Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Principle in Formulating Rules of Criminal Law - Coggle Diagram
Principle in Formulating Rules of Criminal Law
fair labelling
offence person convicted of must correctly describe kind of crime committed
b/c may be moral stigma attached to conviction
labelling must be fair in description of offence committed
unfair to label someone a murderer when they didn't intend to kill
important for label to differentiate offence committed from other offences
e.g. can differentiate between s47 OAPA 1861 + s20 OAPA 1861 as level of harm caused by each offence clearly described + differentiated
correspondence
where actus reus + mens rea don't correspond, liability of accused shouldn't exceed harm done as result of own mens rea
e.g. for theft actus reus is that D must appropriate property belonging to another + mens rea is that D must intend to permanently deprive other of property dishonestly so it's clear mens rea directly relates to actus reus
some offences fail to comply with correspondence principle
murder as mens rea is intent to kill or cause GBH but for offence to comply with correspondence principle person should only be guilty if they intended to kill as mens rea would then correspond with actus reus by referring to consequence of death
unlawful act manslaughter as mens rea doesn't require any recognition on part of D that their conduct likely to cause harm
sections 47 + 20 OAPA 1861 as in both these offences liability may be incurred where harm intended or foreseen by D was less than harm caused
maximum certainty
law should be as certain as possible
if it's not known what elements constitute a crime, then it's not fair person could be convicted of that crime
R v Misra and Srivastava
challenged convictions on basis elements of gross negligence manslaughter were too uncertain + relied on report published by Law Commission that said test for gross negligence manslaughter was circular
Court of Appeal rejected challenge on basis earlier case of R v Adomako had made elements of offence clear
no retrospective liability
where particular conduct not offence at time D does conduct, it's unfair to convict of offence
European Convention on Human Rights Article 7(1) states that "no one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which didn't constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at time when it was committed"
prevents gov. from creating law to make person guilty even though act not offence when done
CR v UK
challenge made in European Court of Human Rights under Article 7 where D convicted of raping his wife
challenge to conviction on grounds offence didn't exist until House of Lords decision he was guilty of it
challenge unsuccessful on grounds there'd been earlier cases where offence beginning to be recognised + offence was one which supported fundamental objective of ECHR