Conduct Crimes v.s. Result Crimes: Understanding the Differences
Introduction
In English law, crimes can be categorised as either conduct or result crimes. This distinction determines the evidence and procedures used in criminal trials, ensuring that they are fair and appropriate. Thus, this is a pivotal concept to learn, both for law students and individuals seeking to know their legal rights.
What is a conduct crime?
In a conduct crime, the conduct of the offenders suffices to make them guilty; no result or consequence arising from their actions is needed for criminal liability. Legally, this means that once an offender has completed the actus reus, aka the physical act, of the crime itself, they have broken the law.
Examples of conduct crimes include:
1. Theft (Section 1, Theft Act 1968) : A person is guilty of theft upon the completion of actus reus, with the necessary intention (mens rea). It does not matter what the consequence of the theft is, or was.
2. Making off without payment (Section 3, Theft Act 1978): The offence is committed by the act of leaving without paying, not by any resultant loss to the creditor
3. Dangerous driving (Section 2, Road Traffic Act 1988): Constituted by driving that falls far below the expected standard, irrespective of whether an accident occurs
4. Possession offences: Such as possession of controlled drugs (Misuse of Drugs Act 1971), complete upon the act of possession itself
5. Handling stolen goods (Section 22(1), Theft Act 1968): As illustrated in R v Pitham and Hehl (1997) 65 Cr App R 45, the offence is complete upon the prohibited handling conduct, with the critical question being when the theft itself was complete rather than what consequences followed from the handling
( Examples 2-5 are quoted from this article.)
What is a result crime?
A result crime is a crime where the offender’s act must have produced a specific, prohibited consequence, for them to be found guilty. This differs clearly from conduct crimes, where the offender’s act is enough to prove guilt, whether there were any consequences arising from it or not.
Therefore, there are 3 compulsory elements needed to prove a result crime has been committed:
1. Actus reus: the defendant committed a voluntary, prohibited act (the conduct element of the crime)
2. A prohibited result: This is the consequence element of the crime. For instance, homicide offences require death to have actually happened. Meanwhile, Section 1 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 stipulates that grievous / actual bodily harm) must have arisen from the defendant’s actus reus, whilst Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 requires property to be damaged or destroyed for liability in criminal damage.
3. Causation: The defendant’s conduct must have caused the prohibited result. In criminal law, 3 elements are needed to prove causation: factual causation, legal causation, and the absence of an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation (novus actus interveniens).
The consequence element of result crimes is particularly crucial, in ensuring that offenders are given fair and proportionate sentences. For instance, attempted murder and murder are different offences, with murder being a result crime that needs the consequence of death.
Through this, the law recognises that attempted and actual harm reflect different levels of criminal culpability. It acknowledges the importance of this, by distinguishing conduct and result crimes with actual implications in court trials for offenders.
Effects on Trial Evidence and Procedures
So far, the respective elements of conduct and result crimes have been examined in turn, illustrating how they differ in both legal theory and practice. The most noteworthy aspects of the distinction between them, however, arguably lie in their influence on trial evidence and procedures. This has a substantial, wide-ranging impact on the prosecution of offenders, making it an indispensable part of due process in criminal law.
The first, and most obvious, way in which the differences between conduct and result crimes affect prosecution procedures is causation.
For result crimes, both factual and legal causation is a mandatory element, to prove that the offender’s act was the cause of the prohibited consequence. This requires complex legal analysis and expert testimonies in prosecution for result crimes, but are not needed for conduct crimes (which only focus on the offender’s act, and not linking it to any consequence). Consequently, this simplifies the prosecution process for conduct crimes, where only actus reus and mens rea (the offender’s intention) are required to establish criminal liability.
Meanwhile, temporal and spatial considerations also contribute to the differences in prosecution procedures for conduct and result crimes.
For conduct crimes, it is simpler to determine when an offence is completed, for limitation periods and questions of jurisdiction. Only the conduct element of the offence requires crystallisation, i.e. the moment an act becomes a legally actionable criminal offence. In other words, determining the time and place at which a conduct crime was committed is relatively straightforward.
Result crimes, however, need the consequence of the offence to materialise before criminal liability occurs. This is for jurisdictional purposes, but it can cause legal complications as well. For instance, some cases have delayed consequences, e.g. when poisoning someone only materialises in death months later. Furthermore, questions of jurisdiction and limitation periods can arise in cases with continuing consequences for result crimes. A clear example is kidnapping, where the prohibited result of unlawful captivity lasts until the victim is freed.
Conclusion
Conduct and result crimes differ substantially from each other, with real-life implications in legal procedures for criminal law. Consequently, the distinction between them is not only an essential part of legal theory, but also of actual legal practices in the criminal justice system.
*IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This website is not intended to provide legal advice in any form or capacity whatsoever, and it should not be relied on as such. Please note that this is a legal blog developed solely for educational purposes! Thank you.
Christabel Lee
Sources:
1. 'Cambridge International AS & A Level Law' (2nd edition) by Hodder Education
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment