Inchoate offences and parties to a crime MCQs Flashcards
A woman goes into a department store intending to take a bottle of perfume and leave without paying for it. The woman reaches for the bottle of perfume, ready to take it but then sees a security guard and pulls her hand back.
Which one of the following best describes the offence she may be criminally liable for?
Attempted theft
Theft
Robbery
Criminal damage
The woman will not be criminally liable for any offence
Attempted theft
This is the correct answer. The woman aims to dishonestly take the perfume belonging to the department store permanently. The only element that is missing is her appropriation (taking or even touching) of the perfume. It doesn’t matter that the department store consents to customers taking perfume bottles off the shelves generally, as appropriation can occur even with the consent of the department store (Gomez). The woman reaching for the perfume is likely to go beyond mere preparation and she will be considered to have embarked on the crime proper, like Tosti (examining a padlock) and Jones (in the car).
The other options while plausible were incorrect:
She could be criminally liable for attempted theft.
The woman has not yet completed the theft which would take place at the point that she appropriates the perfume bottle.
As there is no theft here, so there can be no robbery.
There has been no destruction or damage of property, so there can be no criminal damage.
A woman tells her friend that her boyfriend has been having affairs with other women and that, in revenge, she is going to his house that night to scratch the paintwork on his new car. The friend says ‘He deserves it. Go for it!’ The woman makes several prominent scratches on the car.
What is the friend’s liability as a secondary party to this criminal damage?
She has procured criminal damage and is liable as a secondary party
She has counselled the woman to commit criminal damage and is liable as a secondary party
She has aided the woman to commit criminal damage and is liable as a secondary party
She has abetted the woman to commit criminal damage and is liable as a secondary party
She is not liable as a secondary party as the friend would have committed the criminal damage in any event
She has counselled the woman to commit criminal damage and is liable as a secondary party
Correct. Counselling is giving advice or encouragement before the commission of the offence. There has been contact between the parties and a connection between the counselling and the offence, although it does not have to be shown that the friend’s words have had a positive effect on the woman’s conduct, see R v Calhaem.
The other options are incorrect or not the best answer.
She is criminally liable as has counselled the woman- there is no requirement for any causal link between the friend’s words and the woman’s commission of the offence here.
Abetting is incitement or encouragement at the time the offence is committed but this happens before the offence is committed. To procure is to produce by endeavour, that is to bring about the woman’s commission of the offence. The friend cannot be said to have caused the woman to commit the criminal damage here. To aid is to give assistance in the commission of the offence. On the facts the friend has not given the woman any assistance e.g. the location of the car or a method to scratch it.
A man was the lawful owner of several handguns. The man’s brother was always complaining about his neighbour whose dogs bark all night. The brother frequently said his life was intolerable and one day he would have to do something about the dogs or his neighbour. Last month the brother asked to borrow a handgun, saying, ‘I will use it just once and this will transform my life.’ The brother used it to shoot dead his girlfriend’s husband (the victim) and was convicted of murder.
Which of the following best explains the man’s liability as a secondary party to the murder?
The man will be liable if he knew his brother would use the gun for some unlawful purpose
The man will not be liable if he did not foresee that his brother might kill the victim
The man will not be liable if he did not foresee that his brother might kill or cause serious harm to the victim
The man will be liable because he caused the death of the victim, without his gun the murder would not have taken place
The man will be liable if he thought his brother might use the gun to either kill the dogs or kill his neighbour
The man will be liable if he thought his brother might use the gun to either kill the dogs or kill his neighbour
Correct. It is enough if the man assisted his brother in committing one of a number offences he had in contemplation, DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell. If the man envisaged his brother killing someone with the mens rea for murder, it does not matter if he does not know the details such as the victim or the day it would take place, R v Bainbridge.
The mental element in assisting or encouraging a crime is intention to assist or encourage. This requires knowledge of any existing facts necessary for it to be criminal and if the crime requires a particular intent, the man must intend to assist or encourage his brother to act with such intent.
The other options are incorrect.
The man will be liable because he caused the death of the victim, without his gun the murder would not have taken place- it is not necessary to show there is a causal link between the assistance given by the man and the commission of the offence by his brother. Even if such a link can be established, it is not enough to assist in the murder committed by his brother. To be liable, the man must also have the relevant mens rea.
The man will be liable if he knew his brother would use the gun for some unlawful purpose- this mens rea is not specific enough.
The man will not be liable if he did not foresee that his brother might kill or cause serious harm to the victim- if the man intends to give his brother the means to commit a crime but it remains unclear what his brother might do, the man may be liable for the offence committed by his brother if he intends his brother to act with the relevant mens rea.
Two boys were throwing large stones at the windows of a disused factory. The victim heard the noise of breaking glass and ran towards the boys yelling at them to stop. Both boys laughed and each picked up another stone and threw it in the direction of the victim. One of these stones hit the victim who suffered a fractured skull. Each boy denied it was their stone which hit the victim.
Can the boys be convicted of s 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861?
Both boys can be convicted as they were joint principals taking part in a joint enterprise
Neither boy could be convicted as they merely threw stones in the direction of the victim, not at the victim
Neither boy can be convicted as the joint enterprise was to do criminal damage
Both boys can be convicted as they were taking part in a joint enterprise and each one was either the principal or a secondary party
Neither boy can be convicted as it cannot be proved which one was the principal offender that threw the stone which hit the victim
Both boys can be convicted as they were taking part in a joint enterprise and each one was either the principal or a secondary party
Correct. The general rule is if it cannot be proved which of two people committed the crime, both must be acquitted. However, if it can be proved that the one who did not commit the crime as the principal was a secondary party to the crime, then both can be convicted, R v Russell and Russell. Here the boy whose stone did not hit the victim was a secondary party. The boys were on a joint enterprise to damage the property. The s 20 OAPA 1861 offence arose from that joint enterprise and they each would have known that the other would act with the mens rea for s 20 i.e. have seen the risk of causing some harm to a person.
The other options are incorrect.
Where two or more parties are committing a crime together as part of a joint enterprise and one party goes on to commit another crime, the other party is not to be considered automatically as a joint principal for the new offence.
Where two or more parties are committing a crime together (in a joint enterprise), but one party goes on to commit another crime, it is not necessary to show that the other party aided or encouraged the new crime. It is sufficient that the other party was a party to the joint enterprise and had the relevant mens rea for an accessory.
A woman hates her neighbour who is a drug dealer. One day, the woman returns home and sees her neighbour doing repairs to his car at the front of his house. Shortly afterwards, she looks out of a window facing over the gardens at the back of the houses and sees a figure squeezing through a window into the neighbour’s house. She goes to the front of the house and sees her neighbour is about to go into his house. She goes outside and engages him in conversation for 10 minutes to give the intruder more time. The intruder leaves the house with several thousand pounds in cash.
Which of the following best describes the woman’s liability for burglary?
She will not be a secondary party as the burglary occurred when the intruder entered the house which was before her act of assistance
She will not be a secondary party to the burglary as the intruder was unaware that they were being aided
She will not be a secondary party to the burglary as there is no causal link between her assistance and the offence
She will be a secondary party to a s 9(1)(b) burglary as she has aided in the intruder’s commission of the offence
She will be a secondary party to a s 9(1)(a) burglary as she has aided in the intruder’s commission of the offence
She will be a secondary party to a s 9(1)(b) burglary as she has aided in the intruder’s commission of the offence
Correct. To aid is to give assistance, help or support to the principal party in carrying out the offence at any stage before or during the commission of the offence. It is not necessary to show a causal link between the assistance and the commission of the offence or a consensus between the secondary party and the principal. When she gave assistance, the intruder may have already appropriated the cash. However, it was held in R v Hale that appropriation is not an instantaneous act. It was also held that a jury is likely to find the act is still continuing while the intruder is on the premises. So, the appropriation (theft) is still continuing, and the s 9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968 burglary is still continuing. There is no need for the intruder to know of the assistance and there is no need for the assistance to cause the burglary.
