Criminal Law 1

Compiled by Haruna Hauwa

 Understanding the meaning of “crime”
In Criminal Law, the most important subject matter is the crime. The main purpose of criminal law is to curb crime. What then is
a crime? Are there common characteristics of acts that are labeled as crimes? How do we define a crime? The easy answer is
that a crime is whatever the law declares to be a criminal offense and punishes with a penalty.
A crime can be defined as an anti-social behavior that falls within the general disapproval of the state or the society. It can
also be understood as an act or omission which is considered grievous by the society in order to warrant being punishable by
the laid down set of rules.
A crime can also be understood as a breach of rules that leads to the accusatorial procedure controlled by the state and is
liable to punishment.
To give a juristic approach to the definition of crime, it has been defined by Okonkwo and Naish as “those breaches of the
law resulting in special accusatorial procedure controlled by the state and liable to sanction over and above compensation
and cost”.
According to Black’s law Dictionary, a crime is an act or omission that the law makes punishable; the breach of a legal duty
treated as the subject matter of a criminal proceeding.
Crime has also been defined by S. 2 of the Criminal Code “as an act or omission which renders the person doing the act or
making the omission liable to punishment under this code, or under any Act or Law”.
Section 3(1) Penal code “A person shall be liable to punishment under the Penal Code for an act or omission contrary to the
provision thereof of which he shall be guilty within the Northern Nigeria”.
 Introduction to Nigerian Criminal Law

 The criminal law is the foundation of the criminal justice system. The law defines the acts that may lead to an arrest,
prosecution, and imprisonment. States punish a range of acts in their criminal codes. The Criminal Law is an important
instrument not only for maintaining law and order, it also signals society’s disapproval of acts and omissions which are
injurious to society and violates moral norms which are worthy of legal protection. As with most other concepts in law, there
is no universally accepted definition of criminal law. However, all definitions of criminal law must state that it is a set of
rules, it prescribes offences and provides the punishment thereof.

 Criminal law can also be defined as the branch of law that concerns the citizenry more than any other branch of law. It
controls the aspects of human behavior that concerns relation between the citizen, his neighbor and the state.
 Criminal and Civil Law
 How does the criminal law differ from the civil law? The civil law is that branch of the law that protects the individual rather
than the public interest. A legal action for a civil wrong is brought by an individual rather than by a state prosecutor. You
may sue a mechanic who breaches a contract to repair your car. The injury is primarily to you as an individual, and there is
relatively little harm to society. A mechanic who intentionally misleads and harms a number of innocent consumers, however,
may find himself or herself charged with criminal fraud.
 Civil and criminal actions are characterized by different legal procedures. For instance, conviction of a crime requires the
high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, however responsibility for a civil wrong is established by the much
lower standard of proof.
 Criminal prosecutions are commenced by the state on behalf of the aggrieved party who has been wronged the aggrieved
party cannot initiate the proceeding himself unless he obtains a fiat to initiate private prosecution. Tort on the other hand ,
can be initiated by an individual with or without the help of the state.
 Sanctioned prescribed where an individual has been found guilty of a crime is called punishment. In a civil case, a party
liable is liable in form of damages which may include compensation.
 An individual in a criminal case cannot withdraw a criminal proceeding once it has been initiated unless the offence is
compoundable. In civil proceedings an individual can withdraw an action.
 Criminal and Civil Law

The distinction between civil and criminal actions can be blurred, especially with offenses that have both societal and individual
implications. For instance, consider a drunk driver causing a car accident. This act can lead to both criminal charges (reckless
driving, DUI) and a civil lawsuit (for property damage, personal injuries). The criminal case focuses on punishing the driver for
endangering society through their actions. The state prosecutes the driver, seeking penalties like fines or imprisonment to deter
future offenses and uphold societal safety standards. In contrast, the civil lawsuit aims to compensate the victim for their losses.
The injured party files the lawsuit, seeking monetary damages to cover medical expenses, vehicle repairs, lost wages, and pain
and suffering. Essentially, criminal cases prioritize societal protection and punishment, while civil cases prioritize individual
compensation and dispute resolution
 Scope and functions of Criminal Law

Criminal law deals with the broad range of offenses that involve the detriment of society. These have been further divided
into categories: felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions, based on the severity of the crime. Felonies are the most serious and
include crimes such as murder and robbery, which are also punished most severely, including very long sentences in prison.
Misdemeanors are less serious, like vandalism or petty theft, and thus usually entail fines or shorter jail terms. Infractions are
minor offenses, such as traffic violations, and typically carry fines.

The scope of criminal law extends to specific areas of criminal activity such as violent crimes, property crimes, white-collar
crimes, drug offenses, and cybercrimes. Each area presents special legal issues and requires a set of knowledge and
expertise. For instance, white-collar crimes, like fraud and embezzlement, involve a number of complicated financial activities
and require professional knowledge of accountancy and finance. Similarly, cybercrimes, including hacking and data
breaches, require the offender to understand technology and computer systems.
 Scope and functions of Criminal Law

Functions of Criminal Law

Criminal law serves several purposes and benefits society in the following ways:
 Maintaining order. Criminal law provides predictability, letting people know what to expect from others. Without criminal
law, there would be chaos and uncertainty.
 To preserve public order and decency. Criminal law preserves public order and decency by prohibiting and punishing acts
that disrupt the peace, safety, and well-being of society. It sets boundaries on behavior to ensure a harmonious and orderly
society where individuals can live and interact without fear or undue interference.
 Protecting individuals and property. Criminal law protects citizens from criminals who would inflict physical harm on others
or take their worldly goods. Because of the importance of property in capitalist America, many criminal laws are intended
to punish those who steal.
 Providing for smooth functioning of society. Criminal law enables the government to collect taxes, control pollution, and
accomplish other socially beneficial tasks.
 Safeguarding civil liberties. Criminal law protects individual rights.
 Content of Criminal Law

The content of criminal law is vast and multifaceted, it includes various aspects of societal protection and regulation.
Here are some key areas:
 Preservation of Life: This fundamental principle underlies numerous criminal laws. It aims to protect human life from
harm and violence. Crimes related to this include: Homicide; Murder, manslaughter, and other unlawful killings, Negligent
Endangerment etc.
 Preservation and Protection of Property: Criminal law safeguards property rights and punishes those who unlawfully
interfere with them. Examples include: Theft, robbery, burglary, Vandalism Fraud, etc.
 Protection of the State Itself: This category focuses on offenses that threaten the stability and security of the nation.
Examples include: Treason, Espionage, etc.
 Protection of Morality: While the definition of morality can be subjective, criminal law often addresses actions deemed
harmful or offensive to societal values. Examples include: Prostitution, Drug Offenses, etc.
Other Vile Acts: This category encompasses offenses that undermine the integrity of the justice system and public institutions.
Examples include: Perversion of Justice, Bribery, Embezzlement, etc.
These categories provide a general overview of the core functions and content of criminal law.
 Objects of Punishment
Punishment
The term punishment is defined as, “pain, suffering, loss, confinement or other penalty inflicted on a person for an offence’ by the
authority to which the offender is subjected to.”
H. L. A. Heart with Mr. Bean and Prof Flew has defined punishment in terms of five elements:
 It must involve pain or other consequences normally considered unpleasant.
 It must be for an offence against legal rules.
 It must be to an actual or supposed offender for his offence.
 It must be intentional, administered by human beings other than the offender.
 It must be imposed and administered by an authority constituted by a legal system against which the offence is committed.
According to Greenhut , there, three components must convince the offender that
 crime does not pay;
 after punishment, the offender must have a fair chance of a fresh start.
 the state which claims the right of punishment must uphold superior values which the (offender) can reasonably be expected
to acknowledge.
 Objects of Punishment

The "object of punishment" refers to the primary goals or purposes that a society seeks to achieve through the imposition of penalties
on individuals who have committed crimes. All the differences and complications observed in the analysis of the concept of theories of
punishment have arisen in the expertise effort in trying to answer the simple question: “Why should offenders be punished?” This
question has led to the development of different theories in the field of punishment, some of which are
 Retribution: Retribution as a theory supports the notion that punishments should be administered because an offence has been
committed. An offender “deserves” to be punished because he/she has violated a rule. This theory hopes to ensure that the
offender will bear the consequences of his/her action.
The theory of retribution is premised on vengeance and, therefore, involves looking back at the injury caused by the offender. It has an
element of vengeance for paying back for what the offender has caused or done against the society. According to this theory,
punishment serves to satisfy the victim or society’s desire for justice and to send a message that such behavior will not be tolerated.
One of the main arguments in support of the retributive theory is that punishment is necessary in order to hold offenders accountable
for their actions and to demonstrate that society will not tolerate criminal behavior. Proponents of this theory argue that punishment
serves an important moral function by providing a sense of closure and justice for victims and their families, and by affirming the value
of the laws that have been violated.
This theory proposes tit for tat, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. The punishment has to be proportional to the crime committed. The
believers of this theory say that criminals must suffer pain. Retributive theory is the most ancient theory of justice.
 Objects of Punishment
The retributive theory of punishment, often associated with the idea of "an eye for an eye," has faced several criticisms:
1. It is only for emotional satisfaction as it is usually based on “legalized vengeance” which does not have any utilitarian
foundation.
2. It focuses exclusively on the past conduct, meaning that it is simply paying the criminal for his actions in the past and not the
possibility of him being a better person.
3. It is said to be a theory that is oriented towards the behaviour that the offender has already engaged in rather than his
future conducts or the conducts of potential offenders.
4. It is argued against this theory that the concept of “just desert” will be difficult to implement particularly in relation to
offences against the human persons, biological offences, or professional offences.
 Deterrence: deterrence theory holds that criminal punishment is justified because punishment reduces or deters crime. A
deterrence theory of punishment insists that the institution of criminal punishment is necessary or justified because punishment
serves to deter crime. How does punishment deter crime? Presumably, upon learning the likely consequences of committing a
crime, a potential offender might abandon his plan because he would like to avoid the bad consequences attached to the
crime, namely, the punishment associated with the offence. For instance, if I know that the punishment for stealing a pizza is 3
months of prison time, I will not steal the pizza because I do not want to spend three months in prison.
 Objects of Punishment
From this brief description, we can observe two important assumptions of the deterrence theory: (1) potential offenders are
rational agents capable of taking into consideration the likely consequences of their actions; and (2) punishment is intended to
give potential offenders a reason not to commit a crime.
Assumption 1) The Capacity Assumption—Potential offenders are rational agents. it assumes that potential offenders are
rational agents capable of taking into consideration the consequences of their actions. If an action X will (highly likely) bring
about some undesirable consequence Y, then rational agents will avoid doing X because they would like to avoid Y. Thus, in
criminal legislation, sanctions are attached to various criminal offences. They are regarded as a negative consequence of
criminal wrongdoing, a price to be paid for violating the criminal code. Because rational agents would like to avoid these bad
consequences, they would likely avoid committing the offences. This is how punishment deters crime.
Assumption 2) The Deterrence Assumption—Punishment aims to give reasons against criminal offense. Because
punishment is supposed to dissuade rational agents from engaging in criminal activities, methods of punishment are likely to
come in the form of some negative experience—a cost or a price, rather than a benefit or reward. If we were to deter rational
agents from committing crimes, we must make sure that the consequences of offending are likely to be bad for them. Otherwise
rational agents may go on with their plan to commit a crime. In addition, if a form of punishment causes only mild damage to an
offender, then the offender might consider this punishment an acceptable cost to his offending. When a method of punishment is
not severe enough, potential offenders might think that overall, the consequences of committing a crime are still better than not
committing it. Thus, in order to deter crime, punishment must function to make criminal offenses unprofitable and possibly also
injurious to the interests of the offender. This way, we can be sure that rational offenders would likely be dissuaded from
offending.
 Objects of Punishment

Criticism of deterrence theory of punishment includes;

1. It commits us to using offenders unacceptably.
2. It is unable to deliver acceptable limits on punishment.
3. It may not effectively reduce crime, as it does not address underlying causes of criminal behavior.
4. Excessive harshness of punishment can defeat its purpose by arousing public sympathy towards offenders.
 Rehabilitation: the idea of rehabilitation is based on the understanding of returning the offender to the society neither
embittered nor with a resolve to get revenge for degradation and suffering, but possessing a new set of values and morals
which will give the desire to contribute to the society. The theory emphasizes the need to change the offender for the better,
reorienting the attitude of the offender to make him a better person tomorrow. They said the legislators must make laws that
will make the prison system efficient for a proper rehabilitation and reformation.
This theory argues that punishment has restorative effect or rehabilitative effect or reformative effect on the psychology of the
offender; that the offender should be considered a sick person who needs to be treated to give him an opportunity to change his
values, his behaviour, and his social orientation which will all stop him from committing further offences. Under this theory it is
argued that punishment should be tailored to fit the offender and his psychological needs, rather than to fit the offence which will
bring no value.
 Objects of Punishment

criticisms of rehabilitation theory of punishment:

1. Limited Success: Despite the aim, rehabilitation programs often have mixed results in reducing recidivism. Many offenders re-
offend after release, suggesting that the programs may not be effective enough in addressing the root causes of criminal
behavior.
2. Resource Intensive: Rehabilitation programs can be expensive, requiring significant investment in resources such as trained
professionals, facilities, and treatment programs. This can strain public budgets and raise questions about the cost-effectiveness
of such initiatives.
3. Potential for Abuse: There is a risk that rehabilitation programs can be used to justify longer periods of incarceration,
potentially infringing on an individual's rights. Critics argue that focusing on rehabilitation can sometimes lead to indefinite
detention based on an assessment of an offender's "cure" rather than the severity of their crime.
 Elements of an offence
Generally speaking, an offence is made up of two elements, required for commission and liability. These are the physical element
(actus reus) and mental element (mens rea). To hold someone responsible for a crime, the state has to show criminal intent and criminal
actions. Under common law, this includes showing both the mental state and physical act for criminal responsibility.
 What Is Mens Rea in Criminal Law?
Mens rea is Latin for “guilty mind.” This is the criminal state of mind. A prosecutor has to prove the defendant had a culpable state of
mind to prove guilt. To have a guilty state of mind, the defendant has to be aware of their conduct. The defendant knows the conduct
is illegal. Without the required mental state, the defendant can’t be convicted for doing something they did not know was wrong. For
example, with the insanity defense, a person is not held responsible for a crime if they lack the capacity to understand the
wrongfulness of their conduct. Criminal liability can be based on general intent or specific intent. General intent is the mental element
to do a certain action. Specific intent means the person intended to bring about a certain result.
 What Are the features of Mens Rea?
A guilty mind is not limited to intentional conduct. There are four types of culpability mens rea elements under criminal law:
1. Purposely: Consciously engaging in unlawful conduct
2. Knowingly: Is aware that conduct is of a criminal nature
3. Recklessly: Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk of illegal actions or results
4. Negligently: Should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of illegal actions or results
 Elements of an offence
Some crimes are strict liability offenses. That means you don’t have to intend to commit a crime, but the act is a crime by its nature.
Strict liability offenses are crimes where the prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant committed the act, regardless of their
mental state or intent. This means that even if the defendant didn't know they were breaking the law or didn't intend to do anything
wrong, they can still be found guilty. Common examples include traffic violations (like speeding or running a red light), selling alcohol to
a minor, or certain environmental regulations.
 What Is Actus Reus in Criminal Law?
Actus reus is Latin for “guilty act.” This is a voluntary act or omission for a criminal offense.
Think of it as the physical manifestation of the crime. It includes:
1. Voluntary actions: Actions that are consciously and intentionally performed.
2. Omissions: Failures to act when there is a legal duty to do so.
For example, in a theft case, the actus reus would be the physical act of taking someone else's property without permission. In a murder
case, it would be the act of causing the death of another person.
Omissions: Parent-Child Relationship, A parent has a legal duty to care for their child. Failing to provide food, shelter, or medical care
to a child can be considered child neglect, a criminal omission
R v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450
In Instan the defendant lived with her aunt who became ill with gangrene. The aunt was unable to feed herself or to seek medical help
personally. The defendant did not feed the aunt, nor did she seek any medical help for her, despite remaining living in the aunt’s house
and eating the aunt’s food. The defendant was convicted of the aunt’s manslaughter. It was considered that the defendant’s neglect of
the aunt had facilitated the aunt’s death.
 Preliminary Offences
The criminal law not only provides sanctions to punish the achievement of prohibited objectives, it also provides the means for society to
intervene before such objectives are completed. Thus, the incitement of a crime or a conspiracy or an attempt to commit a criminal act
are all punishable, provided, of course, that the accused has the necessary mens rea (guilty mind). Incitement, conspiracy and attempt
are referred to as preliminary offences or as inchoate crimes. Whether the activity amounts to incitement, conspiracy or attempt (that is
whether it amounts to the actus reus, or prohibited act) and the extent of the accompanying mens rea which must be proved, is
determined by the common law.
Under preliminary offences, the defendant is liable for the offence even when the secondary crime was not committed, it only needs to
be proved that the defendant took certain steps towards the commission of the offense. These offenses are also referred to as inchoate
or incomplete crimes.
 Forms of Inchoate (Preliminary) Crimes
1. Incitement: Both the Criminal and Penal Codes did not give a precise definition of an act referred to as Incitement, but it seems that
incitement as a preliminary offence is the same with the inchoate crime of abetment. Inciting another to commit an indictable act is a
misdemeanor under the common law and, it matters not that the person incited is persuaded successfully to commit, or attempt to commit
the crime. Incitement or abetment happens when a person directs, encourages or instructs another to commit a criminal act. An example
here is the crime of prostitution. The offence is completed when one person instructs, or encourages another to commit a prohibited act.
The offences of solicitation or incitement have two main ingredients: • Intention to have the crime committed by someone else. • The other
person is induced by an act of the other. A person must have a specific intention of trying to induce another for the act of committing a
crime before he can be liable for the offence of solicitation, such intention could be adduced from his usage of some key words, or
phrases peculiar to the crime. However, he cannot be charged with both solicitation and the actual crime committed, thus the offences of
solicitation and/or incitement will be merged together with the completed offences and prosecuted
 Preliminary Offences

2. Abetment: Another form of inchoate crime is abetment, and the crime is said to have been committed when a person
encourages or incites another to commit another crime. Words or phrases need not to be uttered in some situations, even signs
and gestures might be sufficient. Words used in incitement must not be direct. As it was held in the Indian case of Emp. V Nazir
Ahmad, that a by stander had abetted the Landlord in committing an offence of assault when the Land Lord assaulted a tenant
for not paying rent and an unruly behavior while the by stander was encouraging him to take more drastic actions against “the
tenants of now a days”. It will not be a defense to argue that the offence to be committed was for any other reason not
committed at the end, for example it is not a defense to a High school Principal that an act he abetted was not committed, when
he gave student instructions to break, enter and remove from a boutique some jewelry. However, both of them were not aware
that fire has destroyed the boutique the preceding nights and the goods burnt. At midnight the student showed up with house
breaking tools for the operation and was subsequently arrested at the scene, he later made confessions for his mission. In this
case the Principal was liable for abetting the offence, notwithstanding the fact that it would not have been possible for the
student to commit the offence abetted. Section (87) of the penal code provides that a person abetting a crime may be liable
even when the other person commits another offence different from the abetted one if it can be proved that the subsequent
offence is a likely consequence from the abetted one. If a person abets another to commit robbery at a bank, and supplies him
with a gun, during the operation the Bank cashier was killed. In this case the person abetting the robbery will be liable as an
abettor of both the crimes of robbery and murder.
 Preliminary Offences
3. Attempt: The most important category of inchoate offence is attempt, which consists of any conduct intended to accomplish a criminal result that fails of
consummation but goes beyond acts of preparation to a point dangerously, close to completion of the intended harm. The line between acts of mere
preparation and attempt is difficult to draw in many cases. Trying to commit an offence and failing is an attempt, and it is often referred to as the most
penal crime (inchoate crime) because the crime may have become close to completion. In this regards a person would be charged with attempted murder
when shoots but misses to kill another, if such intention can be proved, however he would have been charged with murder If he has succeeded in killing the
victim. Therefore, it is an offence to attempt to commit any offence. In some crimes, law specifies the punishments to be meted for an attempt such as life
imprisonment under section (320) of the criminal code for attempted murder. The objective of Criminal law here is to prevent the committing of offences, as
it is popularly said, “to nib the accused person's diabolical plans in the bud”.
The provision of section (4) of the Criminal Code reads: “When a person, intending to commit an offence, begins to put his intention into execution by means
adapted to its fulfillment and manifests his intension by some overt act but does not fulfill his intention to such an extent as to commit the offence he is said to
attempt to commit the offence”. A person must have undergone the following stages before he could have committed the forbidden act:
• Firstly, he must have had the intent to commit such an offence, and he would then have embarked on some preparatory moves in pursuance of committing
the offence, and lastly, he would have had the crime actually committed.
• It must also be proved by the prosecution that the accused has had the intention of committing the crime which he was alleged to have attempted
committing.
The accused in R V. Offiong, entered the room of a woman uninvited, took off his clothes, expressed to her his desire for sexual intercourse, even caught
hold of her body. It was held by the court that these acts were not sufficiently enough for an attempted rape. There was no evidence suggesting that the
accused had the intention of forcefully having a sexual intercourse with the woman against her wish, and as such, his actions could not have amounted to
attempted rape because intention to have the intercourse without the woman's consent must be proved to be in existence in rape as explained by Section
(357) of the criminal Code.
 Preliminary Offences
4.Conspiracy: Under Nigerian Law, two or more persons who entered into agreement for the purpose of accomplishing an
unlawful act or accomplishing a lawful act by unlawful means are guilty of conspiracy. There must be more than one person for
the offence of conspiracy to be committed, because a conspiracy results from an agreement and one person cannot make an
agreement. In a situation for instance, where the prosecution charge only two persons with conspiracy, it is a general rule that
where one is acquitted then the other accomplice too must be set free. Equally, conspiracy is a separate crime from the main
offence and as such the two do not merge. Hence, the persons must be charged individually and separately for committing the
offence which is actually committed, and each of the crimes will be punished separately.
It is a trite law that as long as a person’s intention to commit an offence remains in him alone, there will be no interference from
the criminal law. But when several persons form a common intention to commit an offence, then criminal law will intervene to stop
them from achieving their mischievous intention, and then charge them with the offence of conspiracy. The combine effect of
sections (516) and (517) of the penal Code is to render persons who agree among themselves to commit a forbidden act liable to
punishment
Conclusion
Inchoate crimes are conducts deemed criminal without actual harm being done, provided that the harm that would have occurred
is one that is forbidden by a statute. Thus, this work examined the offences by appraising the relevant provisions of our Codes.
The offences are justified in that inchoate crimes enable law enforcement agencies to intervene at the earliest time. To curb the
consequences of criminal enterprise of two or more people as soon as they have reached an agreement is a better strategy for
the protection of the society from the evil consequences that would have ensued if such evil enterprise is pursued by such group. To
stop a person who had started to put his evil plans into action by meting out to him some punishment is deterrence enough since
otherwise such person would have tried again to achieve his criminal intent. And finally, those who agreed to be used by another
person who commissioned them for a Criminal purpose should know that there is no escape route for them to argue that the
original mens rea (state of the mind) is that of another with regard to the crime abetted.