Influence Of Common Law On Criminal Law
I. What is Common Law?
Common law refers to law developed by judges through decisions in courts, rather than written statutes.
It evolves through precedents — past judicial decisions that guide future cases.
Common law fills gaps where legislation is silent or ambiguous, especially in criminal law.
II. How Common Law Influences Criminal Law
Defines core concepts like mens rea (guilty mind), actus reus (guilty act), and defenses.
Establishes categories of offenses (e.g., murder, manslaughter, theft) before formal statutes.
Courts interpret and expand or restrict statutory crimes.
Develops principles like precedent, due process, and rights of the accused.
Helps evolve sentencing standards.
III. Key Case Laws Illustrating Influence of Common Law on Criminal Law
1. R v. Cunningham (1957, UK)
Issue: Mens rea and recklessness
Facts:
Defendant removed a gas meter to steal money, causing gas to leak and harm a neighbor.
Charged with “maliciously” causing harm.
Judgment:
The court held that “maliciously” means either intention or recklessness.
Recklessness was defined as awareness of risk and conscious disregard.
Significance:
Established modern common law definition of recklessness in criminal mens rea.
Widely cited in criminal cases globally.
2. R v. Woollin (1998, UK)
Issue: Intention in homicide cases
Facts:
Defendant threw baby onto hard surface, causing death.
Argued no direct intention to kill.
Judgment:
The court clarified the concept of “oblique intention” — when death or serious harm is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s actions, and the defendant appreciates this.
Significance:
Developed common law to define intention beyond direct acts.
Influences murder/manslaughter distinctions.
3. R v. Brown (1993, UK)
Issue: Consent as a defense in criminal harm
Facts:
Group engaged in consensual sadomasochistic acts causing bodily harm.
Charged with assault.
Judgment:
Court ruled consent was not a defense to actual bodily harm in this context.
Significance:
Showed common law balancing individual autonomy vs public interest.
Informed how courts handle consent in criminal law.
4. R v. Smith (1959, UK)
Issue: Causation in homicide
Facts:
Soldier stabbed victim, who then received poor medical treatment and died.
Question whether original act was cause of death.
Judgment:
Held original wound was “operating and substantial cause” of death despite medical negligence.
Significance:
Defined causation principles in criminal law.
Important for determining liability in complex cases.
5. R v. Jogee (2016, UK)
Issue: Joint enterprise liability (common intention)
Facts:
Defendant involved in a group attack resulting in murder.
Earlier law imposed liability if foresaw possibility of murder.
Judgment:
Supreme Court overruled earlier interpretations.
Held liability requires intention to assist or encourage crime, not mere foresight.
Significance:
Reformed common law principle of joint enterprise.
Clarified mens rea standards in group crimes.
IV. Summary Table
| Case | Legal Issue | Common Law Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Cunningham | Recklessness in mens rea | Recklessness requires awareness and disregard |
| R v. Woollin | Oblique intention in homicide | Virtual certainty test for intention |
| R v. Brown | Consent and bodily harm | Consent not a defense to actual bodily harm |
| R v. Smith | Causation in homicide | Original act must be substantial cause of death |
| R v. Jogee | Joint enterprise liability | Requires intention, not mere foresight |
V. Key Takeaways
Common law develops fundamental principles in criminal law that statutes rely on.
Courts use precedent to clarify mens rea, causation, defenses, and liability.
Judicial interpretations evolve over time to reflect changing societal values.
Understanding common law is essential to grasp how criminal law is applied and interpreted.
RELATED Blog
0 comments