 |
|
General Principles of Criminal Liability
Exercise 1.Read the text and answer the following questions:
1. What is a general requirement to be criminally responsible?
2. What is liability generally imposed upon?
3. What are the main principles of criminal liability?
There is a general requirement that in order to be criminally responsible the defendant must have done something, rather than been something or had something done to him or her. The definition of the crime will specify what «the act» is. Liability is generally imposed upon «acts» but not upon «omissions». No liability is imposed for doing nothing. It applies to the common law and to the Construction of statutes, but there are exceptional cases where a duty to act is imposed. They are as follows:
a) duty to act imposed by statute or other public duty. There are specific offences which impose a duty to act: to fail to provide for a child in one's care, to fail to provide a specimen of breath when lawfully requested or for a policeman on duty to fail to act to prevent crime;
b) duty to act imposed by contract, an undertaking of responsibility or close relationship. Liability has been imposed for manslaughter where defendants have failed to take care to fulfil their contracts of employment or to take care for those who are helpless or a close relative;
c) duty to act imposed because of prior conduct. If a defendant accidentally sets in train a series of events leading to a particular harm and then fails to avert the harm, criminal liability can be imposed;
e) acting and not acting. There may be circumstance in which the body of an actor is going through particular motions but where he or she is not properly said to be acting. Where another actor is actually forcing the movement by holding the defendant, the latter will not be said to be acting.
Exercise 2. Give the English equivalents for the following:
– ответчик, подсудимый;
– уголовная ответственность;
– особые правонарушения;
– предотвратить преступление;
– простое убийство;
– обстоятельство.
Text 3
Defences
Exercise 1.Read the following text and find the answer to the questions:
1. What is a general requirement to be criminally responsible?
2. What is liability imposed upon?
3. Arrange all types of defences according to their priorities.
There are a number of defences which apply to all crimes.
There is a set of defences in which a defendant admits to having invaded an interest generally protected by law, but claims that it was done responsibly in such circumstances that the State should encourage or at least tolerate such behaviour. Such justifications are:
a) Carrying out an order of the court. If someone is sentenced by a court to be imprisoned, the prison warders must have a defence to a charge of false imprisonment.
b) Prevention of crime and lawful arrest. Under s.3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 a person is entitled to use such force as is in all the circumstances reasonable to prevent crime, or to effect or assist in arrests, or to detain people unlawfully at large. Whether or not the amount of force used is reasonable is a question of fact for the jury.
c) Private Defence.A person is entitled to use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of harm to himself or herself or others or to his or her property. The use of force need not be entirely spontaneous if it is reasonable.
d) Consent.Consent is a defence to every crime with a victim with some exceptions provided by statute and some by common law. A valid consent cannot be given to be killed or to have imposed any harm save where the harm falls within the exceptions.
e) Necessity.Since 1987 the Court of Appeal has appeared to be prepared to recognise a defence of necessity.
f) Impossibility.There is a case to be made out for a defence of impossibility. The argument is that if the law purposes to create a duty, compliance with which is totally impossible, then it cannot be creating a duty at all and that you can ignore it. It is not clear whether English law does recognise such a defence.
g) Unknown justification.One issue is of theoretical importance is whether the defendant must know of circumstances which give rise to a defence, or whether it is sufficient that the circumstance exists.
Exercise 2. Give the English equivalents for the following:
– жертва;
– самооборона;
– заключать в тюрьму;
– суд присяжных;
– оправдание.
Text 4
Excuses
Exercise 1.Read the text and answer the following questions:
1. What is justified conduct?
2. What is the difference between defences and excuses.
Justified conduct is conduct for which a defendant is responsible but which is tolerated or encouraged. Excused conduct is wrongful conduct for which a defendant is not responsible. In criminal law there are significant distinctions between excuses and justifications:
a) force may be used in private defence against excused conduct. It may not be used against justified conduct;
b) there can be no liability for aiding and abetting a justified act: there can be liability for aiding and abetting an excused act;
c) an excuse must cause the defendant's act. When conduct is justified it may be done for any reason.
Mistake of fact.Unless there is provision to the contrary in a statute, a defendant will not be guilty who mistakes the facts so that he or she believes in the existence of a state of affairs, which, were it to have existed,would be such that no crime was committed. It does not matter whether there are reasonable grounds upon which the mistaken belief is held.
Mistake of law.It is a traditional doctrine in English law that mistake of law is no excuse, even though the defendant may have had no time in which to discover whether his or her proposed conduct was against the law. A mistake of law will excuse when it has the effect of negativing the required mental state.
Insanity.A defendant is entitled to a verdict of «not guilty by reason of insanity «when it is proved that what would otherwise have been a criminal act was committed when the defendant: was labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, he did not know what he was doing was wrong.
The consequence of the verdict is that the defendant is confined indefinitely in a secure mental hospital.
Automatism.Where a defendant pleads that he or she did not act voluntarily, and the source of the absence of a voluntary act was not insanity but some cause which will excuse entirely, that defendant is said to have the defence of automatism. This defence will cover cases of sleepwalking, hypnotism, concussion and various dissociated states.
Intoxication.The fact that a defendant was under the influence of drink or drugs is never in itself a defence. The reason that an intoxicated state may be relevant is that the defendant may want to adduce evidence that he or she was intoxicated in order to establish either that he or she did not act voluntarily or did not have the required mental state.
Exercise 2. Give the English equivalents for the following:
– оправдание;
– невменяемость;
– вердикт;
– приводить доказательство;
– действовать добровольно.