Criminal law problem questions follow a predictable pattern, but students often lose marks by jumping to conclusions without systematic analysis. Follow this framework for every potential offence.
1. Identify All Potential Offences
Read the facts carefully and list every possible offence. Do not stop at the obvious one — examiners often include facts that raise multiple offences. For a scenario involving a fatal attack, consider: murder, voluntary manslaughter (loss of control, diminished responsibility), involuntary manslaughter (unlawful act, gross negligence), and any relevant inchoate offences.
2. Analyse Actus Reus
For each offence, establish the actus reus:
- Conduct: Did the defendant perform the prohibited act?
- Consequence: Did the required result occur? (e.g., death for murder)
- Causation: Did the defendant's act cause the result? Apply factual causation (R v White [1910]) and legal causation (R v Smith [1959]). Consider intervening acts (R v Jordan (1956), R v Cheshire [1991]).
3. Analyse Mens Rea
Establish the required mental element:
| Offence | Mens Rea Required | Key Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Murder | Intention to kill or cause GBH | R v Vickers [1957] |
| s.18 OAPA 1861 | Intention to cause GBH | R v Belfon [1976] |
| s.47 OAPA 1861 | Intention or recklessness as to assault/battery | R v Savage [1992] |
For intention, apply R v Woollin [1999]: was the result a virtual certainty, and did the defendant appreciate this? For recklessness, apply R v Cunningham [1957]: did the defendant foresee the risk and unreasonably take it?
4. Consider Defences
Always check whether any defences apply:
- Self-defence: s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008; R v Palmer [1971]
- Loss of control: ss.54–55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- Diminished responsibility: s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (amending s.2 Homicide Act 1957)
- Intoxication: DPP v Majewski [1977] — distinguish specific and basic intent offences
- Duress: R v Hasan [2005] — not available for murder (R v Howe [1987])
5. Conclude on Liability
For each offence, state clearly whether the defendant is likely to be convicted, acquitted, or convicted of a lesser offence. Acknowledge uncertainty where the facts are ambiguous.