Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS) Criminal Law and Evidence Syllabus

Criminal Law and Evidence syllabus — full chapter and topic list

Expand any chapter to see its topics and sub-topics. This is the whole examinable outline for Criminal Law and Evidence in Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS), not a summary of it.

1. 1

   General Principles of Criminal Liability

   4 topics

   • Actus reus
     • Conduct, result and circumstance
     • Omissions and duty situations
     • Causation in criminal law
   • Mens rea
     • Intention and oblique intention
     • Recklessness (Cunningham/G)
     • Transferred malice and coincidence
   • Strict liability offences
   • Parties to crime and accessorial liability
2. 2

   Fatal and Non-Fatal Offences

   4 topics

   • Murder and the mens rea of murder
   • Voluntary manslaughter
     • Loss of control
     • Diminished responsibility
   • Involuntary manslaughter
     • Unlawful act manslaughter
     • Gross negligence manslaughter
   • Non-fatal offences against the person
     • Assault and battery
     • OAPA 1861 sections 47, 20 and 18
3. 3

   Property Offences and Defences

   5 topics

   • Theft and the Theft Act 1968
     • Appropriation and property
     • Dishonesty (Ivey v Genting)
     • Intention to permanently deprive
   • Robbery, burglary and handling
   • Fraud Act 2006 offences
   • General defences
     • Self-defence and prevention of crime
     • Duress and necessity
     • Insanity, automatism and intoxication
   • Inchoate offences
     • Attempts
     • Conspiracy and encouraging or assisting
4. 4

   Criminal Evidence

   4 topics

   • Burden and standard of proof
   • Confessions and unfair evidence
     • PACE sections 76 and 78
   • Hearsay and exceptions
   • Bad character and visual identification (Turnbull)

Criminal Law and Evidence flashcards for Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS)

25 of 56 cards from the Criminal Law and Evidence deck — real questions with worked answers.

1. What are the two essential elements that the prosecution must normally prove for criminal liability, and what does each mean?

   Actus reus (the guilty act — the prohibited conduct, circumstances and consequences) and mens rea (the guilty mind — the required mental element). Both must coincide for liability.

2. What are the three possible components of the actus reus of an offence?

   Conduct (the defendant's act or omission), circumstances (surrounding facts required by the offence), and consequences/result (the outcome the law prohibits, e.g. death in murder).

3. What is the general rule on liability for omissions, and what are the recognised exceptions giving rise to a duty to act?

   General rule: no liability for failing to act. Exceptions (duty to act): statutory duty; contractual duty; special relationship; voluntary assumption of responsibility; creation of a dangerous situation (Miller); and holding a public office.

4. State the rule and the leading authority on factual causation in criminal law.

   The 'but for' test: but for the defendant's act, would the result have occurred? Authority: R v White (poisoned drink but victim died of unrelated heart attack — not the factual cause).

5. What is the test for legal causation, and what threshold must the defendant's contribution meet?

   The defendant's act must be an 'operating and substantial cause' of the result (R v Smith). It need not be the sole or main cause; it must be more than minimal/de minimis but need not be substantial in the everyday sense.

6. What is the 'thin skull' (eggshell skull) rule in causation?

   The defendant must take the victim as found, including any physical or other peculiarity. If the victim's pre-existing condition worsens the harm, the defendant remains liable for the full consequences (R v Blaue — refusal of blood transfusion on religious grounds).

7. When will medical treatment break the chain of causation?

   Only rarely. Medical treatment breaks the chain only if it is 'so independent of the defendant's act and so potent in causing death' that the original wound is merely the setting (R v Cheshire). Negligent treatment normally does not break the chain if the original wound is still operating (R v Smith).

8. Define direct intention and indirect (oblique) intention in criminal law.

   Direct intention: it is the defendant's aim or purpose to bring about the result. Oblique intention: the defendant does not aim at the result, but the jury may find intention where the result was a virtual certainty of the act and the defendant appreciated this (R v Woollin).

9. State the Woollin direction for oblique intention.

   The jury are entitled to find the necessary intention where (a) death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and (b) the defendant appreciated that such was the case. Virtual certainty is evidence of, not a substitute for, intention.

10. Define recklessness in criminal law and give the leading authority.

    Subjective (Cunningham) recklessness: the defendant foresaw a risk of the prohibited result/circumstance and unreasonably went on to take that risk. Confirmed as the standard test in R v G [2003], which abolished Caldwell objective recklessness.

11. What is transferred malice, and what is its key limitation?

    Mens rea aimed at one victim/object can be transferred to the actual victim/object where the actus reus is the same type of offence (R v Latimer). Limitation: malice cannot transfer between different types of offence (R v Pembliton — intending to hit a person but breaking a window).

12. What is the coincidence (contemporaneity) principle, and how do courts apply it flexibly?

    Actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time. Courts apply this flexibly by treating a series of acts as one continuing act (Fagan v MPC; Thabo Meli) so that mens rea present at any point during the continuing act suffices.

13. What is a strict liability offence?

    An offence for which no mens rea is required as to one or more elements of the actus reus. The prosecution need only prove the defendant committed the actus reus (often regulatory offences, e.g. pollution, food safety, driving).

14. What is the presumption regarding mens rea when a statute is silent, and what authority establishes it?

    There is a presumption that mens rea is required for every element of an offence (Sweet v Parsley). This presumption is strong, especially for 'truly criminal' offences, and can only be displaced by clear statutory words or necessary implication.

15. List the Gammon factors used to decide whether a statutory offence is one of strict liability.

    From Gammon v A-G of Hong Kong: (1) presumption of mens rea applies; (2) presumption is stronger for truly criminal offences; (3) it can be displaced only where the statute concerns an issue of social concern (e.g. public safety); (4) strict liability applies only if it will promote the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance.

16. Identify the four ways a person may be a 'party' to a crime under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, s 8.

    A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence is liable to be tried and punished as a principal. Aid = help; abet = encourage at scene; counsel = encourage/advise before; procure = produce by endeavour (A-G's Ref (No 1 of 1975)).

17. State the actus reus and mens rea required for secondary (accessorial) liability.

    Actus reus: aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the principal's offence. Mens rea: intention to assist/encourage, and knowledge of the essential matters/type of crime the principal intends to commit (R v Jogee restored intention as the test, removing 'foresight = parasitic accessory liability').

18. How did R v Jogee [2016] change the law on joint enterprise / parasitic accessory liability?

    It held that foresight that the principal might commit a further offence is only evidence of intent, not a sufficient mental element in itself. The accessory must intend to assist or encourage the principal to commit the crime. It overruled Chan Wing-Siu and Powell & English on this point.

19. What is the actus reus of murder (Coke's classic definition)?

    The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being (a human) under the King's/Queen's Peace, where the death follows within any time. Modern law has abolished the old 'year and a day' rule.

20. What is the mens rea of murder?

    Malice aforethought, meaning an intention to kill (express malice) or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm (implied malice) — R v Vickers; R v Cunningham. Intention can be direct or oblique (Woollin).

21. Name the three special/partial defences to murder that reduce liability to voluntary manslaughter.

    Diminished responsibility (Homicide Act 1957 s 2, as amended), loss of control (Coroners and Justice Act 2009 ss 54–55), and killing in pursuance of a suicide pact (Homicide Act 1957 s 4).

22. State the four elements of diminished responsibility under s 2 Homicide Act 1957 (as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009).

    (1) An abnormality of mental functioning; (2) arising from a recognised medical condition; (3) which substantially impaired the defendant's ability to understand the nature of conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control; and (4) which provides an explanation for the killing (causal connection). Burden on defence on the balance of probabilities.

23. State the three components of the loss of control defence under ss 54–55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

    (1) The killing resulted from the defendant's loss of self-control; (2) the loss had a 'qualifying trigger' (fear of serious violence and/or things said/done amounting to circumstances of an extremely grave character giving a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged); (3) a person of the defendant's sex and age with normal tolerance/self-restraint might have reacted similarly. Loss of control need not be sudden; sexual infidelity alone is excluded as a trigger.

24. What are the two main forms of involuntary manslaughter?

    (1) Unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter and (2) gross negligence manslaughter. (Some texts add reckless manslaughter.) Both involve an unlawful killing without the mens rea for murder.

25. State the four elements of unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter.

    (1) An intentional unlawful act (a crime, not an omission); (2) the act is dangerous in the sense a sober and reasonable person would foresee some risk of harm (R v Church); (3) the act caused death; (4) the defendant had the mens rea for the unlawful act (mens rea for the death is not required).

See more Criminal Law and Evidence flashcards →

Planning Criminal Law and Evidence for Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS)

Criminal Law and Evidence (Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS)) FAQ