Introduction to Criminal Liability

Criminal responsibility in the context of criminal law is determined by two key principles: The
two categories are actus reus (actual guilty act or .act of breaking the law) and mens rea (guilty
mind or state of mind). Therefore, actus reus makes reference to the actual commission of the
crime, while on the other hand, mens rea is majorly concerned with the mental aspect of the
perpetrator of the crime. Most of the times, these two components act in an interconnected
manner to create a scenario that brings about criminal responsibility, penalty. It has been
seemingly believed that in some cases it is possible not to determine who is supposed to be held
liable or dependable of compensating the losses. Nevertheless, there are signs that perpetrators of
harm to others are not only the source of the consequences, but also the bearers of their
responsibility.

Reasons why Criminal Law Principles are important for legal

practitioners
Besides, these principles of criminal law are beneficial for the lawyers as these are the basic
principles of criminal law subjects. An appreciation of the connection between the two elements
of actus reus as well as mens rea proves very helpful to legal practitioners in managing legal
system. Such knowledge is essential in as much as justice delivery is concerned so that an
effective delivery of justice and the provisions of laws can be well achieved for the benefit of
any society. Professionals who comprehend these principles are better placed to deal with the
problems they face thereby creating a more just and legal world.

Criminal responsibility in the context of criminal law is determined

by two key principles:
The two categories are actus reus (actual guilty act or. act of breaking the law) and
mens rea (guilty mind or state of mind). When speaking of actus reus, we’re
concerned with the actual commission of a crime in an actual physical sense, while
mens rea centres its concern on the mental state of the offender. Most of the times,
these two components act in an interconnected manner to create a scenario that brings
about criminal responsibility, penalty. It has been seemingly believed that in some
cases it is possible not to determine who is supposed to be held liable or dependable of
compensating the losses. Nevertheless, there are signs that perpetrators of harm to
others are not only the source of the consequences, but also the bearers of their
responsibility.

Reasons why Criminal Law Principles are important for legal

practitioners
Besides, these principles of criminal law are beneficial for the lawyers as these are the
basic principles of criminal law subjects. The guidelines on actus reus and mens rea
are useful to legal practitioners, in order to resolve complicated legal issues. These
empower the offenders with vital knowledge as far as legislation and the dispensation
of justice to enable the effective and fair delivery of justice thus the rule of law and
thus societal health is well enhanced. Professionals who comprehend these principles
are better placed to deal with the problems they face, thereby creating a more just and
legal world.

actus reus is usually the most essential component of the crime in the criminal events of the
criminal act such as murder and car theft. These offences must consist of actual physical or
other acts recognisable as a violation of the law. For instance, while prosecuting a homicide
case, the actual intention of the offense, which is the act of killing, must be established while in
an Automobile Theft case the main premise of the offense is the taking of someone else’s
automobile without their consent. Nevertheless, there are situations when actus reus might be
dependent on the actions of both the assaulter, as well as the victim. For example, an assault
could be caused by some actions which were carried out by the victim, and in this case the
victim doesn’t receives some physical injuries. The biggest difference is in how the aggressor
acts and whether, depending on the results of this action, it was a crime that arose from
physical contact or a clear desire to commit a crime.

Generally, in jurisprudence, actus reus is considered within the context of unique situations
which either favor or do not favor its application to a particular case. For example, in R v Inglis,
the issue of euthanasia was considered and concerned whether the physical act involved could
in some way be legally justified. About this case, it can therefore be seen that actus reus is not
only related to the crime but also the conditions and circumstances under which the crime
occurs. Those circumstances make it possible to give further dimensions to legal processes, and
that is why the law should consider every case more carefully. The participation of these
conditions makes certain that the criminal responsibility is evaluated not simply and
comprehensively.

Moreover, the way actus reus is proven in a case depends on the evidence that is produced to
court. Although the herein studies indicate that when the defendant’s actions are in question, the
essence is to come up with reasonable story regarding defendant’s actions. Such aspects of the
actus reus must be clearly brought out as part of the accusation for the right justice to be done
and, again, the right assessment of the actions of the defendant.

Mens Rea (Mental Element)

Reasoning and the intent to act and to do so maliciously together with the act and the result are
the foundation of criminal liability. In order for a crime to be proved, and this is the knowledge
that the prosecution has within its camp, it Taguchi that both elements have to be met. Mens rea
is the guilty mind and the actus reus is the guilty act that is required or an averting act in civil
wrongs. The mental state can be viewed in two ways: the “external” approach, which involved
the consideration of the occurence of the crime; and the so-called “internal” approach, where the
emphasis is placed on the guilty mind of the doer. These, distinguishes the degree of the crime
and the guilt of the accused mainly.

This paper will show that legal cases have helped in determine the role of mens rea. The court set
in Woolmington v DPP1 also ruled that the position of a jury in a trial was no longer to say the
accused was guilty but that the accused intended. The said was a dramatic departure from the
English criminal law that was in place. In the same way, the question of what constitutes a
criminal action, direct or indirect intent was asked in R v Clarkson2. These cases afford a view of
the difficulty encountered in the determination of mens rea hence meaning that its determination
depends on the court/ judge.

Chain of Causation

Causation in criminal law is the process of connecting the defendant’s act (actus reus) with the
result of that act. In negligence cases a chain of causation must be further shown to locate blame;
if the chain is broken the defendant is not responsible for the harm. Indeed, the position of the
defendant in the chain of causation is the degree of their responsibility and type of outcome. In
the judicial process, it must be determined only that the action of the defendant was the acting
factor that led to the result, and it becomes quite convoluted when it is a multi-party scenario.

Sometimes, an independent party like, the defense lawyer for instance, may get involved in the
process in manner that obscure the true nature of the cause of an event. For example, if a defense
strategy severs the link between the defendant’s conduct and consequence, then, a defendant may
go scot-free. Regarding a fairly important role of causing within the framework of fault-based
liability models, it is serviceable as a tool to determine liability, which plays an important role in
criminal liability.

The final topic in discussion in the current paper is the way men’s
rea and actus reus operate in relation to the issue of Causation.
It is essential to have a discussion on mens rea, actus reus, and causation while dealing with
criminal liability. Such elements accustom a logically built-up model to establish a coherent
structure of evaluating criminal responsibility. Where a defendant kills a victim, the action
whether it is armed robbery or murder must naturally flow from the accused and cause the
victim’s death. What emanates from the perpetrator must clearly result in the death of the victim,
without the possibilities of an intervening cause. Such cases indicate that the problem of
identifying the carrier is not always quite clear, and all the significant and less important factors
must be examined.

Another reason why the concept on the type of mens rea behind the criminal act is equally
relevant in determining causation. Where the question of intent is made, it is easier to determine
if the occurrences we’re out of malice or if they were out of negligence. However, when the
mens rea is formed after the actus reus this leads to legal issues with the case. This timing issue

1
Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462 (HL)
2
R v Clarkson [1971] 1 WLR 1402 (CA)
shows that an absolute need arises for clarity and harmonisation in legal processes to achieve an
adequate combination of both parts of luncheon meat: mens rea and actus reus.

The general outlines of Mens Rea and Actus Rea in legal systems
courts and how they tie to Causation.
Finally, mens rea, actus reu and causation come together to play the fundamental processes of
criminal congeniality. Techniques used in such cases have the effect of ensuring that part of the
legal process is comprehensive in considering both the mental and physical aspects of any crime.
Criminal responsibility is made up of such factors as seen in Ellwert v DPP3, Calhaem & R v
Calhaem4. Thus, having in mind both mental intentions and outward actions of the offender the
legal system can make better decision on the criminal responsibility and provide justice.

Section 2: Trial on the merits and Principle of fair hearing also

called presumption of innocence.
In my view, the communication of the book is focused so well that it can hardly leave this matter
in the periphery of a subject of interest. Criminal trial processes can be elaborated as being fully
justified whereas the prosecution works for the case outcome, they handle all the burden of
proving the guilt of the defendant. This is one of the principles that underpins most legal systems
worldwide by providing that the accused cannot be convicted unless the evidence proves his or
her guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. That’s why the principle of the benefit of the doubt is an
important part of criminal progresses and a principle that every legal system recognize.

Thus, in order to not harm certain individuals, a definite proof in a trial must be beyond
reasonable doubt. This is very crucial in order to avoidPsychological harm and in order to ,
protect those who are on the receiving end of unfounded allegations from suffering. Argued by
Woolmington vs DPP (1935)5 the case illuminates how the prosecution is involved in
establishing both the actus reus, and the mens rea, which makes an excellent point on the burden
of the prosecution. Other laws also contribute to this notion of a translated state for the simple
reason that proving the defendant guilty in court requires that the state provide proof beyond
reasonable doubt. This prevents or rather eliminates assumptions and comes up with a
deterministic verdict founded on the real face of the case.

Section 3: PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE: A vision for reform of

criminal liability and legal processes
The old techniques involve convicting a defendant without considering the case features, which
are wrongfully convicted. The major problem concerns the scope of knowledge and information
needed to establish the defendant’s intent and it may really differ from state to state or one case
to another. Such disparity can cause variations in what the jury delivers as the verdict and the

3
Ellwert v Director of Public Prosecutions [1965] 1 QB 17 (DC)
4
R v Calhaem [1985] QB 808 (CA)
5
Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462 (HL)
extent of the punishment that follows. The case of Barrington v. Dadson (1850)6 is an example of
this problem since it hindered the clarification of actus rea and mens rea. In this case, the father,
who tried to apprehend a sawyer, did not know that he lacked required legal power and authority
and misinterpreted the sawyer’s actions as sinister. The expectation of legal first-degree murder
proves not guilty: besides the regular doctrines and understandings of mens rea and actus reus,
the verdict provokes the necessity of answering the following questions: how knowledge and
intent should be evaluated and what unintended consequences may arise from the actions?

To overcome these issues, the following changes are suggested. First, there should be accurate
legislative drafting as a result of which there will be less ambiguity in the legal provisions as
well. Second, judicial training should change in order to correspond to new legal requirements
and to make the judge more ready to judge complex cases. Popover should also have a leadership
role of educating the public on the legal system and the law. Also, a reconsideration of case law
precedents in need of improvement as well as the creation of a constitutional judicial council
could contribute not only to the amendment of the legal action that had taken place in the
previous period but also to shortening tendencies of legal processes. All these changes would not
only make the system easier and efficient but also make the legal procedures to have justice and
fairness.

The final part of this essay focuses on the core elements of criminal liability: the issues of the
facts, the guilty mind and the guilty act. In Woolmington v DPP and R V Dadson, it will be
illustrated that the inconsistency in the application of these principles enable unfairness and
injustice in the laws. They show that there is much that needs to be understood about criminal
responsibility, as well as about the moral principles that should govern legal ones. In this respect,
although there is currently a coherent distributed legal framework, there is much that needs to be
perfected in order to respond better to all the intricacies of criminal cases in the modern world
and is based on the recognition of justice.

Introduction
The violence starts with non-penetrating violence here on the street: Alastair, Hashim and Isobel
are threatened at knife-point and asked to take an oath which puts them exactly between life and
death, just able to hope. If one looks at events more detail one may notice that Alastair was the
one who started using force and bring violence and as a result of that Hashim ended up dead
because of wrong blood infusion. The first encounter with a particular figure is introduced as a
consideration of the statute of manslaughter that must be applied to this case. It is based on an
evaluation of the behaviours and potential aims of the actors concerned in light of the applicable
law. Such perception is fostered by various past cases and subsequent legal outlooks; and another

6
Barrington v Dadson (1850) 4 Ex 114
aspect tied directly to legal research and analysis is devoted to accountability and the
development of the legal strategy to fulfill its function most effectively.

Legal Framework
Criminal law evaluation encompasses from petty offenses to atrocious crimes, and usually under
manslaughter laws, depending on whether the act committed was intentional or accidental. The
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 banned acts dangerous to human life making it important
for human beings to avoid inhumane behaviors of that nature. What Alastair did is an example
that makes people remember how such acts occurred. Some examples of constructive
manslaughter based on legal cases of R v Church (1966)7 and DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976)8
show how intention that might have been initially innocent may cause death. These cases show
that remedies are not moral anyway and are rather based on the degree of offendment as
compared to the perceived usefulness of the offense.

Alastair’s Liability

Alastair’s actions however blurry might have been the catalyst that led to the death of Hashim.
Hashim’s attack on Alastair disrupted social order and could be regarded as the offenses under
the common law if extreme violence was used; section 47 and 20 of the Offences Against the
Person Act 18619. As mentioned in R v Church, Alastair’s response is unlawful and dangerous
but lacks judgment. Such actions, treated as a sequence of behavior, the actions themselves may
turn him into an accomplice in manslaughter if it is determined that his actions have led to death.

Hashim’s Involvement

His indirect part also forms a basis of questioning causation and responsibility amongst the
identified leading party of interest, Hashim. Since it relates to Hashim’s conduct, the legal
evaluation is based on the finding in R v Mackie that focuses on what followed whether
subsequent activities contributed to the result. Hashim’s reaction to events unconsciously
triggered a sequenced of events that led to his death. His indirect involvement makes it a lot
more difficult to determine who is at fault; for example, Isobel’s reaction to Alastair produces a
chain of causal relationships. This just goes to show that it is hard to have the issue of causation
defined in legal contexts.

In this particular play, Isobel’s Liability and Shared Responsibility

One can subject Isobel to constructive manslaughter, claiming that her selfish actions lead him to
his death. Legal reports like the one in the case of R v Dytham10, state and prove that omission or
negligence is criminal when there is question of public duty. Hashim and Isobel’s actions
together with Alastair and the chain of events required the need for legal horn mug to elaborate

7
R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 (CA)
8
Director of Public Prosecutions v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 500 (HL)
9
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 24 & 25 Vict c 100
10
R v Dytham [1979] 3 All ER 641 (DC)
on shared responsibility. Both R v Church and R v Pagett11 discussed a need to investigate
whether certain acts are the proximate cause of harm. These cases show that, even at a basic
level, regulations must be put into place to tie in with the finer points of liability so that justice
may work hand in hand with equality, synergy, and responsibility.

B) LEGAL ANALYSIS
Title: The Hawking Case and Calls for a Revolutionary
Change in Criminal Liability - The Property Sector: One of
the Practical Puppets of Classical Philosophy

Introduction

Mr. Hawking, in a hypothetical case, buys a dog from a laboratory in an effort to rescue it from
such a tragic end. The actions are best described as those of a person willing to give up smaller
things in order to achieve something of greater purpose. To apply this to criminal law and
particularly the Theft Act 1968 and the Elements of Theft and applying and implementing the
Ivey /Feeley test as the new test for dishonesty repealing the Ghosh test is a good framework for
a solution to issue of liability. This report thus evaluates critically the rationale, reviews the
conditions of liability and legal regime, assesses and details out analysis of defenses available
before offering in detail a legal analysis.

Author Last Name Year of Publication

Framework of Theft Under the Theft Act 1968

The Theft Act of 1968 defines theft as intentionally and dishonestly taking someone’s property
with the purpose of depriving that person of the said property permanently. Sub section 3 of the
Act defines “appropriation” which cites cases like Petham and Held (1977)12, R v Lawrence
(1971)13, and R v Gomez (1993)14 which identifies ‘appropriation to include acts that involve the
sale of, or handling of, property belonging to another person without their permission’. This
becomes the basis to look at theft prospects in different aspects.
In the layer of animals, especially dogs, the issue of legal personality of some animals is solved
by section 4(3). Even between domesticated animals and the wild, it provides ownership to the
control or possession of the animal. Section 5 building upon the aforementioned sections also
defines property, possession, control and rights associated with such property that are relevant in
the assessment of liability in animal-work related cases.

Hawking’s Criminal Liability for Theft

11
R v Church: R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 (CA)
12
Held [1977] 3 All ER 801 (CA)
13
R v Lawrence [1971] 1 WLR 418 (HL)
14
R v Gomez [1993] 3 WLR 110 (HL)
Although Hawking’s actions were in line with the noble intentions, they fell afoul of the legal
provisions of the Theft Act 1968 which criminalizes the action of theft where a person
dishonestly takes anything, whether or not with a view to gain for himself or another or for
keeping which he is not entitled, intending that in the ordinary course, such thing shall be used
by the person for whom he is acting or whom he intends to make use For instance, taking keys or
other property that may in anyway be associated with animals could fall in the same category as
R v Gomez (1993), where the law gave a wider meaning to theft. The animals are also classified
by the laboratory as property under section 4 (3), to give them legal ownership of the animals for
research making it unlawful for anyone to steal them.

This means that even though Hawking’s intent to save the dogs maybe laudable the conduct falls
squarely within the definitions of theft under the Act if there is a permanent intention to deprive
Lab of his property. The applicability of the Ivey/Feeley test tries to assess if out there, an
ordinary and truthful individual in a similar position would regard the act as unfair or
unreasonable regardless of acting out of moral motives.

Mental Competence and Intent

mens rea, individually referring to Hawking’s mental state heavily dictates his blame or
otherwise. The Theft Act 1968 provides that any theft has to be accompanied by a purpose of
making permanent profit at the owner’s expense. Perhaps the fact that Hawking believed that
what he did was okay because the dogs had had a terrible life put a positive spin on it. However,
the test is applied to determine whether his perception of the reality is reasonable and
compassionate as of the average good-natured person who would be in a similar situation.

To some extent, the problem is also in Hawking’s purpose to save the dogs instead of using them
for their own frivolous benefit but the legal belonging of the laboratory and the nature of the
experimented animals add shades of gray to the picture. That his motive may have lessened his
moral blameworthiness for his actions, that does not preclude him from being held legally liable
under the current model of theft.

Critique of the Ivey/Feeley Test and the Need for Reform

The Ivey/Feeley methodology has been considered as incapable of providing proper evaluation
of the candidates along with their potential. As a result, a number of changes must be applied in
order to overcome this issue. The coming on the scene of the Ivey/Feeley test, which supplanted
the Ghosh formula, has occasioned a radical shift across common-law jurisdictions in how
dishonesty is defined. This test applies an objective test in evaluating a defendant’s behaviour
using the perception of any honest and reasonable person. That is why despite all the attention
paid to the concept of fairness, this approach does not take into account delicate shades of
individual context.
The main problem is in the categorization of the action as dishonest or deceitful regardless the
defendant’s attitude. Courts now decide whether a person has misrepresented or deliberately
misled based on this hypothetical rather than a specific intention of the accused. Consequently,
this strategy has some drawbacks, for example, the Grier case. The lost of the Doctrine of
Equivalents and fairness procedures that are so crucial in moral and legal decision making
becomes a problem under this framework to answer significant challenges in the provision of fair
outcomes.
The Ivey/Feeley test has been contested within the legal profession in a variety of ways, a review
or critiques of which can often be found in the Criminal Law Review. Whereas some people call
the test to render the evaluation of dishonesty straightforward, others state that it does not
account for the fact that theft law can be complicated. It is also important to note that just passing
the dishonesty test would not eliminate problems with broader systemic issues and, therefore,
legal changes should be systemic (LO3, D1).

General Defenses in Criminal Law and Recommendations for Reform

There is no question of the importance of holistic defenses for criminal law, although their
inclusion entails significant substantive changes. The rationale and are very well addressed by
defences like insanity, duress, and self defence. These mechanisms enable the legal system to
capture more of the Criminal Actions while at the same time eliminating stereotypical practices
that complicate major cases. For example, such defenses can discharge defendants or minimize
their responsibility in situations which the decision to act iwas made due to mental or other
illnesses.
Consequently, pretrial and trial work has advantages in that both have inherent weaknesses that
lead to procedural inefficiencies and feelings of inequity. Consequently, in D2, an example
demonstrates that the trial is not merely a procedure reflecting the nature of the society in which
circumstances for criminal behavior 15the trial is conducted, as well as certain aspirations.
Eliminating these deficits entails a pathos-oriented narrative both in the appeals process and in
the processing of cases.

Conclusion
Hawking’s case reveals a dilemma that characterizes the question of theft responsibility within
the existing legal framework. This speaks volumes to the need to codify applicable changes to
better define theft and sharpen the tools it employs in identifying dishonesty and responsibility.
For fairness, there must be a constant approach to update legal systems and check with the help
of the criminal justice system on societal changes in today’s irregular world. Advance in law also
entails regulation of principle as well as sewing of evils that exist in the law for equitable and
just ordering of society.

PART 3 LEGAL REPORT

Title: The court, for its part, should analyze the legal issues and provide
recommendations on the case.

Introduction

15
M'Naghten's Case [1843] 10 Cl & Fin 200
There are certain events, which are not so simple and reveal different problems of studying and
applying criminal law, especially when the crimes are non-typical from perspectives of certain
norms as far as the attitude to them can change with regard for the specifics of the case. For
instance, consider three illustrative scenarios: For instance, a driver named Sim, overtook by a
truck in her lane, driven to intense anger; Rita who being struck was rendered with compromised
reasoning; and David, a bystander who was injured while observing a minor altercation. These
examples show how defenses operate to explain thoughtless/acting out behaviors. However, the
law is not rigid to allow such exceptional circumstance standardized by its provisions.

This discussion is designed to give a detailed description of the available actions and defenses
that may be available to Sim, Rita, and David, evaluate the relevance of these defenses, and
examine arising legal changes resulting from the applicability of these defenses. Moreover, it
will focus on specific aspects of justice sector reforms in relation to their efficiency (LO3, M3).

Theoretical Framework of Legal Defenses

Having a variety of legal defenses is the mechanism of imposing penalties and following laws to
prevent unethical actions in some field, for example, environmental protection or consumerism.
This framework also avails procedures to deal with decrease in responsibility, necessity, the
circumstance of necessity, automatism, self protection and insanity and thus the legal system can
either allocate or exonerate criminal liability. Every defense works in its procedural constraint,
which is provided by the substantive law applicable to the defense.

•Necessity and Duress: These defenses are a challenge to the concept of free will thinking that
when an individual has gone against the law, it was to do something worse. For example, when
exploring the qualifications and exceptions, the principle of necessity is discussed in R v. Howe
(1987), where the research question was focused on whether the committing of a crime was
excusable as a way of preventing a more serious harm. Likewise, Conway (1988) and Martin
(Howe v. This is because cases pointed out by Bell (1989) Martin (1989) are stressful
circumstances under which people performed forced actions in response to the danger and imply
the issues of moral and legal excused.

•Automatism and Insanity: Automatism deals with unconscious actions in response to stimulus
and insanity concerns action caused by an unfavorable mental state. Many of these defenses
involve trying to make this kind of distinction about such impairments: other examples are R v.
Hennessy (1989)16, R v. T17, and R v Kemp18. While most of the time automatism deals with
external factors, insanity has more to do with inner factors that are created by diseases that affect
the mind.

Analysis of Individual Scenarios

16
R v Hennessy [1989] 1 WLR 287 (CA)
17
R v T [1990] 1 WLR 1311 (CA)
18
R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399 (CA)
Sim’s Scenario
The event when Sim nearly collided with a speeding truck is the example of those situations
when duress of circumstances may be the reason for her actions. The common law concept of
duress imputes to law the pressure of emergencies, during which the normal faculties are
distorted in the interests of safety. Sim’s decision to accelerate and evade the truck highlights a
moral and practical dilemma: or lose her own life or that of her child by continuing her standing
in front of the danger.

In such a situation much could be done to her by the aggressor and her actions could indeed be
justified on grounds of necessity to save life which is in the same line as cases such as the R v.
Martin. Where as necessity often overlapped with duress, it points to doing something to avoid
suffering further harm than to justify unlawful act. Such risk defense interpretations of the law,
Sim’s scenario shows that legal agency should take into account the urgency and severity of
threats in such cases.

Rita’s Scenario

The episode with Rita and her hypoglycemia brings into focus the defenses of automatism and
self-defense. Automatism is an action that occurs without conscious control and may be the
result of an illness. Rita’s state of confusion because of hypoglycemia may be considered as the
unconscious motivation in her decision making since her behavior might be involuntary. Cases
like R v. Hennessy (1989)19 give examples of how diseases can influence criminal liability.

Self-defense may perhaps also apply in as much as Rita thought herself under attack and acted in
that prejudice for her own defense, notwithstanding her mental condition. The discussion of
automatism and its relation to self-defense brings out many issues with the connection between
cognitive breakdown and one’s responsibility for alleged criminal activity.

David’s Scenario

David, who witnessed physical aggression and got himself hurt explains the issue of consent in
violence. In such things like sports or competitive events or any other similar activities, consent
can help one defend an act as to the injuries that resulted from such processes. Nevertheless,
consent is not unqualified and call for free consent within the limits of the law to avoid allowing
unnecessary and pointless violence. David’s case highlights the challenges of applying consent
as a defense outside regulated environments. Whether his injury resulted from an agreed
interaction or unforeseen circumstances, the legal system must carefully evaluate the context and
intent behind the actions.

19
R v Hennessy [1989] 1 WLR 287 (CA)
Effectiveness of Defenses and Legal Procedures

The principles of criminal defenses like mental incapacity, insanity, automatism, self-defence
should be understood under the objectives of seeking justice with which every situation should
be evaluated and tried. These defenses can decrease the level of accused guilt thus enable the
courts admit other factors to consider when delivering their decision. But, their usage is not
without difficulties. In many cases defendants have the burden of proving that these defenses
may be applicable and sometimes this can only be done with solid evidence.
Also, the so-called objective criteria as ‘reasonable threat’ and ‘potential danger existing in the
near future’ may be rated as rather subjective terms. Therefore, the commonality of both the
expertise of professional witnesses and the procedural justice heeds to delicate proportions.
Nevertheless, there exists a probability that certain situations are omitted in the existing
standards, for example, the Myers defense framework; therefore, reforms that could enlighten the
standards’ ambiguity and insecurities are necessary.

Recommendations for Reform

To address the limitations of current legal defenses, the following reforms are recommended:
1.Refining Definitions: This is because other mental health defenses such as automatism and
insanity should not be ambiguous in law. Major concerns must be paid to the manifestations of
post-traumatic total differential and cognitive disorders, trying to ensure that defendants cannot
distort the facts.
2.Establishing Boundaries: The laws relating to consent and duress should have specific features
that should not be misused arbitrarily. Since there arises the need to minimize judicial discretion,
governments need to design clear legal regimes that eliminate vast differences in interpretations.
3.Ensuring Procedural Fairness: Enumeration of privileges: Expert´s testimony and evidence to
have a balanced decision as well as protect the rights of both prosecution and defense should
equally have rights to have the expert´s opinion and evidence.

Conclusion

Sim, Rita and David cases still depict complicated relations of the questions of the necessity,
automatism, duress, mental disorder and self-defense in criminal law. These defenses
demonstrate that practical cases are far more intricate with regards to applying laws and truly
correspond with the principles of legal fairness of procedures. There is need for legislative and
judicial reforms to correct the anomalies and paradoxes in the reform system, in order to adapt to
societal needs In this manner, these reforms will promote the objectives of clarifying, improving,
and fairing to possibly improve the justice system in the determination of the principles of law
and equity.
Part 3 ESSAY:

Title: Methods of Inspection and Shaping of Pretrial and

Criminal Court Procedural in the UK Criminal Justice
System.

Introduction:
Considered that the judge is the least bias in the UK Criminal Justice System, the judge officially
exercises the role of a referee that directly observes the battle between the prosecution and
defense teams. The legal processes within this framework are founded on two central pillars: The
rights to a fair trial and the rule of law as the conduit of fair trials were prominent among the
subjects’ rights in focus. This provision accords equal protection, the sanctity of the process of
law, and the place of the burden of proof at the door of the prosecution so that the accused,
orthodox and sane as may be, is not maligned and confined because of a prejudice against
him/her based only on grievance and evidence. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to evaluate
the processes for trial and testing in the UK considering whether they continue to keep the legal
framework just and fair trials standards. Also, the institution called Criminal Cases Review
Commission (CCRC)20 will be considered as an essential agency for mitigation of the mistakes
made by the judicial system. This analysis integrates suggestions, critical reflections, and
advanced writing skills for in-depth exploration.

Section 1: In this paper, British prisons will be discussed in detail as

a microcosm of the United Kingdom Criminal Justice System.

The UK Criminal Justices System reflects with a historical constitutional guarantee for the
protection of rule of law aiming at equity of all but most of all the marginalized and the
downtrodden sections of society. I stand for this commitment in its legal protectionism as
enshrined in the constitutional provision of a right to trial, which shall be in public and within a
reasonable time and more so, the right to a judiciary that shall be unbiased by any extraneous
influence.

Unlike the United States, the UK has placed importance of equality, to the effect that, all people
should be given equal treatment. For instance, extralegal forces as well as actions taken without
legal authority are prosecuted incessantly to illustrate the nonsectarian nature of the system. This

20
R v CCRC, ex parte Pearson [1999] 3 All ER 498
principle is like article 6 21of the ECHR which recognizes rights to a public hearing, the
attendance of witnesses and to be represented by an Advocate. Some of these elements mirror the
Anglo-Saxon model of work, namely, openness and procedural justice (P6).

Section 2: Pre-Trial Procedures in the English and Welsh Legal Systems

English and Welsh procedures before trial are a unique entry to the UK Criminal Justice System.
These processes seek to facilitate that if a person is accused of having committed a crime he or
she should be prosecuted through fair and transparent processes. First it defines alleged unlawful
operations and comes up with charges against the suspect in an official capacity. After that, at the
preliminary hearing, the prosecutor can introduce the reasons that would warrant a trial in a full
court. This phase makes certain that key aims of fair trial are observed from the moment that
legal process starts .

It is arithmetically productive to have legal aid during the pre-test proceedings since it offers
defendants reasonable chances to prepare for trial. Legal consultants help their clients on how to
maximize on those laws, explaining charges to be expected, and explaining matters related to
possible provisions of release from government jurisdictions. Such practice supports the belief
that equal fairness for prosecution and defense means equal presentation of facts.

Although trials and hearings are most influential in forming people’s opinions on the justice
system, participants of pretrial proceedings may wonder whether justice indeed exists. However,
these processes are relevant to decrease conflicts and increase justice in the context of UK laws.

Wording of the Council recommendation submitted to the Parliament is as follows:aleza of the

European Union and;/or harmed the interests of its Member States, (and/or) and that the
recommendation was submitted to the Parliament with the wording highlighting that the Council
has taken note of this situation.

Section 3: The Function of The Rule of Law in the Structure of The

UK Jurisdiction
Advocacy, a fundamental feature of the Criminal Justice system of the United Kingdom,
involves placing the Prosecution and defence teams on either side of a contest. A judge is
impartial, and juries, wherever possible, give their verdict owing to the presentation of evidence
in court trials only. Jurors per se should bring out independent judgments, free and unbiased by
any input save for the facts produced in the trial. Judges are responsible for ensuring that certain
legal codes are treated as law while attorneys depend on the subtlety of constructing sound
defenses, negation, and articulating fair arguments in respect to a trial.

This is because through Article 6 of ECHR the UK upholds the rule of law through the provision
of impartial and fair trial hearings. It protects people from abusive power of judiciary and
ensures people continue to have confidence in legal institutions (M4).

21
European Convention on Human Rights art 6
Section 4: CCRC stands for the Criminal Cases Review Commission
that we will also discuss further in this paper.
In fact, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) acts as a valuable means of remedying
miscarriages at the heart of the UK judiciary. It is primarily intended to afford a last chance of
challenging convictions or sentences once legal remedies have been used whenever new facts or
legal points might change the result. ,through scrupulous reviews the CCRC serves as a
corrective mechanism enhancing public confidence in the justice system.

CCRC can only be effective if it deals with those broader systemic problems that we have been
discussing in this article. People’s trust should be placed high value as a symbol of democracy.
Further, the CCRC should quality improvement of its investigation and adjudication role by
engaging legal professionals and professionals. Apart from extending the CCRC’s tasks, such as
introducing the function of the Continuous Assessment of Potential Offenses (PPO), which may
reduce systemic errors and help deliver justice

Section 5: Recommendations for Reform

1.Establish a Comprehensive Investigative Task Force:

Recruit several of the agents, the citizens and the experts to carry out comprehensive assessment
of the crime fighting architecture, strategies and mechanisms in place. End wrongful charging
and convicting of those innocents of crime, said the task force should detect these areas and
make changes in crime prevention and justice service delivery.

2.Utilize Technology for Judicial Efficiency:

Incubate the use of modern sophisticated technology in handling the evidence to enhance its
management, accuracy and workflow of procedures. Efficiency of cases by integrating
technology into case management would bring down the backlog and at the same time improve
the delivery of justice to the citizens.

Increase Funding and Resources for the CCRC:

Additional resources should be provided to the CCRC in order to increase the range of
investigation, enhance the work of cooperation with legal and judiciary bodies. Improvement in
funding will enable the CCRC to respond to the complaints of the victims, correct wrongs and
allow the public to regain their confidence in the justice system of the country.

1.Implement Continuous Assessment Mechanisms:

Implementation of procedures for constant assessment of possible legal inv incidences so that
they can be detected and rectified before impact the society.
Conclusion
These factors are important in the UK Criminal Justice System and this paper unveils them and
how this system can be made better in terms of fairness and efficiency as well as access to
justice. The system however had its principles of equality, fairness and due process on its side
and the major disadvantage was its operational complexity and requirement of resources. In this
respect, the CCRC plays the crucial role of correcting mistakes and correcting the public’s
perception on the topic of justice.

It evidences that improvements in technology, as well as the strengthening of the capabilities of

the CCRC, should be sought at the systems level. Through such changes, the UK’s legal system
can provide Just this system, it will be easier, faster and accessible for all to have the justice they
deserve

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462 (HL)

 R v Clarkson [1971] 1 WLR 1402 (CA)
 Ellwert v Director of Public Prosecutions [1965] 1 QB 17 (DC)
 R v Calhaem [1985] QB 808 (CA)
 Barrington v Dadson (1850) 4 Ex 114
 R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 (CA)
 Director of Public Prosecutions v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 500 (HL)
 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 24 & 25 Vict c 100
 R v Dytham [1979] 3 All ER 641 (DC)
 Held [1977] 3 All ER 801 (CA)
 R v Lawrence [1971] 1 WLR 418 (HL)
 R v Gomez [1993] 3 WLR 110 (HL)
 R v Hennessy [1989] 1 WLR 287 (CA)
 R v T [1990] 1 WLR 1311 (CA)
 R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399 (CA)
 European Convention on Human Rights art 6
 R v CCRC, ex parte Pearson [1999] 3 All ER 498
 M'Naghten's Case [1843] 10 Cl & Fin 200