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 following general defences: infancy, insanity, automatism, intoxication (involuntary and voluntary), and mistake. Children under the age of ten are conclusively presumed incapable of committing a criminal offence. Insanity (insane automatism) is concerned with the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offence. Automatism is available where the defendant suffers a total loss of control or is unaware of what he is doing. Involuntary intoxication may be a defence to any offence if the defendant does not have the mens rea for that offence. Voluntary intoxication is no defence to a basic intent offence. A mistake as to civil law may negate the mens rea of an offence.
Chapter
13. Defences I: incapacity and negating the elements of the offence
Chapter
8. Corporate and vicarious liability
This chapter focuses on the potential criminal liability of organizations, particularly corporations. Corporations have a separate legal identity and are treated in law as having a legal personality distinct from the people who make up the corporation. Therefore, in theory at least, criminal liability may be imposed on the corporation separately from any liability imposed on the individual members. There are currently six ways in which a corporation or its directors may be prosecuted: personal liability of corporate directors, etc; strict liability offences; statutory offences imposing duties on corporations; vicarious liability; the identification doctrine; and statutory liability of corporate officers. The chapter also discusses the limits of corporate liability, the distinction between vicarious liability and personal duty, the application of vicarious liability, the delegation principle, and the ‘attributed act’ principle. The chapter examines the failure-to-prevent offences found in the Bribery Act 2010 and the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and the most recent forms of offence created in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
Chapter
9. Mental conditions, intoxication, and mistake
This chapter considers the most commonly occurring ‘mental condition defences’, focusing on the pleas of insanity, intoxication, and mistake. It also examines the relationship between mental condition defences, insanity, and unfitness to be tried, and explains the Law Commission’s recommendations for reforming unfitness and other mental condition defences. It explores the test of insanity, disease of the mind (insanity) versus external factors (sane automatism), insane delusions and insanity, burden of proof, function of the jury, self-induced automatism, intoxication as a denial of criminal responsibility, voluntary and involuntary intoxication, dangerous or non-dangerous drugs in basic intent crime, and intoxication induced with the intention of committing crime.
Chapter
R (Monica) v DPP [2018] EWHC 3508 (QB), Queen’s Bench Division
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (Monica) v DPP. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
R v Melin [2019] EWCA Crim 557, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Melin [2019] EWCA Crim 557, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
9. Mental conditions, intoxication and mistake
David Ormerod and Karl Laird
This chapter considers the most commonly occurring ‘mental condition defences’, focusing on the pleas of insanity, intoxication and mistake. The common law historically made a distinction between justification and excuse, at least in relation to homicide. It is said that justification relates to the rightness of the act but to excuse as to the circumstances of the individual actor. The chapter examines the relationship between mental condition defences, insanity and unfitness to be tried, and explains the Law Commission’s most recent recommendations for reforming unfitness and other mental condition defences. It explores the test of insanity, disease of the mind (insanity) versus external factor (sane automatism), insane delusions and insanity, burden of proof, function of the jury, self-induced automatism, intoxication as a denial of criminal responsibility, voluntary and involuntary intoxication, dangerous or non-dangerous drugs in basic intent crime and intoxication induced with the intention of committing crime.
Chapter
3. Mens rea
Michael J. Allen and Ian Edwards
Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provides an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. Mens rea refers to the mental element necessary for a particular crime. This may differ from one crime to another, and the definition of each crime must be examined to determine what state of mind is required. This chapter discusses the meaning of intention, knowledge, recklessness, wilfulness, direct intent, oblique intent, ulterior intent, transferred malice, and mistake. These mens rea topics raise important questions about the extent to which a person is responsible and therefore deserving of blame and punishment. A Law in Context feature examines critically the debates between those who favour subjectivist and objectivist approaches to mens rea, with particular reference to reform of the offence of unlawful act manslaughter.
Chapter
3. Mens rea
Michael J. Allen and Ian Edwards
Course-focused and contextual, Criminal Law provides a succinct overview of the key areas on the law curriculum balanced with thought-provoking contextual discussion. Mens rea refers to the mental element necessary for a particular crime. This may differ from one crime to another and the definition of each crime must be examined to determine what state of mind is required. This chapter discusses the meaning of intention, knowledge, recklessness, wilfulness, direct intent, oblique intent, ulterior intent, transferred malice, and mistake. These mens rea topics raise important questions about the extent to which a person is responsible and therefore deserving of blame and punishment. A revised and updated ‘The law in context’ feature examines critically the debates between those who favour subjectivist and objectivist approaches to mens rea, with particular reference to reform of the offence of unlawful act manslaughter.
Chapter
14. Defences I
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 examines the defences of age, insanity, automatism, intoxication, and mistake. If D is under the age of ten, he is deemed incapable of criminal liability. Insanity is where D proves he had a disease of mind which caused a defect of reason so that D did not know the nature and quality of his act or that it was wrong. Non-insane automatism is an assertion by D that the prosecution cannot prove the actus reus of the offence because D was not in control of his muscular movements. Intoxication rarely succeeds as a defence. Involuntary intoxication is a defence if D does not form mens rea. Voluntary intoxication is a defence only if D is charged with a specific intent crime and D did not form mens rea. Mistake is a defence provided the mistake prevents D forming mens rea.
