of strict liability cases. As such in none of these cases the mens rea or
4 Keiler, J., 2019. Actus Reus and Mens Rea: The elements of crime and the framework of criminal
liability. Comparative concepts of criminal law, (3), pp.107-120.
5Robinson, P.H., 2017. Should the Criminal Law Abandon the Actus Reus-Mens Rea Distinction?. In The
Structure and Limits of Criminal Law (pp. 3-28). Routledge..
6 Sheldrake v. DPP [2004] UKHL 43
7 Callow v Tillstone (1900) 64 JP 823 322
8 R v Lemon (or, Whitehouse v Lemon) [1979] 1 All ER 898
9 Attorney General v PYA Quarries [1957] 2 QB 169

3CRIMINAL LAW
criminal intention of the defendant was required to prove their acts as crime. However in
certain cases mens rea or criminal intention of the defendant is necessary to be proved. In the
case R v Woolin (1999)10 it was observed that the defendant had thrown their child who was 3
months old at that time to the ground out of frustration when the child did not stop crying.
The consequence of such action was the death of the child because of a fractured skull.
During its trial the court was observed as accepting the absence of criminal intention in this
case when the defendant pleaded that they did not intend to kill the child neither did they
intend to harm child. However, it had been accepted that the defendant had reasonably
foreseen that his action might cause grievous harm to the child. Although murder is
considered as an offence under the common law yet it was argued by the defendant that
killing or harming the child grievously was not their sole intent, hence the main element of a
crime that is mens rea was not fulfilled. Following this argument the judges, considering
surrounding cases related to the issue, applied the element of indirect intention in this
scenario to hold their verdict. In contradiction to this case, in their judgment in R v Storkwain
(1986) 11the judges were observed as to held a pharmacist guilty of an offence for supplying
drugs to an individual in absence of a valid prescription. Although there was a prescription
presented in front of the court but it was found out to be a forged one and the pharmacist was
aware of it. Here the criminal intention or mens rea was existing and proved12.
Conclusion
Although mens rea is an important requirement for proving an act to be an act of crime, yet
there are many cases where the principle of strict liability is imposed. In the cases where
strict liability is imposed it is not required for proving the presence of criminal intention.
Strict liability is an important part of the criminal justice system which is advantageous
10 R v Woollin [1999] AC 82
11 PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN V STORKWAIN LTD (1986) 2 All ER 635
12 Zacharski, M., 2018. Mens rea, the Achilles’ Heel of Criminal Law. The European Legacy, 23(1-2), pp.47-59.

4CRIMINAL LAW
towards the protection of the public from any dangerous practices. my following the
principles of strict liability records of an save a lot of time as there is no requirement to prove
any kind of criminal intention of crime. However, they are having a disagreement towards the
use of strict liability in many cases. Many people have argued that when reasonable steps are
taken for avoiding certain offences, convicting individuals for offences is unjust and unfair.
however, the criminal justice system needs to emboss the principle of strict liability in certain
situations where the mens rea is not possible to be proved but the act is criminal in itself and
needs to be deterred.
Task 2 :
To what extent does the law impose liability on a person for an omission to act?
Is the law too restrictive of human freedom? Critically analyze the law on
omissions.
Answer:
Introduction
In presence of a duty of a person to act in accordance with law gives rise to lawsuit if the
person fails to act in the given manner. The failure to act in accordance with law is known as
omission to act. Such omission is often observed as giving rise to a lawsuit similar to any
improper act or an act of negligence by any person breaching their duty. Although
committing harm is prohibited by way of criminal law yet no criminal liability is important
any kind of offence where there is an omission of any action which might aid an individual in
peril. Omission is considered to be a neglect of the duty that an individual has in accordance
with the law.

5CRIMINAL LAW
Law of omission
In the penal law the offence of omission of any act is required in certain situations. The law
imposes liability depending solely on the fact whether the defendant owed any duty to act in
any given manner in any specific situation13. An example of this kind of duty can be
considered as the relationship existing between a doctor and his patients. Omission, or failure
of an individual to be acting in a specific manner, is often times observed as to be the base for
criminal liability if some act is mandatory by way of the law. For the imposition of criminal
liability in an act the act must consists of Actus Reus which means the act must be
wrongful14. An example of such wrongful act is the R v Larsonneur (1933)15 case where the
wrongful liability on the party was imposed because of existing in the incorrect place at the
incorrect situation.
In the Penal law there has been a gradual recognition of the misdemeanour of omission, even
though the recognition of such offence is within conventional and in some specific situations
inadequate context. Liability can often be observed as being depending on the fact of the
defendant owing any kind of distinguishable duty for acting in assumed conditions16. These
duties can often be observed as arising from contract like it happened in the judgment of R v
Pittwood [1902]17. These duties can often be observed as arising from relation that exists
between a parent and their child, or even between one spouse to the other spouse; creating of
situations that can be considered as unsafe; or can often be observed as arising from notion of
precaution for somebody incapable of caring for themselves. An example can be given in this
situation for the case in R v Instan [1893]18, where it has been stated by Lord Coleridge “It
13 Shi, Y., 2018. Scope of Commission by Omission Crime. Chinese Journal of Law, (4), p.7.
14 Robinson, P.H., 2017. Should the Criminal Law Abandon the Actus Reus-Mens Rea Distinction?. In The
Structure and Limits of Criminal Law (pp. 3-28). Routledge.
15 R v Larsonneur (1933), 24 Cr App Rep 74
16 Schwartz, G., 2019. The ethics of omission. Think, 18(51), pp.117-121.
17 R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 37
18 R v. Instan (1893) 1 QB 450

6CRIMINAL LAW
would not be correct to say that every moral obligation involves a legal duty, but every legal
duty is founded on a moral obligation”.
There are a many such motives for imposing widened laws related to the failure of
intervention. One of those motives is on the basis of the argument of the existence of human
empathy and rationality. This can be defined in the words of Jeremy Bentham- “Every man is
bound to assist those who have need of assistance, if he can do it without exposing himself to
sensible inconvenience.”19 Consideration is required to be made of unassuming details about
the individual, who might lawfully be obliged of rescuing other people in jeopardy. A duty is
impose on a person to take actions even if there is a possibility of permanent harm or death of
the person.20 Although there have been many legislations that can be considered as ‘socially
friendly’, yet it would not be meaning that courts abruptly would be discontinuing themselves
regarding at the real causality and affirmative activities. Social morals can be considered to
be a substantial effect on the method of assessment of the existing law of omission.21
Conclusion
However, taking into consideration all details that have been discussed above and prognoses
for the law of omissions that is possible, the law of omission can still be considered as being
too narrow and is required for a revision in such law. The insight of an individual towards the
acts that can or cannot be considered to be acceptable morally might be seen as causing
excessive difficulties at the time of its assessment in the court.
19 Brady, M.E., 2017. The Good Samaritan: A Superb Smithian Economist, But a Poor Benthamite Utilitarian
Economist. But a Poor Benthamite Utilitarian Economist (December 10, 2017).
20 Roy, A. and Marsoof, A., 2017. Negligent Omissions As a Basis for Holding Internet Intermediaries Liable
for Infringements of Trade Mark Rights: Approaches Under the English Common Law.
21Nelkin, D.K. and Rickless, S.C. eds., 2017. The Ethics and Law of Omissions. Oxford University Press.

7CRIMINAL LAW
Task 3 :
Critically analyse the significance of defences in criminal law.
Answer:
Introduction
Defence can be defined as the justification of action of an individual who has been charged
with a criminal sentencing. In the criminal justice system 2 type of defences towards a
criminal offence is observed. The first type of defence is the complete defence and the second
is partial defence22. For a wrongful act to be considered as a crime 2 essential elements are
required to be fulfilled. The first essential element of a crime is that there should be a
wrongful act committed or the presence of actus Reus. Second element for successfully
proving a criminal act is the presence of guilty intention of the offender to commit the crime
that is the presence of mens Rea. The duty of defence is to remove either both or one of these
elements.
Defence
The role of defence is justification of the actions of an individual who has been charged with
criminal offences. The duty of defence to remove either the actus Reus or the mens rea
element from an offence. If it is successful to remove one of the elements then the
prosecution would be prohibited from proving the offence of the person beyond reasonable
doubt23. However there are certain elements the required to make legal defences justified.
These elements include that the charge must be overt, imminent and illegal and in response to
such charge the defence is required to be proportional to the charges made and be necessary.
22 Anderson, J.M., Buenaventura, M. and Heaton, P., 2018. The effects of holistic defense on criminal justice
outcomes. Harv. L. Rev., 132, p.819.
23 Primus, E.B., 2017. Defense counsel and public defense. Defense Counsel and Public Defense, in Academy
for Justice, A Report on Scholarship and Criminal Justice Reform (Erik Luna ed., 2017 Forthcoming).

8CRIMINAL LAW
The roots of defences are found mostly under the provisions of the common law however
there are certain legislations which provide with the criminal defences. An example of such
statutory criminal defence is the defence of lawful correction against the charge of child
assault under the provisions in Crimes Act 190024. Some examples of defences used in the
criminal law are the defence of mental disorder intoxication, mistaking facts provocation,
infancy, entrapment and legal capacity or duty. There are four types of defences under the
criminal law- defence of justification, defence of excuse, defence of alibi and procedural
defence. The main focus of a defence that has been made on the basis of justification is the
offence itself however the main focus of a difference made on the basis of excuses is on the
defendant. The defence made on the basis of justification requires that the wrongful conduct
has been done by the defendant because of imminent threat of bodily harm or even death; or
the threat has been of a greater proximity then the harm that the defendant has caused by his
wrongful conduct. Justification defences require the defendant to be involve in the
circumstances without any fault of their own. Defences made on basis of excuse, on the other
hand, request the defendant to admit committing a wrongful conduct but with the belief that
as there was an absence of criminal intention therefore they would not be charged guilty. The
main point of difference between justification defence and excuse defence is that it by
providing justification defence the charges might be reduced, however, excuse defence result
in in removing the criminal liability of the person as a whole25. Furthermore, if a person does
any unlawful conduct with a good intention then that good intention would be considered as a
defence to the wrongful act committed by him. This has been provided in the section 74 of
the Penal Code26. Furtherance to this, section 89 of the Penal Code27 provides for the right of
a defendant towards private defence. An example of such private defence can be seen with
24 Crimes Act 1900
25 Mueller, C.B., Kirkpatrick, L.C. and Richter, L., 2018. § 3.13'Presumptions' in Criminal Cases. C. Mueller, L.
Kirkpatrick, & L. Richter, Evidence, 3.
26 Penal Code, s74
27 Penal Code, s89

9CRIMINAL LAW
the judgement in R v Rose (1884)28. English case it was observed that the defendant had shot
his father who was trying to dangerously assault on the mother of the defendant. In this
situation the case of homicide was dissolved on the private defence ground. The court held
that the defendant killed his father for stopping an assault on his mother which his father was
trying to commit. Therefore, the defence of private guard would be eligible on the defendant
and the case of homicide will not be entertained.
Another type of defence is the defence of alibi. An alibi provides the defendant with the
defence that at the time of crime the defendant was present elsewhere than the place where
the crime has been committed. In the case of Punchi Banda v The State it was observed by
the court that the burden of proof on the defendant is different in case of the defence of alibi
than that of the cases where the defendant can be observed as raising plea for mitigation or
exculpation. It has further been stated by the judges in this case that in situations when the
defendant raises plea for alibi and that plea has been accepted then there should be complete
acquittal of the defendant; in situations when the defendant raises plea for alibi and that plea
can be seen as raising reasonable doubt towards the case of the prosecution then and there
should be complete acquittal of the defendant; and in situations when the defendant raises
plea for alibi, then the defendant does not have any burden of proof towards the alibi29.
Procedural defences provide the defendant with the defense for arguing there case that they
should not be held as responsible for the charges made against them. Some examples of
procedural defence are collateral estoppel, double jeopardy, entrapment and selective
prosecution.
Conclusion
28 R v Rose (1884) 15 Cox 540
29 Keinan, A., Kivetz, R. and Netzer, O., 2016. The functional alibi. Journal of the Association for Consumer
Research, 1(4), pp.479-496.

10CRIMINAL LAW
Defence can be defined as the justification of action of an individual who has been charged
with a criminal sentencing. There are many types of defence present for criminal cases under
the provisions of the common law as well as statutory laws- defence of justification, defence
of excuse, defence of alibi and procedural defence.
Task 4.1 :
“In all Robbery there is theft” Do you agree? Discuss with reference to UK case
law, legislation and the SriLankan Penal Code.
Answer:
Introduction
Theft, generally, can be defined as taking property or services that are owned by someone
else without their consent or permission with an intention of depriving them from their
rightful ownership. Robbery, on the other hand, can be defined as the crime of of something
valuable for any individual by forcing them or threatening to force them.
In all Robbery there is theft
Both robbery and theft can be described as an individual taking money or property from
another person without their consent. The major point of difference between robbery and
theft is the use of force or the threat of use of force. Robbery is considered to be a more
serious category of offence than theft because it involves the use or threat of use of force.
30Three elements are present in robbery. The first element is to take the property of a person
in their presence. The second element in robbery is to use of threat to use violence or
30 Ormerod, D. and Laird, K., 2018. Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.

11CRIMINAL LAW
intimidation. The third and final element for robbery is the intention of depriving the owner
of the property permanently31.
Theft has been defined under the provisions of section 1 (1) of the Theft Act 196832. This
section provides that an individual would be considered as guilty of theft if they take any
property that belongs to any other person in a dishonest manner with the intention of
depriving the owner from the ownership of the property. Section 26 of the Criminal Justice
Act 199133 provides that a person committing theft would be sentenced to a maximum of 7
years of imprisonment. Robbery however is a common law crime. Section 366 of the Penal
Code of Srilanka 34provides that an individual would be considered as guilty of theft if they
take any property that belongs to any other person in a dishonest manner with the intention of
depriving the owner from the ownership of the property. The crime of theft and robbery are
often considered as same as illustrated in the judgment of Corcoran v Anderton (1980)35.
Section 379 of the Penal Code of Srilanka36 also provides that a crime of theft would be
considered as robbery if the person who attempts to take a possession from another person
harms or injures or threatens to harm or injure the other party in order to take possession of
the property.
Conclusion
Thus it can be observed from the above discussion that both the English law and the law of
Srilanka requires a robbery to be considered as a theft if all elements are observed as being
fulfilled.
31 Betts, G., 2019. Robbery and the principle of fair labelling. The Journal of Criminal Law, 83(3), pp.205-216.
32 Theft Act 1968, s.1(1)
33 Criminal Justice Act 1991, s.26
34 Penal Code of Srilanka, s.366
35 Corcoran v Anderton (1980) 71 Cr App R 104
36 Penal Code of Srilanka, s.379

12CRIMINAL LAW
Task 4.2 :
“Manslaughter is regarded as the basic charge in respect to a homicide and
murder as an aggravated crime of killing”
Discuss with Uk case law and legislation.
Answer:
Introduction
Under the provisions of the common law in the United Kingdom manslaughter is defined as
taking the life of an individual without any kind of malice or in any situation which would
not amount to murder. In other words, any kind of homicide which cannot be considered as
murder will be considered to be manslaughter.
Manslaughter
Any kind of homicide which cannot be considered as murder will be considered to be
manslaughter. Manslaughter can be observed as being of two types. The first type of
manslaughter is the voluntary manslaughter which includes that the defendant had the
intention of killing or injuring the victim seriously. The second type of manslaughter is in
situations where the defendant did not have any intention of harming or killing the victim.
There are three categories of manslaughter. 37The first category of manslaughter is the
unlawful act manslaughter which consists of the intended action of the defendant which is
considered as unlawful and which might lead to serious harm and eventually to death of a
37 Leigh, G.D., 2016. Moral responsibility and criminal liability for unforeseen death: reconstructing unlawful
and dangerous act manslaughter (Doctoral dissertation, Kingston University).

13CRIMINAL LAW
person. The second category is gross negligence manslaughter where the defendant is
observed to be in failure of their duty to act in a specified manner and because of such
negligence on the defendant’s part the victim dies. The third category is the subjectively
reckless manslaughter where the defendant acts in a manner which can be considered as
subjectively reckless and it causes the death of another individual. In the judgment of R v
Foye [2013]38 it was held that there is a reverse burden of proof on the defendant in case of
manslaughter.
For proving manslaughter the element of mens rea is not required. For providing that a
homicide was manslaughter and not murder criminal negligence of the person is required to
be established. Criminal negligence, however, do not constitute to the action of the defendant
that is unlawful. Criminal negligence can amount from both lawful and unlawful acts that are
committed by the defendant in an negligent manner.39 If a defendant is observed as being in
failure of committing an action that was provided to him as a duty under the law then also it
can give rise to criminal liability. Under the provisions of sections 224 and 225 (2) of the
Criminal Justice Act 200340 manslaughter has been considered as serious offence.
Conclusion
Both robbery and theft can be described as an individual taking money or property from
another person without their consent. The major point of difference between robbery and
theft is the use of force or the threat of use of force.
38 Foye v R [2013] EWCA Crim 475
39 Baker, D., 2017. Jogee: Jury Directions and the Manslaughter Alternative. Criminal Law Review, 1, pp.51-56.
40 Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss224, 225 (2)

14CRIMINAL LAW
Reference
Books
Hasitha, S. and Jain, A., 2019. Actus reus and mens rea.
Nelkin, D.K. and Rickless, S.C. eds., 2017. The Ethics and Law of Omissions. Oxford
University Press.
Ormerod, D. and Laird, K., 2018. Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Criminal Law. Oxford
University Press.
Robinson, P.H., 2017. Should the Criminal Law Abandon the Actus Reus-Mens Rea
Distinction?. In The Structure and Limits of Criminal Law (pp. 3-28). Routledge.
Turvey, B.E., 2014. Criminal profiling. The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology, pp.1-6.
Journals
Anderson, J.M., Buenaventura, M. and Heaton, P., 2018. The effects of holistic defense on
criminal justice outcomes. Harv. L. Rev., 132, p.819.
Baker, D., 2017. Jogee: Jury Directions and the Manslaughter Alternative. Criminal Law
Review, 1, pp.51-56.
Bartol, A.M. and Bartol, C.R., 2014. Criminal behavior: A psychological approach. Boston:
Pearson, c2014. xxiii, 644 pages: illustrations; 24 cm..
Brady, M.E., 2017. The Good Samaritan: A Superb Smithian Economist, But a Poor
Benthamite Utilitarian Economist. But a Poor Benthamite Utilitarian Economist (December
10, 2017).

15CRIMINAL LAW
Keiler, J., 2019. Actus Reus and Mens Rea: The elements of crime and the framework of
criminal liability. Comparative concepts of criminal law, (3), pp.107-120.
Keinan, A., Kivetz, R. and Netzer, O., 2016. The functional alibi. Journal of the Association
for Consumer Research, 1(4), pp.479-496.
Leigh, G.D., 2016. Moral responsibility and criminal liability for unforeseen death:
reconstructing unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter (Doctoral dissertation, Kingston
University).
Mueller, C.B., Kirkpatrick, L.C. and Richter, L., 2018. § 3.13'Presumptions' in Criminal
Cases. C. Mueller, L. Kirkpatrick, & L. Richter, Evidence, 3.
Primus, E.B., 2017. Defense counsel and public defense. Defense Counsel and Public
Defense, in Academy for Justice, A Report on Scholarship and Criminal Justice Reform (Erik
Luna ed., 2017 Forthcoming).
Roy, A. and Marsoof, A., 2017. Negligent Omissions As a Basis for Holding Internet
Intermediaries Liable for Infringements of Trade Mark Rights: Approaches Under the
English Common Law.
Schwartz, G., 2019. The ethics of omission. Think, 18(51), pp.117-121.
Shi, Y., 2018. Scope of Commission by Omission Crime. Chinese Journal of Law, (4), p.7.
Zacharski, M., 2018. Mens rea, the Achilles’ Heel of Criminal Law. The European
Legacy, 23(1-2), pp.47-59.
Case Laws
Attorney General v PYA Quarries [1957] 2 QB 169
Callow v Tillstone (1900) 64 JP 823 322

16CRIMINAL LAW
Corcoran v Anderton (1980) 71 Cr App R 104
Foye v R [2013] EWCA Crim 475
PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN V STORKWAIN LTD (1986) 2
All ER 635
R v Larsonneur (1933), 24 Cr App Rep 74
R v Lemon (or, Whitehouse v Lemon) [1979] 1 All ER 898
R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 37
R v Rose (1884) 15 Cox 540
R v Woollin [1999] AC 82
R v. Instan (1893) 1 QB 450
Sheldrake v. DPP [2004] UKHL 43
Legislation
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Justice Act 1991
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Penal Code of Srilanka
Theft Act 1968