Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. This chapter discusses the three special forms of criminal liability: strict liability (including absolute liability), vicarious liability, and corporate liability. A strict liability offence is an offence which does not require proof of at least one mens rea element. An absolute liability offence does not require proof of any mens rea elements. Vicarious liability imposes liability on the defendant for the acts or omissions of another person. Corporate liability relates to the liability of a company for a criminal offence.
Chapter
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the liability of parties who participate in the criminal acts of others. Liability can be split into four parts: those who are accessories, those who are joint perpetrators, those who are vicariously liable, and those who are corporations. Accessories are those who aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of the principal offence. Participants who enter a joint venture (also known as a joint unlawful enterprise) are liable for the crimes committed as part of that venture, unless one of the parties deliberately departs from the agreed plan. The doctrine of vicarious liability has a (limited) role in the criminal law. A corporation is a legal person, so criminal liability can be imposed on a corporation for many (although not all) crimes.
Chapter
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter reviews the actus reus elements of criminal offence. The actus reus consists of prohibited conduct (acts or omissions), prohibited circumstances, and/or prohibited consequences (results). A person can be criminally liable for omissions at common law, but imposing this liability can be controversial. Causation is a key part of consequence/result crimes. The prosecution must prove that the result was caused by the defendant. In order to do this, the chain of causation must first be established, and then consideration must be given to any intervention which might break the chain.
Chapter
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter reviews the actus reus elements of criminal offence. The actus reus consists of prohibited conduct (acts or omissions), prohibited circumstances, and/or prohibited consequences (results). A person can be criminally liable for omissions at common law, but imposing this liability can be controversial. Causation is a key part of consequence/result crimes. The prosecution must prove that the result was caused by the defendant. In order to do this, the chain of causation must first be established, and then consideration must be given to any intervention which might break the chain.
Chapter
This chapter begins by explaining the concept of an inchoate or ‘incomplete’ offence. Such an offence may occur when D does all that he or she can do to commit the crime (such as shooting at the victim), but simply fails to bring about the outcome. Alternatively, such an offence may occur when D is still at the stage of preparation for committing the offence, but has come so close to committing it that it would be right to call the acts in question an ‘attempt’ in themselves. The chapter then discusses the justifications for penalizing attempts at crimes, the elements of criminal attempt, the justifications for an offence of conspiracy, the elements of criminal conspiracy, encouraging or assisting crime, voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose, the relationship between substantive and inchoate crimes, and the place of inchoate liability.
Chapter
This chapter discusses the ways in which organizations and their members might be held liable in criminal law. It covers personal liability of individuals within an organization; vicarious liability; corporate liability: by breaching a statutory duty imposed on the organization, by committing strict liability offences, by being liable for the acts of individuals under the identification doctrine, and the specific statutory liability of organizations for homicide under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007; and liability of unincorporated associations.
Chapter
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the crime of strict liability. A strict liability offence is one which does not require mens rea in respect of at least one element of the actus reus. Strict liability is often referred to as no-fault liability. Strict liability is very rare at common law. Where a statute is silent as to mens rea, the judge must interpret the provision to decide if the offence has mens rea (the starting point) or is one of strict liability. There is a debate about whether the imposition of criminal liability in the absence of proof of fault can be justified.
Chapter
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the crime of strict liability. A strict liability offence is one which does not require mens rea in respect of at least one element of the actus reus. Strict liability is often referred to as no-fault liability. Strict liability is very rare at common law. Where a statute is silent as to mens rea, the judge must interpret the provision to decide if the offence has mens rea (the starting point) or is one of strict liability. There is a debate about whether the imposition of criminal liability in the absence of proof of fault can be justified.
Chapter
This chapter discusses a general approach to issues of causation in criminal law. Causation is an important feature in the study of crimes. It is especially so in cases of strict liability where, in the absence of mens rea elements, disputes over causation become the most critical issue in determining liability. The chapter examines some recent Supreme Court judgments in which the court has emphasized the important relationship between causation and fault.
Chapter
Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta, Laurel Baig, Mary Fan, Christopher Gosnell, and Alex Whiting
International criminal law (ICL) is a body of international rules designed both to proscribe certain categories of conduct (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, aggression, international terrorism) and to make those persons who engage in such conduct criminally liable. These rules consequently either authorize states, or impose upon them the obligation to prosecute and punish such criminal conducts. This chapter discusses the main features of ICL; the sources of ICL; and the notion of international crimes.
Chapter
Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta, Laurel Baig, Mary Fan, Christopher Gosnell, and Alex Whiting
This chapter discusses the notions of omission liability and superior responsibility. International criminal liability may arise not only as a result of a positive act but also from an omission; that is, the failure to take the required action. Omission is only criminalized when the law imposes a clear obligation to act and the person fails to do what is legally required. The post-Second World War tribunals recognized that both action and omission to act in accordance with a legal duty could fulfil the physical element (actus reus) of a crime. Additionally, the doctrine of superior responsibility (also referred to as command responsibility, since it originally developed in a military context) emerged in its modern form as a discrete and important type of omission liability in the post-war case law. Pursuant to this doctrine, a superior who omits to prevent or punish his subordinate’s criminal acts may be held criminally responsible.
Chapter
This chapter focuses on the meaning of actus reus and mens rea. It explains the constituents of an actus reus; the requirement of an act; the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea; and criminal liability without an act.
Chapter
This chapter considers the question of whether, and if so, how, the criminal law should impose liability for omissions. It discusses the courts’ approach to the imposition of liability for omissions and presents cases to demonstrate the difficulty of distinguishing between acts and omissions. It also addresses the link between omissions and causation.
Chapter
This chapter examines the issue of complicity. ‘Complicity’ arises when two or more people agree to commit an offence which is then committed by one of more of them, or when a person plays a supporting role in the commission of an offence. The discussions cover the distinction between principals (those who commit the crime itself) and accessories (those who assist or encourage its commission). The discussion involves addressing complex questions about the conduct element in complicity, the fault element in complicity, joint ventures, and accessorial liability for different results. Also covered are derivative liability, the ‘missing link’, and special defences to complicity.
Chapter
This chapter begins with a discussion of the law on corporate criminality, covering the difficulty in convicting companies of crimes; corporate killing; and vicarious liability. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 created a new offence of corporate manslaughter. This can be committed where the way in which a company’s activities are managed or organized amounts to a gross negligence and causes someone’s death. In a limited number of crimes, a company can be guilty in respect of the acts of one of its employees under the doctrine of vicarious liability. The second part of the chapter focuses on theoretical issues in corporate liability, covering the reality of corporate crime; the clamour for corporate liability; whether a company should be guilty of a crime; and what form corporate crime should take.
Chapter
Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta, Laurel Baig, Mary Fan, Christopher Gosnell, and Alex Whiting
This chapter discusses the two major theories that are currently in use in international criminal law to address group criminality: joint criminal enterprise; and co-perpetration by control over the crime. Under these theories, each participant will be treated as a principal, provided that he played a sufficiently important role in the commission of the crime. Gradations of culpability may be taken into account at the sentencing stage. In addition, although joint criminal enterprise focuses on shared intention and co-perpetration focuses on shared action, the application of either theory will yield the same result in most cases. Indirect perpetration is then analyzed.
Chapter
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses what criminal liability is and is not about; the meaning of burden of proof; and the reform of criminal law. The study of criminal law is the study of liability. It is not about whether a person can be charged with a crime, or what sentence he may face if convicted, but rather it deals with whether a person is innocent or guilty of an offence (ie whether or not he can be convicted). The burden of proof means the requirement on a party to adduce sufficient evidence to persuade the fact-finder (the magistrates or the jury), to a standard set by law, that a particular fact is true.
Chapter
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses what criminal liability is and is not about; the meaning of burden of proof; and the reform of criminal law. The study of criminal law is the study of liability. It is not about whether a person can be charged with a crime, or what sentence he may face if convicted, but rather it deals with whether a person is innocent or guilty of an offence (ie whether or not he can be convicted). The burden of proof means the requirement on a party to adduce sufficient evidence to persuade the fact-finder (the magistrates or the jury), to a standard set by law, that a particular fact is true.
Chapter
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the liability of parties who participate in the criminal acts of others. Liability can be split into four parts: those who are accessories, those who are joint perpetrators, those who are vicariously liable, and those who are corporations. Accessories are those who aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of the principal offence. Participants who enter a joint venture (also known as a joint unlawful enterprise) are liable for the crimes committed as part of that venture, unless one of the parties deliberately departs from the agreed plan. The doctrine of vicarious liability has a (limited) role in the criminal law. A corporation is a legal person, so criminal liability can be imposed on a corporation for many (although not all) crimes.
Chapter
This chapter focuses on identifying the circumstances in which an offence will be construed as one of strict liability—that is, where the Crown will not have to establish mens rea in relation to every element of the actus reus. The following controversies are examined: the presumption of mens rea, that is, unless Parliament has indicated otherwise, the appropriate mental element is an unexpressed ingredient of every statutory offence; how to ascertain whether an offence is in fact one of strict liability; whether strict liability infringes Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); and the merits of strict liability offences.
