Talk:English criminal law

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales High‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from English criminal law appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 August 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that under English criminal law, intoxication is technically not a defence, but can negate the mens rea for specific intent offences?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/August.

Wikipedia

negative vs negate

In many places the phrase 'negative the mens rea' is used. Surely it should be negate? Cosnahang 12:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Please feel free to change it. Wik idea 13:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuts

I have removed the following passages because I find them innaccurate. The mens rea for robbery does not consist merely of the specific intent to use force etc. Robbery is a form of aggravated theft. That means that the mens rea includes dishonesty. My understanding of the decisions in R v Feely and R v Ghosh is that it would be open to a jury to acquit Robin Hood if they were of the opinion that his actions were not "dishonest according to the standards of ordinary decent people" or, if they did not accept that, they were of the opinion that he did not realise that they were. See for example Professor Griews book. In any event these passages do not explain the real issue. James500 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Mr. Hood robs from rich Mr. Nottingham because his motive is to give the money to poor Mrs. Marian, his "good intentions" do not change his criminal intention to commit robbery.

More

I have cut the following because I think it is diffuse and just reproduces the material linked to. James500 (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal damage is the willful damaging of another's property. Theft is included in property offenses, defined as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with an intention to permanently deprive the other of it.^[1] Robbery involves theft from a person and an element of force.

Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 183

I have cut the following. There are links to both assault and common assault in the article. Both of those articles contain a link to Tuberville v Savage. I think that to discuss it here is excessive. What is the criterion for inclusion? If we discuss common assault rather than link to the article on it, should we not discuss all offences. And if we have this case, should we not have every case? Why single out this case in particular? We cannot put the whole of the criminal law in this article.

Also, what this case is about is when it is acceptable to make a pre-emptive attack. The remarks about psychic assault were obiter.James500 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, in Tuberville v Savage, a Knight told a man that were it not for the assizes being in town he would not tolerate the man's language toward him. This was considered not threatening, not an assault, since the man could not be in fear of immediate harm, as the traveling courts were nearby.

I have cut the following. (1) The words "among the strongest" are so vague that they could mean just about anything. (2) The definition of rape appears to be framed on the 1976 and 1994 Acts and is therefore out of date. Those definitions are adequately discussed in the article Rape in English law and do not need to be reproduced in this article.James500 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rape and sexual abuse count among the strongest crimes in terms of sentencing. Rape involves sexual intercourse when the victim has not positively consented to the act.

I have cut this as it duplicates the article common assault and I do not think it is necessary.James500 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assault is intentionally putting another person into fear of immediate harm.

I have cut the following because it duplicates the article Murder in English law to which there is a link.James500 (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder is considered by many the most serious crime. It differs from manslaughter because murder is committed with the intention that the victim would die or be caused serious bodily harm. This means that mens rea was present.

I have cut the following passage from the lead. The offences mentioned are listed further down in the article in the section "criminal offences" (or in articles to which that section links such as offence against the person. The list is random and is not really a summary. James500 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the most serious criminal offences involve death, such as murder and manslaughter. Non-deadly offences include actual or grievous bodily harm. A variety of offences relate to property, like criminal damage, theft, robbery or burglary. One can be liable for helping another person's criminal act, conspiring to do something prohibited or merely attempting an offence.

References

^ see, e.g., Theft Act 1968

Note

There is a power of arrest for breach of the peace but it is not a criminal offence.James500 (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic

Information in the following passage from the introduction which relates to jurisdictions other than England and Wales should be moved to the appropriate article.James500 (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, most jurisdictions have as many strict liability offences, which criminalize behavior without the need to show moral wrongdoing. These are usually regulatory in nature, where the result of breach could have particularly harmful results. Examples include drunk driving, or statutory rape.

Likewise with this passage:James500 (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One important reform, introduced in many jurisdictions by statute^[1] is the diminished responsibility defence.

Likewise with this passage:James500 (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duress can be a defence for all crimes, except murder, attempted murder, being an accessory to murder^[2] and in many countries, treason.

Likewise with this passage:James500 (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public international law deals extensively and increasingly with criminal conduct, that is heinous and ghastly enough to affect entire societies and regions. The formative source of modern international criminal law was the Nuremberg trials following the Second World War in which the leaders of Nazism were prosecuted for their part in genocide and atrocities across Europe. In 1998 an International criminal court was established in the Hague under what is known as the Rome Statute. This is specifically to try heads and members of governments who have taken part in crimes against humanity. Not all countries have agreed to take part, including Yemen, Libya, Iraq and the United States.

References

^ though Scottish judges recognized the defence in the 1920s
^ cf DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] 1 All ER 913, the old English rule whereby duress was available for a secondary party to murder; see now R v Howe [1987] 1 AC 417, where the defendant helped torture, sexually abuse and strangling. Being threatened into helping was no defence.

Cyclic "see" linking for Public Order Offences

This page directs people elsewhere for public order offences, but that page goes to a general international Public Order Crime page, that directs people back here for Public Order Offences in England and Wales. Just thought I'd point it out, as I noticed it. SamBC(talk) 19:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also the "public order crime" page is about a totally different category of offence - one that relates to transgressions of social norms rather than public violence or disorder. This appears to be a deeply unhelpful and misleading link. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link deleted. If anyone feels like putting it back, it would probably be happier in the section below entitled "Offences against public morals and public policy" which is what "Public Order Crimes" seems to be about. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults vis-a-vis Jimmy Savile Alleged Sex Scandal

What types of crimes would Jimmy Savile been alleged to have committed in a hypothetical police case??? What would be his legal recourse, etc??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 00:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not relevant to this article. James500 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not??? It is of interest as I would like to know what specific crimes the late Savile is accused of committing and can he be tried posthumously under UK law??? No one in any of the Jimmy Savile Articles talk pages can answer it.johncheverly 00:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of information belongs, if anywhere, in his article, not this one. We could not even include him in a list of persons convicted of an such and such an offence because he hasn't been convicted of any. As fas as I am aware, he cannot posthumously prosecuted. James500 (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English criminal law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811195445/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/18.2/farmer.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/18.2/farmer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide

@01SM97: You added suicide in the list of crimes under English law. This is incorrect, so it has been removed (see Suicide Act 1961). Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a part of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you want add information to the article, please do so only if you cite a reliable source. – Zntrip 04:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] see, e.g., Theft Act 1968

[2] though Scottish judges recognized the defence in the 1920s

[3] DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] 1 All ER 913, the old English rule whereby duress was available for a secondary party to murder; see now R v Howe [1987] 1 AC 417, where the defendant helped torture, sexually abuse and strangling. Being threatened into helping was no defence.

[1]

[1]

[2]