The best key to pass criminal law in university

Reverse proof burden:

Answer: Only for insanity and diminished responsibility

How is guilt proved?

Answer: Mens rea can be proved because the fact-finder (usually the jury for our purposes) infers it from what D did or did not do. Section 8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 - A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, draw ing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.

Lambert [2002] 2 AC 545 D

Answer: appealed against his conviction for possession of a class A drug with intent to supply. He had been found in possession of a bag containing a drug but said he neither knew, nor suspected, nor had reason to suspect the nature of the contents of the bag. The question on appeal was whether he had to prove his lack of knowledge of the contents, or if the prosecution had to prove he did know. The section in issue was s 28 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Section 28, insofar as it contained an express reverse proof burden, should be \'read down\' as imposing an evidential burden only on the accused (note: this is in fact obiter as the majority of the House held that Human Rights Act 1998 did not have retrospective application).

Sheldrake v DPP

Answer: D was convicted of drink-driving. He appealed on the ground that the defence, which cast upon the defendant the burden of proving that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle while over the limit, violated his right to a fair trial under Article 6. House of Lords held that the allocation of a proof burden to the accused did not violate Article 6. It was directed to a legitimate objective (the prevention of death, injury, and damage caused by unfit drivers); and the likelihood of the defendant driving was a matter so closely conditioned by his own knowledge as to make it much more appropriate for him to prove on a balance of probabilities that he would not have been likely to drive.

Woolmington [1935] AC 462

Answer: D was charged with murder. The trial judge directed the jury that once the prosecution had proved a person had died at D\'s hands; it was for D to prove it was not murder. Viscount Sankey held that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and that includes proof of each element of the crime, and the elements of any defence, other than the defence of insanity and other \'statutory provisions\'. \"Golden thread\" case.

Definitional elements of gross negligence manslaughter

Answer: In Adomako [1994], Lord Mackay, the then Lord Chancellor, stated we can therefore conclude that the elements of the offence are: 1.a duty of care exists between D and V; 2. which is breached; 3. breach involves a risk of death; 4. which caused V to die; and 5. the jury finds the breach serious enough to be a crime.

Definitional elements of criminal damage

Answer: s 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971: without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged.

Actus nonfacit reum nisi mens sit rea -

Answer: \'the act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty\'.

Elements of a Crime

Answer: -The Physical Elements -The Mental Element

Actus Reus

Answer: -Physical elements of a crime -Guilty action -Physically harming someone or committing the criminal act