Legal Latin Trivia Quiz

Answer: The act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty

Although it's a laudable phrase and, to be fair, does apply to most English criminal laws, it is not always relevant. For example, strict liability and absolute liability offences have no requirement for a guilty mind (such as in Winzar v CC for Kent [1983]) and negligence crimes such as gross negligence or manslaughter do not require a guilty mind.

However, since Gemmell and Richardson [2003] (aka G and Another [2003]), the phrase is more applicable as objective recklessness no longer applies to crimes (except negligence crimes).

Answer: The guilty act

The guilty act is usually referred to as the physical act of the crime, though it is made up of the defendant's conduct, the circumstances around the crime, causation and the consequences of the crime.

Answer: A person cannot pursue a cause of action if it arises out of his own guilty act

When Lord Mackay re-established the elements of gross negligence manslaughter in Adomako [1994], he stated that the "ordinary [civil] principles of negligence apply". However some of the civil principles of negligence have not been imported into criminal law and this is one of them, following Wacker [2003].

Answer: The "but for" rule, or factual causation

The "but for" rule means that if the result would not have occurred but for the defendant's actions, then the defendant can be found guilty. It is known as factual causation. The usual case to demonstrate this is that of White [1910], in which White put cyanide in his mother's drink. However, she had only taken a few sips when she dropped down dead of an unrelated heart attack. White could not be found guilty of murder because it could not be said that, but for his actions, his mother would not have died.

I always wonder if White said to her as she was calmly drinking her coffee "Oh by the way mum, hope you don't mind, there's a bit of cyanide in there", thus actually causing his mother's heart attack!

Answer: The reasoning behind the decision

The ratio decidendi is the part of the case which is binding on all lower courts according to the doctrine of stare decisis. It relates to the law as it was applied to the facts in the case and, in principle, all lower courts must follow this part of the judgment.

Answer: To stand by what has gone before

Although courts most certainly must adhere to the statutes in all of their decisions, that is not the meaning of stare decisis. Stare decisis literally does mean "to stand by what has gone before", and it refers to the fact that courts must follow their own decisions (except for the House of Lords, which can overrule itself pursuant to the Practice Direction 1966) and the decisions of higher courts.

This is necessary in a common law system where - occasionally - the courts themselves make law (for example Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2000]).

Answer: Things said by the way

Obiter dicta are things said by judges in their judgments which do not form part of the ratio decidendi. They are persuasive on future decisions (and, in the case of the House of Lords, strongly persuasive), but are not actually binding.

Answer: Incapable of crime

Doli incapax, although it literally means incapable of crime, usually refers to a person who is not yet of the age of legal responsibility. In England this is 10 years old - anyone under 10 is conclusively (ie irrebuttably) unable to commit a crime. It used to be that children between the ages of 10 and 14 years old could use doli incapax as a defence if they didn't realise that their act was wrong, but this was abolished by s34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as interpreted by R v JTB [2009] with the leading judgment given by Lord Phillips of Worth Maltravers.

Answer: A case settled with a lack of care so that the decision is wrong

A case declared to be per incuriam is basically an incorrect decision. It usually means that the court has failed to take into consideration a statute or, alternatively, a (prior) binding decision of a higher court.

Answer: No injury is done to a willing victim

The phrase is used when a person knowingly places himself in harm's way, and then tries to sue for the harm done. It can be implied - for example, a boxer couldn't sue for injuries inflicted in the ring, even if he himself failed to realise that he would be hurt in the ring.