Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Few basic questions regarding Criminal law?

Just a few quick questions :smile:

Whilst discussing the mens rea, most notably recklessness, should we be using the test of Cunningham [1957] or R v G [2003]? As I had read somewhere, that you should only use R v G [2003] for offences of criminal damage, and Cunningham for other offences, is this advisable?

Whilst working through the paper, should we have to discuss why we haven't followed a certain path? (I.e. D did not omit from a duty, as he owed no duty to V who he had run over in a tractor and that he satisfies the requirements under both factual and legal causation.)

Furthermore, would we have to go through the process of factual and legal causation before then moving onto recklessness?

When applying diminished responsibility do we have to base it primarily on HA 1957 and state that it has been amended by C&JA 2009? Or do we just use the sections as provided by the C&JA 2009?

For unlawful act manslaughter, what case has introduced the criteria? (i.e. crime was committed by D, act was dangerous, act caused V's death)

Any answers are greatly appreciated!

Reply 1

Forum User

Original post by Debdener

[*]Whilst discussing the mens rea, most notably recklessness, should we be using the test of Cunningham [1957] or R v G [2003]? As I had read somewhere, that you should only use R v G [2003] for offences of criminal damage, and Cunningham for other offences, is this advisable?
[*]Whilst working through the paper, should we have to discuss why we haven't followed a certain path? (I.e. D did not omit from a duty, as he owed no duty to V who he had run over in a tractor and that he satisfies the requirements under both factual and legal causation.)
[*]Furthermore, would we have to go through the process of factual and legal causation before then moving onto recklessness?
[*]When applying diminished responsibility do we have to base it primarily on HA 1957 and state that it has been amended by C&JA 2009? Or do we just use the sections as provided by the C&JA 2009?
[*]For unlawful act manslaughter, what case has introduced the criteria? (i.e. crime was committed by D, act was dangerous, act caused V's death)

Any answers are greatly appreciated!

1) Recklessness - you're right but they are the same test so it's purely a technical point.

2) Duties - bad example, you always owe a duty (in criminal law) not to cause someone harm by an act. This isn't an omission not to run them over but the act of running them over with a tractor. Only discuss duties where there is a relevant omission.

3) Assuming you are talking about a result offence, if D did not cause the prohibited result then there is no point in discussing whether D was reckless. Of course if D intended to cause the prohibited result then there may be an attempt, but you can't 'recklessly attempt', so there is no crime that D could be convicted of if he was merely reckless.

4) Diminished responsibility is defined in the Homicide Act 1957. It is true that the defence was changed by the C&JA but that act simply changed the sections within the Homicide Act (unlike loss of self-control which is contained in the C&JA).

5) Wouldn't worry about which case introduced it (unless you are likely to get an essay on the history of manslaughter...), leading case is DPP v Newbury & Jones.