This is the duty of a party to satisfy the fact-finder, to a standard set by law, of the facts in issue.

This is the formal accusation that D has committed a crime. It is usually made by the police. It is not a finding of liability.

Despite the efforts of leading scholars over the centuries to provide a universally accepted definition of criminal law, one still escapes us. All leading criminal law textbooks explain why.

These are the components or ingredients of offences. Different crimes have different definitional elements. For ease of management, we tend to break them into the actus reus and mens rea.

A partial defence to murder, governed by s 2 Homicide Act 1957. Amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. See chapter 7.

The onus on a party to adduce sufficient evidence to make an issue ‘live’.

The defence governed by the M’Naghten Rules. See chapter 14.

See voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

The term used to classify those elements of the offence which relate to D’s state of mind. See chapter 3.

Widely regarded as the most serious crime in England, it is where D kills a human being with intention to kill or cause really serious harm. See chapter 7.

For the purposes of strict liability, regulatory crimes, also called mala prohibita, carry a lighter sentence and no social stigma. It is one of the factors to be considered by a judge when deciding whether a statutory provision which is silent as to mens rea is one of strict liability. See chapter 4.

This is the punishment imposed by a court following a plea or a verdict of guilty. This book does not deal with sentences in the criminal law.

For the purposes of strict liability, true crimes, also called mala in se, carry a heavier sentence and a social stigma. It is one of the factors to be considered by a judge when deciding whether a statutory provision which is silent as to mens rea is one of strict liability. See chapter 4.

If there is no doubt that the complaining witness has been subject to criminal conduct, it is acceptable to refer to them as the victim (V), but if the criminal nature of the conduct is yet to be established (and in sexual offences and domestic violence that is often the case), the use of the word victim at trial would be prejudicial as it presupposes guilt. In essence, before a guilty plea or verdict, we should call the complaining witness the complainant and not use the term victim until guilt is established. However, for the sake of consistency and simplicity, we refer to all complaining witnesses as V, irrespective of charge and of whether D is acquitted or convicted, or his conviction is quashed or upheld on appeal.

This is a key element of result crimes, and requires the prosecution to prove D caused the result.

An element of the actus reus of both ss 18 and 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. GBH is really serious harm. See chapter 5.

When we use this word, we are restricting our discussion to alcohol and illegal drugs, eg LSD, acid. See involuntary intoxication and voluntary intoxication, and chapter 14.

This can be established in both fact and law, but D caused the result only if there is no break in the chain. See chapter 2.

See definitional elements.

See automatism.

An element of the actus reus of both ss 18 and 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. See chapter 5.

In respect of mens rea, this describes the way in which the fact-finder assesses D’s fault, and it involves assessing what the reasonable person would have thought and contrasting it to what D thought (or should have thought).

In respect of mens rea, this describes the way in which the fact-finder assesses D’s fault, and it involves assessing what D was thinking. Compare with objective.

The doctrine where D’s intention to one victim can be transferred to the actual (unintended) victim. See chapter 3.

An element of the actus reus of s 47 OAPA. ABH is a bodily harm which is more than transient and trifling. See chapter 5.

The act of one human being killing another human being.

The less serious form of mens rea for murder. See chapter 7.

This is an unlawful homicide without the mens rea for murder. See chapter 8.

A partial defence to murder governed by ss 54 and 55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009. See chapter 7.

This was a partial defence to murder, governed by common law and s 3 Homicide Act 1957. It has been abolished and replaced with a new partial defence (loss of self-control). See chapter 7.

A partial defence to murder, governed by s 4 Homicide Act 1957.

This is where D is charged with murder and he is convicted of manslaughter because of one of the three partial defences explained in chapter 7. See also diminished responsibility, provocation, loss of self-control, and suicide pact.

An inchoate offence governed by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. See chapter 9.

The common law offence of incitement has been replaced with offences under the Serious Crime Act 2007. See chapter 9.

Those who aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of the principal offence; or are party to a joint enterprise with the principal. See chapter 10.

An inchoate offence either at common law or contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977. See chapter 9.

Also known as a joint unlawful enterprise, this is where two or more defendants carry out the crime together. Each D is liable for the offence. The law gets complex when one D departs from the agreed plan. See chapter 10.

Also known as a common assault, a technical assault, and a psychic assault; it is where D intentionally or recklessly causes V to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful force. See chapter 5.

D is involuntarily intoxicated when he is not aware he is taking alcohol or a dangerous drug.

This term relates to the type of mens rea in the crime charged. See specific intent and chapter 14.

Although we refer to the ‘defence’ of mistake, it is an assertion by D that he did not form mens rea. See chapters 4 and 14.

This term relates to the type of mens rea in the crime charged. See basic intent and chapter 14.

D is voluntarily intoxicated when he is aware he is taking alcohol or a dangerous drug, even if he is not aware of its strengths or effect. See chapter 14.

A defence (although the prosecution bear the burden of proof in relation to it) which negates actus reus. See chapters 2 and 14.

Also known as a common assault or a physical assault, it is where D intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to V.

An inchoate offence either at common law or contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977. See chapter 9.

When we use this word, we are restricting our discussion to alcohol and illegal drugs, eg LSD, acid. See involuntary intoxication and voluntary intoxication, and chapter 14.