Criminal law

Question 1

Summary offence

Answer 1

A criminal offence which is triable only by a Magistrates’ Court

• There’s no possibility to go in front of a jury for these kinds of offences some people
  might think it’d be in their favour to be listened to by a jury and that a jury would
  make it easier for them, but it’s just not possible.

Question 2

Indictable offence

Answer 2

A criminal offence triable only by the Crown Court

• Starts at the Magistrates Court, because that is where the first stage happens even if
  it’s just on paper. It goes straight up, you have no choice about going to the Crown
  Court, because the offence is too serious, too complex or has a very long sentence.
• These offences are always too serious to be tried by the Magistrates’ Court and they
  require higher sentences.

Question 3

Either-way offence

Answer 3

An offence which may be dealt with either summarily by
the magistrates or be sent to the Crown Court to be tried by jury

• Summarily: because it’s a summary offence Offences (assault being the absolute
  classic) where, depending on the circumstances and the type of sentence that is
  required if found guilty, you will either go summarily by the magistrates, or (this is
  where the choice about the guilty-plea comes in) the defendant can request Crown
  Court trial, so going before a jury, but higher sentences are possible. Or the
  magistrates say they don’t want to deal with it, because it’s either too complicated.
• If an accused pleads ‘not guilty’, he can request the Crown Court or more specifically
  trial by jury.
  ● If it’s not requested but Magistrates find the case too serious, they can send it
  up themselves.

E.g. a drunk bar fight on Friday night that can range from just minor injuries to 2 days
in the hospital.
● Minor injuries: Magistrates’ Court
● Two days in the hospital: Crown Court there will also be a lot more public
interest.

Question 4

Sentence

Answer 4

the punishment given by the Magistrate or Crown Court Judge

Question 5

Charge

Answer 5

A formal accusation against a person that a criminal offence has been
committed

Question 6

Rv Collins

Answer 6

The defendant climbed a ladder to an open window where the victim, a young woman, was sleeping naked in her bed. He climbed back down the ladder and stripped leaving only his socks on. When he climbed back up the woman awoke and saw him at the window. Thinking he was her boyfriend, she invited him in. It was not clear whether he was inside or outside of the window when she invited him in. They proceeded to have sexual intercourse, she realised something was wrong and when she realised it was not her boyfriend she screamed at him to get off. He was charged for burglary on the grounds that he entered as a trespasser with the intent to commit rape. The defendant appealed due to a misdirection as the jury had not been asked to consider whether he was a trespasser when he entered the property.

Question 7

Elements of crime

Answer 7

THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Actus Reus
THE MENTAL ELEMENT: Mens Rea

Question 8

THE MENTAL ELEMENT: Mens Rea

Answer 8

Very few criminal offenses don’t need this element. Negligent, wreckless, it doesn’t mean
you intended to achieve what has happened. There has to be a mental element, which
relates to people who don’t have the mental capacity to form an intention (psychiatric illness
and so).
Ignorance or mistake of law is no defence: fact that you didn’t know something was illegal,
doesn’t matter, because you did intend to do the act.
- E.g. smoking a joint, you did intend to do so, do it in front of children in the middle of
London, give one to your friend and you did want to get high

Question 9

The criminal conduct: actus reus

Answer 9

You must always have criminal conduct (you can’t convict for a criminal intention/thought). If
there is no criminal conduct, there is nothing done, there is no act, you can’t prosecute. As
long as you don’t act on your criminal intentions, you can’t be prosecuted for it. It is
important in the adversarial system, particularly the criminal system; If you are prosecuting
someone, you have to prove they committed the act, you have to know what the act is, that
is criminal, that needs to be proven.

Question 10

beyond reasonable doubt’.

Answer 10

The Prosecution needs to prove the elements of the crime ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
- The proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that
there could be no ‘reasonable doubt’ in the mind of a ‘reasonable person’ that the
defendant is guilty.