Law is truly modern and global subject – all of our lives are touched by it and hopefully we live within its guidelines! The Law department at Hurtwood is very well established and is based on a desire to help students learn about the society in which they live. We believe an understanding of how a legal system works is an integral part of becoming a responsible member of a democratic society and making the transition to adulthood. Young people are the generation who can make a difference and the more they know about the world in which they can make such an impact the better placed they are to do just that! We aim to develop their awareness and teach them the skills of logical thinking, analysis and evaluation alongside an ability to see the bigger picture.

By the end of the first year we aim to give students a detailed knowledge of the workings of the English Legal System and an overview of the role of law and justice within our society. There is also an opportunity to see how our system compares to that used in other countries and, in particular, to explore our relationship with the European Union.

Since Law is such an exciting, topical and ever changing subject there is plenty of opportunity for lively debate and for amazing stories about what members of the criminal fraternity have done!

To make the subject accessible to students from a wide range of abilities and cultural backgrounds the course is structured into manageable topics, normally of a week’s duration. Every topic has a worksheet with tasks to be completed by the student and there is an accompanying hand out written by the department which gives the student all the factual information they need to know. Extra resources such as newspapers, legal journals, case reports and media footage all help to bring the subject alive and broaden student’s awareness and knowledge.

Although the department hopes students will not experience the workings of the system from the wrong side of the legal divide we do takes trips to local magistrates courts and to the Old Bailey and the Court of Appeal in London so students can see the law working for real!

“Criminal intentions do not always produce a completed substantive offence. Nevertheless, it is both just an essential for the protection of society that those who intend to carry out criminal acts are subject to prosecution in the same way as those who actually succeed in committing crimes.”

Consider whether you agree with this statement using examples from the current law on attempts.

Criminal law imposes liability on people who form the necessary mens rea for the offence but do not actually complete the actus reus. The current definition of attempts is outlined in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 which states “if a person, with intent, does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the full commission of the offence they will be guilty of attempting to commit the full offence.” The law of attempts is illustrated in the case of White (1910). The defendant attempted to poison his mother for financial purposes. However, she died before she took the poison of a heart attack. For public policy issues it is important that the defendant was subject to some criminal liability because he had the guilty mind and wanted to complete the actus reus. He was found guilty of attempted murder.

Prior to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the law on attempts was outlined by common law. The courts used a variety of tests to determine when somebody was guilty of an attempt. The proximity test was used firstly in Eagleton (1855). The Law Commission favoured this particular test and it said that the person would be guilty of an attempt if their acts were “immediately connected” to the offence. This was illustrated in the case of Robinson (1915). The defendant was a jeweller who insured his stock and then staged a robbery hoping to claim compensation. He was found not guilty – his acts were not “immediately connected” with the offence eg. he had not sent the claim form away. This result caused much controversy as he had actually intended to commit the crime but did not fully complete the actus reus. The test was criticised for being too narrowly interpreted and for being retrospective. It was shortly afterwards discredited. The test then became known as the “Rubicon.” This was outlined in Stonehouse (1978) which said a person was guilty of an attempt if he had passed the point of no return and “burnt his boats.” This test was applied in Widdowson (1986) where the defendant wanted to obtain a van on hire using a false name. He was charged with obtaining property be deception. However, his conviction was quashed as he had not sent the form away, he had not “burnt his boats.” This test was also considered unsatisfactory. It was allowing defendants to escape liability even though it was clear they were attempting the offence. This was putting the public and society at risk.

The test then became known as the “series of acts.” This was introduced by Boyle and Boyle (1986). It said the defendant’s actions should be viewed as a series of acts where the defendant would have gone on to commit a full offence if they had not been interrupted. This was applied in Gullefer (1990). The defendant had placed a bet on a greyhound. Seeing it was going to lose he ran onto the track to stop the race. He was found not guilty because it was impossible to determine when an act begins and when the merely preparatory stage ends. Instead the courts said an attempt is “where merely preparatory ends and the defendant embarks on the crime proper.” This has discredited the series of acts test.

The case of Campbell (1991) illustrates that criminal intentions should be punished and if they are not society is put at risk. The defendant was going to rob a post office. The courts said this was not enough for attempted robbery – he would only be guilty when he entered the post office and approached the counter. This case illustrates the problem with attempts and how society can be put at risk. The police, in theory, must wait until he enters to gain a conviction. However, this is putting the public at great risk if the defendant is allowed to continue the offence. This may result in a death which could otherwise be prevented.

The current law on attempt is outlined in the precedents case Geddes (1996). The defendant was in a boy’s toilet armed with a rope, a knife and a bag. He was charged with false imprisonment. However, he was found not guilty. This created two new tests. Did the defendant move from planning and preparation to implementation and execution? The approach was applied in Tosti (1997).

The test of “more than merely preparatory” is a very risky approach. The stage at which the defendant actually attempts a crime is unsatisfactory from a public policy issue. It puts society at risk and if the defendant believes he will be convicted of an attempt he may as well go on to commit the offence because they possess the same sentence. One option would be to adopt the American sentencing system which gives the defendant half of the sentence. This would mean society would be safer. Another possible reform would be to introduce a withdrawal function similar to secondary parties. This would allow the defendant to withdraw from an attempt. Currently, because they cannot withdraw they may as well commit the offence which puts society at risk. Some sectors argue that if you have not completed the actus reus you should not be guilty of an offence. It is also difficult to impose liability for mens rea because it can not always be discovered. Another criticism is attempting the impossible. The case of Shivpuri (1986) allowed this but should defendants be convicted when the crime cannot be committed?

In conclusion, those who intend to commit the full offence must be subject to prosecution. If not it puts the public in danger as in Jones (1990). However, it can be argued that if both elements of a crime are not present, a crime has not been committed. The current law on attempts is confusing and is rigidly enforced.

Corinne has been in a steady relationship with David for over ten years. They have always had arguments during which David has often hit Corinne. He has also threatened her that if she ever tires to leave he will track her down and ‘sort her out’. This has made Corinne feel depressed and trapped in the relationship. She has been to her doctor who has placed her on medication to treat her depression.

One evening Corinne and David argue again and in the course of the dispute David insults her calling her ‘pathetic and useless’. Corinne starts to cry so David slaps her face and tells her to grow up’. David then goes to bed. Corinne sits and watches television for two hours before going to the bedroom. When she sees David asleep she is suddenly overcome with anger and picks up the bedside lamp which she smashes over David’s head killing him instantly. Corinne has now been charged with David’s murder.

Discuss Corinne’s potential liability including any defences she may have available to her under the Homicide Act 1957.

The offence committed by Corinne is murder – a common law offence. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea means  she has to commit both the actus reus and the mens rea. She has committed the actus reus which is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s peace. Murder is a specific intent crime and the prosecution would be likely to find beyond reasonable doubt that she has an intention to kill or cause GBH. However, Corinne would be able to raise the defence of provocation which is s3 of the Homicide Act 1957 which is a partial defence to murder. If she is successful it could reduce liability to manslaughter allowing the judge discretion in sentencing as opposed to a mandatory life sentence needed for murder. Corinne would need to prove that she was provoked to lose her self control by words or deeds or both together and that the provocation was enough to make a reasonable person act as Corinne did.

Provocation’s meaning is defined in Duffy (1949) as “a series of acts or words which would cause in a reasonable person and actually cause in the defendant such a sudden and temporary loss of self control that renders the defendant so subject to passion that he is for a moment not master of his own mind.” Corinne would have to prove she suffered a sudden and temporary loss of self control. The fact that she watches television for two hours before actually killing David may serve to act as a cooling off period which may cause her defence to fail. Ibrams (1981), Thornton (1991) and Aluwahlia (1992) all reinforce the point that the time delay may go against her as having the time to think and premeditate the crime may expose her to the risk of her defence failing. However in Pearson (1992) it was held the cooling-off period is not a matter of fact for the jury but can form evidence to help the jury decide if Corinne was suddenly and temporarily deprived of her self-control.

Also, the jury may take into account cumulative provocation which was not immediately preceding the provocative act as David has hit Corinne before and threatened her as well as calling her ‘pathetic and useless. The case of Humphreys (1995) allows the jury to consider cumulative provocation on his threats in the past also.

Corinne also has an evidential burden in proving that provocative conduct existed as in Acott (1977). This could be David’s insults when he calls her ‘pathetic and useless’ and the taunts as was the case in Humphreys. David’s conduct does not even need to be illegal as in Doughty (1986) where the crying of a baby was allowed as provocative conduct.

Corinne also needs to satisfy the objective part of the defence that a reasonable person would have also been provoked. However, the reasonable man can be attributed with the characteristics of the defendant. Smith (2000) allows mental impairment such as Corinne’s depression to be a characteristic as it may make her less able to control herself. According to Weller (2004) potentially any characteristics of Corinne may be identified with the reasonable man test which the jury will apply – obviously for medical evidence an expert opinion would be required. The reasonable man test also allows response characteristics which bear on the gravity of the provocation and after the case of Camplin (1975) her sex and David’s taunts on her to grow up may satisfy this. Corinne may also be able to use the characteristic of battered wife syndrome as in Aluwahia (1992).

Alternatively Corrine may use the defence in s2 Homicide Act 1957 of diminished responsibility where she would have to prove on a balance of probabilities that she was suffering from an abnormality of mind arising from a mental deficiency, an inherent cause or induced by disease or injury that would substantially impair her mental responsibility. Abnormality of mind is defined in Byrne (1960) as a state of mind so different from an ordinary human that a reasonable person would term it abnormal. Corinne may be able to use the battered wife syndrome as a defence as in Thornton, Aluwahlia and Ibrams as David often hit Corinne which could cause an abnormality of mind especially since it is accompanied by abuse and as long as the impairment is more than trivial it does not need to be total. She could run both defences together but the burden of proof may seem illogical as for diminished responsibility she has to prove her defence on a balance of probabilities and would also need to show medical evidence of her condition. Under provocation she only has an evidential burden as it is the job of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Corinne was not provoked. If she runs both together Corinne may well be successful in reducing her liability from murder to voluntary manslaughter however it is the right of the jury to decide which defence they will accept. Aluwahlia is an important case as it shows Corinne has the potential to run both defences.

It is possible her s3 defence may fail due to the presence of a cooling off period before she killed David. This area of law has been criticised as it may be biased against women who react to provocation differently. Some academics have suggested a defence of self preservation instead of provocation and self defence as they are said to favour men who more often loses control quickly.

Murder is an indictable offence and so the trial will be heard in the Crown Court; if Corinne’s defence is effective in reducing her liability to voluntary manslaughter the judge will have discretion in sentencing up to a maximum of a life sentence.

SUE TEAL LLB (Honours)

Sue read Law at Leeds University; she undertook postgraduate lecturing at the same university before moving to Germany for five years where she taught young army officers the laws of war and German businessmen the intricacies of the English legal system.

After returning to England Sue came to Hurtwood House in 1990 as a member of the Law

department and became Head of the Department in 1993 teaching at both AS and A level.

Sue has undertaken work as a proof reader for legal textbooks. She became an examiner for OCR (our exam board) in 1995;she is currently the Principal Examiner for the Law of Tort and will become the Principal Examiner for Criminal Law in 2010. She is also a Principal Examiner for OCR’s GCSE Law course and an Assistant Examiner for the International A Level.

As well as this Sue has been a guest lecturer at local schools, particularly on the relationship between law and justice.

Outside the Law Department Sue is the Head of Careers and a member of the Senior Management Team.

STELLA SHARMA LLB (Honours)

Stella graduated in Law from Coventry University in 1994 and took a PGCE specialising in Law at 6th form level before moving to teach Law at Reigate College where she became Head of Department.

In 2001 Stella moved to Thailand and taught English up to IGCSE at Harrow International School. She travelled extensively and was involved in a project for the Thai Red Cross photographing snakes and writing information for English speaking tourists on the subject.

Since returning to England 2003 Stella has taught Law in sixth form colleges in Cardiff and Manchester and she has become an examiner for OCR. Her leisure interests include photography, yoga, reflexology, massage, running, hiking, reading, cooking and travelling.

•   Civil courts and other methods of dispute resolution

•   Criminal process and the criminal courts

•   Penal system
•   Judiciary

• Legal Personnel
• Lay people in the legal system
• Provision of legal services

• Doctrine of precedent
• Legislation
• European law
• Law reform

• Principles of criminal liability
• Attempted crimes
• Offences against the person
• General defences
• Non fatal offences against the person
• Offences against property

Year

A

B

C

D

E

U

Total

2001

5

8

5

1

1

0

20

2002

5

6

1

1

0

0

13

2003

7

2

0

1

0

0

10

2004

5

9

2

0

1

0

17

2005

2006

2007

2008

8

2

11

6

7

3

2

2

3

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

18

7

14

9