Criminal Law Report: Ivey, Non-Fatal, and Drug Offences Analysis

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of criminal law, focusing on non-fatal offences, drug offences, and the impact of the Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] case on the dishonesty test. The report begins with a letter of advice to Fred regarding a non-fatal offence, examining the application of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861 and the relevance of his medical condition as a potential defense. It then evaluates a case involving Sally and Cody, assessing Cody's liability for drug offences and the resulting death of Sally, exploring the concepts of actus reus and mens rea. Finally, the report delves into the Ivey case, discussing its impact on the dishonesty test in criminal proceedings, highlighting the Supreme Court's shift away from the Ghosh test and its implications for subjective defenses in criminal law.

Criminal Law
Student’s Name:
Student’s ID:

1
Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................2
Part A...........................................................................................................................................................2
Letter of advice to Fred...........................................................................................................................2
Part B...........................................................................................................................................................4
Liable for any offence..............................................................................................................................4
Part C...........................................................................................................................................................6
Impact of Ivey on the dishonesty test......................................................................................................6
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................8
References...................................................................................................................................................9

2
Introduction
The primary objective of the paper is to obtain knowledge regarding different case laws and
evaluate offence related to the given case scenario. It will focus on different legislations comes
under criminal law and determine the concepts of mens era and actus reus. It will represent a
letter of advice to Fred based on non-fatal offences and analyze the influence of Ivey on the
dishonesty test in criminal proceedings.
Part A
Letter of advice to Fred
To
Fred
Warwickshire
Date:
Subject: Advice for non-fatal offence
Sir,
It is observed that the Arden Music Festival used to organize each year in the countryside in
which a number of visitors take part and stay in tents. The festival was criticized for damaging
the environment of the village. The protest march was organized in order to raise awareness of
the environmental impact of music festivals. In the protest march, Fred and Eliza had
participated. It was found that Fred had suffered from a medical condition and he forgot to take
his medication on the day of the protest march. Igor was shouting at the protestors and thus, Fred
shouts at Igor because he has not taken his medication. Moreover, Fred throw a can full of cola at
Igor which made him injured. Non-fatal offence means offence in which the person directly
attacks the other person which do not cause death to the other1. Fred would be accused with
producing serious bodily harm with resolved as the non-fatal offence. Under section 18 of the
Offence Against the Person Act 1861, it is considered as the severe non-fatal offence contrary to
1 Charles Anderson McCombe, 'Non-Fatal Offences against the Person: Complexities,
Difficulties and Reform' (2017) 8.

3
the individual2. As per the act, the person can be sentenced to prison for long years of life.
According to this non-fatal offence, Fred could be seen as the person who intent to cause serious
harm to Igor.
According to Non-fatal offences alongside the person act 1997, any person uses any substance to
harm others is charged as a criminal3. Assault is considered as an crime under section 18 of the
offence against the person act 1861 that represents wounding with intent is the serious form of
crime. In order to face a charge of section 18 assault, a defendant may have used an offensive
weapon against the victim, made prior threats and launch a planned or repeat attack4. However,
in the given case, Fred had used a can of cola to throw at Igor and cause injury to him. By
considering such case, Fred would be charged with section 18 assault of non-fatal offences as an
individual unlawfully because any harm to another person with intent shall be liable to be
convicted of guilty5.
It is identified that the criminal liability could be set out for the non-fatal offence charged on
Fred. One of the case law related to non-fatal offences was R v Belfon [1976] in which the
offender had hacked the victim with a razor that causes serious injuries to face and chest6. The
court apprehended that it was necessary to prove the specific intent for establishing offence
under section 18. With references to the defendant, the harm caused seemed to be insufficient,
and thus, the defendant could not be charged with assault offence. It is advised to Fred that he
should use his medical condition in order to defend himself from criminal liability. As Fred had
forgotten to take his medication on the day of the protest march, he became disorientated and
violent when he noticed Igor shouting at the protestors. The mistake of not taking medication
made him become violent and throw a can of cola at Igor. Besides this, being the lawyer of the
defendant, the person can consider not taking medicine as a defence for Fred.
It is identified that Igor has claimed that Fred intent to harm him seriously. Fred could defend the
claim of Igor by not using proper medication at the time of the protest march. Moreover, the
2 Offence Against the Person Act 1861, s.18.
3 Stavros Demetriou, 'Not Giving Up The Fight' (2016) 80.
4 Meredith Blake, 'Protecting Older Persons From Life-Threatening And Fatal Abuse: Should
Western Australian Criminal Law Do More' (2019) 45.
5 Why It Matters and How It Can Be Done, 'Comparing Serious Violent Crime In The United
States And England And Wales' (2017) 332.
6 R v Belfon [1976] 1 WLR 741.

4
defendant could appeal to the court that because of his medical condition, he became violated
and threw the cola can at Igor. The court would hear his appeal and consider his actions based on
subjective and objective standards. When committing injury to Igor, specific along with partial
defence may reduce the criminal liability to the non-fatal offence. In regard to loss of control,
section 54(1) indicates that the offender may have loss self-control because of irregularity of
mental functioning, which could be supported by medicinal evidence7. Applying the law to the
case scenario, Fred lose his self-control when Igor shout at the protestors and caused injury to
him8. It would also appear that the intent of Fred was not to cause any bodily harm to the other,
but the state of mind shows that actions were extremely violated and severely wounded Igor.
Part B
Liable for any offence
In the given case scenario, it is identified that Sally and Cody stayed in a tent to attend the Arden
Music Festival. During the music festival, Cody had bought a hallucinogenic class A drugs for
enjoying the event. However, Cody gave a strong dose of drugs to Sally than usual, and as a
consequence, within four hours, Sally faced negative reaction, which causes deterioration in her
body. She began to scream loudly in pain, but Cody did not take her to medical help because of
fear of police trouble. The health of Sally consistently getting worse, and as a consequence, she
died. After viewing the case scenario, it is mandatory that Cody would be liable for drug offence
as he had purchased Class A drugs to contrary to section 4(1) of the Misuse of drugs act 1971.
It is considered illegal to purchase or supply drugs and thus, Cody would be highly liable for
drug offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 19719. The act purposes of controlling the use as
well as the distribution of harmful drugs and prevent misuse of such drugs10. The parents of Sally
may put criminal charges for drug offences on Cody, which include offences of drug possession.
Cody could be punished for more than 14 years due to the use of Class A drugs. Moreover, in
this case, due to overdose of drugs death of Sally occurred, and thus, Cody would be charged the
7 Amy Kirby, Jessica Jacobson and Gillian Hunter, 'Prosecuting Joint Enterprise Cases: Seeking
Ways Through The Fog?' (2016) 79.
8 BRIANNA CHESSER, 'A Problem-Based Learning Curriculum And The Teaching Of The
Criminal Law' (2016) 2.
9 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s.4.
10 Damon Barrett, 'International Child Rights Mechanisms And The Death Penalty For Drug
Offences' (2017) 17.

5
case of first-degree murder. The first degree murder was charged on Cody because he
consistently taking photographs of Sally while she was struggling to take breath instead of taking
her to the doctor or seeking medical aid. It is found that Cody was guilty of drug offence which
would sentence him to lifetime imprisonment.
Mens rea refers to the intent an individual has behind while committed a crime as per criminal
law11. On the other hand, actus reus refers to the action that the individual takes to perform the
criminal act. As per the model penal code, there are four diverse levels of mens era, which
include negligence, recklessness, knowledge and purpose. Under criminal law, the actus reus
contains all the components of crime except thinking of the offender. In the given case, the
knowledge element and negligence level could be identified. Because lack of action of Cody
cause the death of Sally and he neglect her to take to the medical assistance. Mens rea means
guilty mind when exist concurrently with actus reus develop criminal liability for the
defendant12. According to section 22(1) of the criminal code states that person commits homicide
or meet actus reus when directly or indirectly cause the death of the human being. The rationale
behind the concept of mens rea is that society should not penalize those who unknowingly cause
injury to the other13. Actus reus states that people should penalize only bad performances instead
of bad opinions. Under criminal law, it is necessary to consider the physical act of the crime
along with the mental intent to conduct the crime14. Actus reus contain three main elements of
the crime which involve conduct, outcomes and situations15. One of the case law based on actus
reus was R v Smith [1959] in which the offender was engaged in a fight with a fellow soldier and
wounded the victim during the fight. As a result, the victim was taken to the hospital but died.
The perpetrator was accused with murder, but he claimed that the victim had not been treated
properly by the doctor. The court states that the stabbing of the defendant was the main cause of
the death of the victim, and thus, he was condemned of murder.
11 Paul H Robinson, 'Should The Criminal Law Abandon The Actus Reus-Mens Rea Distinction?'
[2017].
12 Natalie S. Gordon and Mark R. Fondacaro, 'Rethinking The Voluntary Act Requirement:
Implications From Neuroscience And Behavioral Science Research' (2018) 36.
13 Marcia Baron, 'Negligence, Mens Rea, And What We Want The Element Of Mens Rea To
Provide' [2019].
14 Fiona Donson and Catherine O’Sullivan, 'Building Block or Stumbling Block? Teaching Actus
Reus and Mens Rea in Criminal Law' [2016].
15 Alexandra Cooper, 'Heavy Weapons In The War On Drugs: Serious Drug Offence Certificates
And Confiscation Orders' (2016) 36.

6
Similarly, in the given case of Sally and Cody, both actus reus and mens rea concurrently exist,
and Cody should be liable to drug offence under the criminal code of law. Moreover, the death of
Sally occurred only due to the heavy dose of Class A Drugs given by Cody and lack of medical
aid on time. Cody would be held responsible for the death of Sally because of his negligence and
reckless behavior and charged with murder in the criminal act. Cody meets the mens rea and
actus reus for the criminal felony. Under the criminal act of drug offence, Cody would be
charged with fines and lifetime prison for possession of drugs and death of Sally.
Part C
Impact of Ivey on the dishonesty test
In the Case of Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017], the Supreme Court has considered the issue of
dishonesty because Mr. Ivey had played card games in the casino and won over 7.7 million
pounds, but he rejected to make payment to the casino as the way he played the game was
covered in video footage. Thus, Mr. Ivey has filed a civil law suit against the casino for
demanding payment. However, the casino resisted the case based on that Ivey had cheated on
them. Hence, the court has decided to conduct the dishonesty test to make it clear that Mr. Ivey
cheated the casino. The Supreme Court decided to have different tests for dishonesty though it
was a civil case. Therefore, the court chose to apply civil law test for dishonesty but it has
identified few issue with Ghosh test that the test rose the counter-intuitive outcome16.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case has brought down a milestone variation in the
criminal law of dishonesty. The court had decided to use dishonesty test in all upcoming criminal
proceedings and considered the Ghosh test as unreliable for case proceedings17. Moreover, the
court redefined the explanation of dishonesty and considered that untruthfulness under Ivey case
involves a subjective step as the panel has to select the actual information of the defendant which
would influence the deliberation whether the suspect could be impartially or subjectively
dishonest. In the case of Ivey, the suspect used a card skill to win the game, which was subjected
to gambling. Dishonesty test under criminal law would erode the availability of subjective
defences and increasing the frequency of prosecution for crime offence against individuals as
well as businesses. It was identified that no dispute took place between Mr. Ivey and Genting
16 R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2
17 Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67

7
casino because Ivey used edge sorting as a legitimate technique for winning the game. But his
mental state could amount to cheating under the criminal offence of cheating, and thus,
dishonesty test in criminal law began to be recognized. Although the case was civil case, the
court has formulated dishonesty test to determine dishonesty of Mr. Ivey in civil along with
criminal events.
The case of Ivey reflected that the Supreme Court held two steps to determine the dishonesty of
the defendant. The first step was that they must establish the real state of a person’s awareness to
the proofs and the second step was that they must determine the behavior of the individual was
dishonest by applying unbiased standards18. Besides this, the decision of the case shows
dishonesty offences in criminal law, but the defendant may struggler to ignore criminal liability
as per his personal perspectives of dishonesty. Earlier, the dishonesty test was laid down in the
case of R v Ghosh in which the trial had to prove that the movements of the suspect were
dishonest based on objective principles of realistic people and the defendant aware that usual
authentic person would regard the act as dishonest. However, in the case of Ivey, the question
arose whether Mr. Ivey had cheated the casino within section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005 and
thus showed a criminal offence of cheating. Mr. Ivey had argued that cheating contain
dishonesty, but he had not acted dishonestly to win the game19. The case of Ivey had significantly
impacted the law on dishonesty which make it easy for the solicitors as well as the public to
understand the meaning of dishonesty in criminal law.
Moreover, Ivey is considered as a seismic change in the English law, and it signifies a critical
restructuring of the law that governs various materialistic offences. As a consequence of the
issue of dishonesty test in Ghosh case, the court had abolished the second consideration of the
test and states that the conduct will be judged based on the objective standards although the
dishonest state of mind shows the subjective mental state20. Besides this, the criminal law started
to treat the dishonesty question as a conduct element instead of a mental element. The major
change incorporated by Ivey is diminishing of the contemplation emphasized the subjective
appreciation of defendant on objectively dishonest behavior. The new test on dishonesty offers
18 Mei Li and Emily Ho, 'Uprooting the Invasive Ivey: Reversing the Effect of Ivey V Genting
Casinos Ltd on the Definition of Dishonest Appropriation in the English Law of Theft' (2019)
22.
19 Gambling Act 2005, s,42.
20 Matthew Hall and Thomas Smith, 'The Disappearing Ghosh Test' (2017) 181.

8
less room for activity and instead develop a more helpful tactic for the panel to adopt. In
addition, Ivey case had correctly represented the criminal law based on the dishonesty test.
However, the new test for dishonesty has made it relaxed for the prosecutors to prove dishonesty
of the defendant by increasing attention on the objective principles of honesty. Ivey test on
dishonesty considers that the court will penalize those individuals whose behavior falls below the
objective criteria of honesty under the criminal law. A new Ivey test for dishonesty has little
influence on the cases of theft and robbery and objective test is significant in all criminal
proceedings.
Conclusion
The paper has helped me in gaining a better understanding of the criminal law and civil law
proceedings. It determine the offence to which Cody held liable for not getting any medical help
for Sally. It provides a better understanding of various offences under criminal law such as drug
offence, non-fatal offence against the person and dishonesty offence. Moreover, the criminal law
cases must consider the concepts of actus reus and mens rea for prove that the perpetrator
conduct the crime with intent. In addition, Ivey on dishonesty test significantly impact the other
criminal proceedings.

9
References
Primary Sources
Cases
'Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner - Ivey V Genting Casinos: Supreme Court Overhauls The Ghosh
Test For Criminal Dishonesty' (Bclplaw.com, 2020)
<https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/thought-leadership/ivey-v-genting-casinos-supreme-
court-overhauls-the-ghosh-test-for-criminal-dishonesty.html> accessed 4 January 2020
'Regina V Belfon: 1976' (swarb.co.uk, 2017) <https://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-belfon-1976/>
accessed 6 January 2020
'The New Test For Dishonesty: The Impact Of Ivey V Genting Casinos | Brett Wilson LLP'
(Brett Wilson LLP, 2018) <https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/new-test-dishonesty-
impact-ivey-v-genting-casinos/> accessed 4 January 2020
Legislation
'Drug Offences' (Citizensinformation, 2020)
<https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/
drug_offences.html> accessed 4 January 2020
'Offences Against The Person Act 1861' (Legislation.gov.uk, 2020)
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/contents> accessed 4 January 2020
Statutory Instruments
'Gambling Act 2005' (Legislation.gov.uk, 2020)
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/pdfs/ukpga_20050019_en.pdf> accessed
6 January 2020
Secondary sources
Baron M, 'Negligence, Mens Rea, And What We Want The Element Of Mens Rea To Provide'
[2019] Criminal Law and Philosophy
Barrett D, 'International Child Rights Mechanisms And The Death Penalty For Drug Offences'
(2017) 17 Human Rights Law Review

10
Blake M, 'Protecting Older Persons From Life-Threatening And Fatal Abuse: Should Western
Australian Criminal Law Do More' (2019) 45 UW Austl. L. Rev
CHESSER B, 'A Problem-Based Learning Curriculum And The Teaching Of The Criminal Law'
(2016) 2 Journal of Criminal Law
Cooper A, 'Heavy Weapons In The War On Drugs: Serious Drug Offence Certificates And
Confiscation Orders' (2016) 36 Proctor
Demetriou S, 'Not Giving Up The Fight' (2016) 80 The Journal of Criminal Law
Donson FC O’Sullivan, 'Building Block Or Stumbling Block? Teaching Actus Reus And Mens
Rea In Criminal Law' [2016] In The Teaching of Criminal Law
Gordon NM Fondacaro, 'Rethinking The Voluntary Act Requirement: Implications From
Neuroscience And Behavioral Science Research' (2018) 36 Behavioral Sciences & the
Law
Hall MT Smith, 'The Disappearing Ghosh Test' (2017) 181 Criminal Law and Justice Weekly
Kirby A, J JacobsonG Hunter, 'Prosecuting Joint Enterprise Cases: Seeking Ways Through The
Fog?' (2016) 79 British Society of Criminology Newsletters
Li ME Ho, 'Uprooting The Invasive Ivey: Reversing The Effect Of Ivey V Genting Casinos Ltd
On The Definition Of Dishonest Appropriation In The English Law Of Theft' (2019) 22
Trinity CL Rev
Matters WH Done, 'Comparing Serious Violent Crime In The United States And England And
Wales' (2017) 332 American Exceptionalism in Crime and Punishment
McCombe C, 'Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person: Complexities, Difficulties And Reform'
(2017) 8 QMLJ
Robinson P, 'Should The Criminal Law Abandon The Actus Reus-Mens Rea Distinction?' [2017]
In The Structure and Limits of Criminal Law

11