2021 Criminal Law Seminar Handout Semester 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

University of ManchesterUniversity of Manchester Law School 2020-CRIMINAL LAW LAWS10030/CRIMINAL LAWSEMINAR HANDOUT – SEMINARS 1-This handout sets out the reading and questions for your seminars this semester. A further handout with details of seminars 5-8 in semester 2 will be distributed later in ...

Description

University of Manchester

University of Manchester Law School 2020-21

CRIMINAL LAW LAWS10030/20300 CRIMINAL LAW

SEMINAR HANDOUT – SEMINARS 1-4

This handout sets out the reading and questions for your seminars this semester. A further handout with details of seminars 5-8 in semester 2 will be distributed later in the year. Seminars provide a very important focus for your work on the course unit. They offer an opportunity to discuss key issues with your seminar leader and fellow students and to test and gain feedback on your knowledge and understanding. The purpose of a seminar is to have a full discussion of the issues and it is important that you engage and contribute fully to the seminar, whether you complete your seminar face-to-face or online. Please prepare detailed answers to the seminar questions in note-form and have it with you when you attend your seminar. Seminar leaders will expect each of you to provide an answer to each question if called upon. There are a number of different ways of approaching problem and essay questions, so be prepared to offer your point of view without fear of getting it wrong. Each seminar includes a reading list containing a selection of cases, articles and textbook selections. Please get into the habit of reading cases in the law reports. This is an essential means of developing a good understanding of the law. Academic articles provide a key critical perspective. Textbooks (see list in the Course Handbook on Blackboard) provide useful summaries, but you should not rely exclusively on them. Please use your initiative to consult an appropriate range of sources in depth. The “Further Reading” section for each seminar contains materials that will help you develop a sophisticated understanding of the issues covered in the seminar but are not necessary when first preparing for your seminars. It is worth aiming to make sure you read the literature from this list by the time to reach the revision period in Semester 2. If you do not understand an issue even after your reading and your seminar, make sure you attend a staff office hour to discuss the problem one-to-one (details on Blackboard). Getting on top of difficult material early is the best way to ensure you are ready for the final summative assessment at the end of the year.

1

Seminar 1: Introduction to Criminal Law and Principles of Criminalisation Reading J Child and D Ormerod Essentials of Criminal Law (OUP Oxford, 2019) 1-36. A Simester, J Spencer, G Sullivan, G Virgo, Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law Theory and Doctrine (Hart Oxford, 2016) 659-681 (scanned item) A Ashworth, ‘Is the Criminal Law a Lost Cause?’ (2000) 116 Law Quarterly Review 225. Further Reading J Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials (OUP Oxford, 2018) 1-63. R v Rimmington, R v Goldstein [2005] UKHL 63; [2006] 1 AC 459: Lord Bingham’s judgment, paras 1-4, 32-40. A Simester, J Spencer, G Sullivan, and G Virgo, Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law Theory and Doctrine (Hart Oxford, 2016) 1-45. Questions 1. Which principles should be used to determine what conduct to criminalise? Using these principles, discuss whether the following should be crimes: a. Smoking tobacco b. A kiss between two 14 year-olds c. Failure to pay the television licence fee 2. “[T]here remains in the courts of law a residual power to enforce the supreme and fundamental purpose of the law, to conserve not only the safety but also the moral welfare of the state.” (Lord Simonds in Shaw v. DPP [1962] AC 220, 267) Critically discuss this statement. 3. Why does Ashworth argue that the criminal law is a ‘lost cause’ in his Law Quarterly Review article? What is the ‘principled core’ of the criminal law that he proposes?

2

Seminar 2: Actus Reus and Mens Rea Reading J Child and D Ormerod Essentials of Criminal Law (OUP Oxford, 2019) 37-145. R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844; (1991) 93 Cr App R 251 (CA) R v G [2003] UKHL 50, [2004] 1 AC 1034 (HL), Lord Bingham’s judgment (NB there are two House of Lords cases with the same name – that is why the citation is important. Make sure you are reading the right one). Further Reading J Herring Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials (OUP Oxford, 2018) 64-147, 156-185, 190-201. A Ashworth ‘The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions’ (1989) 105 LQR 424 R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82; 3 WLR 382; [1998] 4 All ER 103 (HL) R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007] UKHL 38; [2008] 1 AC 269 (HL) 1.

Anil decides to plant a bomb in his local supermarket to protest against a rise in food prices. He sets the timer to go off late at night when the supermarket will be closed. He knows that workers are employed to stack shelves on some nights but he is not sure when. The bomb explodes at night and kills Violet one of the night workers and injures Bal, who was passing by the supermarket. Chris, a doctor, sees Bal lying in the street. He has a longstanding feud with Bal and walks away, hoping Bal dies. When paramedics arrive they misdiagnose Bal’s injuries and administer treatment, which is subsequently described by medical experts as ‘very bad’. Bal dies from his injuries. Discuss the liability of Anil and Chris for murder.

2.

Critically evaluate the scope of criminal liability for omissions. Should there be a general duty of assistance to those in peril?

3.

Why did the House of Lords in R v. G establish a subjective test for recklessness and discard the objective Caldwell test? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

3

Seminar 3: Homicide Reading J Child and D Ormerod Essentials of Criminal Law (OUP Oxford, 2019) 146-201, 210-217. R v Rejmanski [2017] EWCA Crim 2061, focusing on paragraphs 4-30 (full case) or see [2018] Crim LR 665-668 (case report and commentary) R v Sellu [2017] Crim LR 799 (case report and commentary) R v Winterton [2019] Crim LR 336 (case report and commentary) A Cornford ‘The Architecture of Homicide’ (2014) 34(4) OJLS 819.

Further Reading J Herring Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials (OUP Oxford, 2018) 222-257, 261-274, 275-307. R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 (HL) Law Commission Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (Law Com 304, 2006)1-52. C Withey, ‘Loss of control, loss of opportunity?’ [2011] Crim LR 263. F Stark, ‘Reckless Manslaughter’ [2017] Crim LR 763. 1. Is the test for “gross negligence” set out by Lord Mackay in Adomako sufficiently certain? 2. Is someone convicted of unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter as morally culpable as someone convicted of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility? 3. Alan suffers from alcoholism and depression and has recently split up with his girlfriend, Carla. He goes to Carla’s house where he discovers her and David having dinner together. Carla tells Alan to leave and says David is a much better lover. Alan becomes enraged and pulls out a gun. Carla says: ‘you wouldn’t dare, you miserable, useless, drunk’. Alan shoots Carla and kills her. David tries to flee, but Alan shoots him in the leg to stop him from escaping then runs away. David bleeds to death from his injuries. Discuss the criminal liability of Alan. 4. How might the structure of homicide law be reformed?

4

Seminar 4: Coursework Technique Preparation The aim of this seminar is to apply what you have learnt so far to the practice of answering questions for the formative coursework. The questions below are taken from past assessment. There is no specific reading for the seminar, although it is advisable to go back to your reading for previous seminars to help you in preparing answers to each question. You should think carefully about how you would answer these questions in a coursework essay. You can either practice writing an answer (giving yourself around 750 words per question excluding footnotes) or write a detailed plan. Think about relevant statutes, case law and academic commentary and how you would structure your answer. You should also look at the marking criteria (available on your Blackboard programme page.) You are also advised to go back and do any recommended reading from seminar preparation that you may not have completed in previous weeks. For instance, if you’re worried about question 1, below, the recommended reading in Seminars 1, 2 and 3 from Herring’s Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials may be helpful, at pp.29-34, pp.166-182 and pp.279-292.

1. ‘The legal philosophy traditionally applied in mainstream English criminal law and by this Commission is known as “subjectivist theory”. It rests on the principle that moral guilt, and hence criminal liability, should be imposed only on people who can be said to have chosen to behave in a certain way or to cause or risk causing certain consequences’ (Law Commission, Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter (1996), para 4.4). To what extent does English criminal law adhere in practice to this ‘subjectivist’ position in relation to the homicide offences?

2. Mo is a surgeon. He came into work late as he had not been able to sleep the night before. He began to operate on Lucy but fell asleep momentarily during the operation. He dropped his scalpel which severed an artery leaving Lucy in a persistent vegetative state. After a month, Jane, a consultant, was satisfied that Lucy would never recover and switched off the life support machine. Lucy's husband, Paul, became very depressed after her death. He was in a café one day and saw Mo and his girlfriend, Veronica, laughing. He picked up his knife and stabbed Veronica repeatedly saying that it was not fair that Mo should be happy with his girlfriend when Paul's wife was dead. Veronica died within minutes. Discuss the potential homicide offences.

5...