25. Intoxication

This chapter discusses the law on offences involving intoxication. It distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary intoxication, and between ‘specific’ and ‘basic’ intent. Cases are presented to show that state of mind is both a necessary element in the definition of an offence as well as in some defences. Just as intoxication may cause a person to lack the mens rea of an offence so it may cause him to have the necessary mental element of a defence.

23. General defences

This chapter focuses on defences. The following controversies are examined: whether the fact of childhood constitutes a defence; the extent to which duress can negate criminal liability; whether necessity ought to be a defence; whether recent legislative developments have rendered self-defence unduly complex; and the distinction between justifications and excuses and whether these classifications have any practical import.

9. Involuntary manslaughter

This chapter examines those types of manslaughter committed where the defendant lacks the mens rea for murder—called involuntary manslaughter. It considers whether the unlawful act manslaughter offence is too wide because there is minimal subjective fault required; whether the unlawful act manslaughter offence is too vague; whether a supplier of drugs can be liable for manslaughter if V dies from having taken them; and whether gross negligence manslaughter infringes the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

5. Fault

This chapter considers the different types of fault required by criminal law. It examines the definitions and/or applications of the following concepts: intention, recklessness, malice, knowledge, and negligence.

4. Omissions

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.

1. Introduction

This introductory chapter examines the functions of criminal law and discusses the sources of criminal law. These include common law and statutes, EU and international law, and the Human Rights Act 1998. It also considers the principle of fair labelling in criminal law and the codification of criminal law.

24. Mental conditions

This chapter considers the ways in which the criminal law treats people suffering from mental disorders. The following controversies are examined: when an individual can be regarded as mentally incapable of being tried; the relationship between insane and sane automatism; the extent to which the insanity defence reflects modern psychiatric practice; whether the lack of direct correlation between the medical and legal definitions of ‘insanity’ infringes the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); and how the insanity defence ought to be reformed.

16. Fraud

This chapter examines the offence of fraud. It is a statutory offence that can be committed in one of three ways: by making a false representation; by failing to disclose information; and by abuse of position. Each has a different actus reus and mens rea, but for the most part liability turns on whether D was dishonest. The chapter also considers the related offences of obtaining services dishonestly, possession of articles for fraud, and making or supplying articles for use in frauds.

7. Murder

This chapter examines the law on murder. It considers when does life begin and end for the purposes of the law of murder; should an intention to cause really serious harm suffice as the mens rea for murder; and how might this area of the law be reformed so as to reflect generally recognized principles of the criminal law?

6. Strict liability

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.