Legal Drafting And Case Law Analysis In Criminal Law
Define key concepts.
Analyze more than five important UK criminal cases in detail.
Show how legal drafting is shaped by those decisions.
🔹 Part 1: What Is Legal Drafting in Criminal Law?
Legal drafting in criminal law involves writing:
Indictments and charges (by the prosecution),
Submissions and pleadings (by both sides),
Judgments (by the court),
Appeals, warrants, or bail applications, etc.
Key goals:
Clarity
Accuracy
Legal precision
Logical structure
🔹 Part 2: Case Law Analysis in Criminal Law
Case law analysis means identifying:
The facts,
The issue (legal question),
The decision, and
The legal reasoning (ratio decidendi).
It’s essential for understanding how laws are interpreted, especially when statutes are vague or evolving.
🔹 Part 3: Detailed Case Law Explanations (6+ Cases)
Here are seven landmark criminal cases, explained clearly, with a focus on how legal drafting and judicial reasoning played a role:
1. R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
Issue:
What does "maliciously" mean in the context of criminal damage?
Facts:
The defendant damaged a gas meter and gas leaked, harming a woman nearby.
Ruling:
"Maliciously" requires proof of either:
Intention, or
Subjective recklessness (i.e., awareness of risk).
Drafting lesson:
When drafting charges involving intent, you must specify the mental element (mens rea) clearly — general terms like “maliciously” require legal interpretation, and Cunningham clarified it.
2. R v G and Another [2003] UKHL 50
Issue:
What is the correct test for recklessness?
Facts:
Two boys accidentally set fire to a shop by lighting newspapers. They didn’t foresee the risk.
Ruling:
Overruled the previous objective test in Caldwell. Recklessness requires:
The defendant actually foreseeing the risk, not just whether a reasonable person would.
Impact on legal drafting:
Drafters of charges must frame allegations of recklessness with subjective awareness, post-G.
3. R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75
Issue:
Can a person consent to actual bodily harm (ABH) in private sadomasochistic acts?
Facts:
Group of men engaged in consensual violent acts.
Ruling:
Consent is not a defence to ABH or worse, except in lawful situations (like sports or surgery).
Legal drafting point:
When arguing exceptions, drafters must carefully distinguish between harm that is legally permitted and what isn’t. Brown helps define those limits.
4. R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82
Issue:
What is the test for indirect (oblique) intention in murder?
Facts:
A father threw his baby onto a hard surface; the baby died.
Ruling:
Jury may find intent if:
Death or serious harm was a virtual certainty, and
The defendant appreciated that.
Drafting significance:
Helps prosecutors and judges define intention beyond direct aim. Drafts of murder indictments or jury directions must reflect Woollin's test when intent is indirect.
5. R v Shivpuri [1986] UKHL 2
Issue:
Can someone be guilty of attempting an impossible crime?
Facts:
Shivpuri believed he was smuggling drugs — but the substance was harmless.
Ruling:
Yes — a person can be guilty of attempt even if the full crime was impossible, if they believed they were committing it.
Drafting lesson:
Charges of attempt must capture the defendant’s intent and belief, not just whether the crime was possible.
6. R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22
Issue:
What are the limits of the defence of duress?
Facts:
Hasan claimed he was forced to commit robbery under threat.
Ruling:
Duress is not available if:
The defendant voluntarily associated with criminals, and
Could foresee being coerced.
Drafting takeaway:
When alleging duress, drafters must explore the defendant’s associations and foresight, not just immediate threats.
7. R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8
Issue:
What is the proper test for joint enterprise liability in murder?
Facts:
Jogee encouraged a co-defendant who killed someone. He was convicted of murder under old joint enterprise law.
Ruling:
Mere foresight that a co-defendant might commit murder is not enough — intent to assist or encourage must be proved.
Impact on legal drafting:
Joint enterprise charges now require clear drafting of intent, not just foresight. This overturned decades of precedent.
🔹 Summary Table
| Case Name | Legal Principle | Drafting Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Cunningham | Defined “maliciously” as subjective recklessness | Mens rea must be clearly drafted |
| R v G | Recklessness = awareness of risk | Charges must reflect subjective test |
| Brown | Consent not valid for ABH | Exceptions must be clearly defined |
| Woollin | Oblique intention clarified | Murder charges must allow for indirect intent |
| Shivpuri | Attempt even if crime impossible | Draft intent based on belief |
| Hasan | Duress excluded by voluntary association | Duress defence must be carefully limited |
| Jogee | Joint enterprise needs intent, not foresight | Co-defendant charges need proof of intent |
RELATED Blog
0 comments