Criminal Authorities Flashcards

Question

Specific and Basic Intent crimes > Basic Intent?

Answer 1

Crimes where either intention or recklessness will suffice to make out the MR, for example criminal damage

Answer 2

AR and MR must coincide for the defendant to be criminally liable

Answer 3

The defendant may be found guilty of an offence where the AR and MR do not precisely match up in time/where there is a lapse of time between the two, in cases where the defendant has carried out a SERIES OF ACTS and from the outset appears to be involved in criminal activity.

Answer 4

Thabo-Meli v R and R v Le Brun

Answer 5

If the defendant has malice (intention/recklessness) to commit a crime against one victim (inc. property) this MR can be transferred to the unintentional victim.

Answer 6

R v Latimer

Answer 7

Enterprise shootout: the respondent was guilty of the victim’s murder, despite the fact that he was not the person who fired the fatal shot

Answer 8

R v Gnango

Answer 9

The doctrine is limited to crimes OF THE SAME TYPE.

Answer 10

R v Pembliton

Answer 11

1. Destroys or Damages 2. Property 3. Belonging to Another

Answer 12

Common sense approach

Answer 13

Roe v Kingerlee

Answer 14

Damage need not be extensive , consider whether there has been any expense in restoration

Answer 15

Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary

Answer 16

Anything tangible, real or personal, including money, property etc. (s.10(1) CDA)

Answer 17

Property will belong to another if that person has custody, control, a proprietary right, interest or a charge on it.

Answer 18

1. Intention or Recklessness to destroy or damage property | 2. The defendant knows or is reckless as to whether the property belongs to another

Answer 19

Either direct (Moloney) or Indirect Intent (Nedrick/Woollin)

Answer 20

Recklessness (Cunningham) – did the defendant foresee the risk and go on to take it?

Answer 21

The defendant will not be liable if honestly believed property belonged to himself

Answer 22

s. 5(2)(a) Criminal Damage Act - Permission | s. 5(2)(b) Criminal Damage Act - Protection

Answer 23

a) The defendant believed he had/would have consent from the owner/believed owner. Person capable of giving permission b) Even if fraudulent (R v Denton)

Answer 24

Permission is a defence, even if fradulent

Answer 25

a) If the defendant believed the property (his own or others) was in immediate need of protection and b) The defendant believed the means of protection were reasonable having regard to the circumstances

Answer 26

Lawful Excuse has been successful even when based on voluntary intoxication, despite criminal damage being a basic intent crime.

Answer 27

Jaggard v Dickinson

Answer 28

Same as Simple Criminal Damage, minus 'belonging to another'

Answer 29

1. Intention or Recklessness to destroy or damage property 2. Intention or Recklessness as to the ENDANGERING OF LIFE OF ANOTHER (by the damage)

Answer 30

Life doesn’t actually have to be endangered

Answer 31

R v Dudley

Answer 32

The endangerment must be from the damage or destruction itself

Answer 33

Defence of Lawful Excuse does not apply

Answer 34

1. Destroys or damages 2. Property 3. Belonging to another 4. By fire

Answer 35

1. Intention or Recklessness to destroy or damage property | 2. The defendant knows or is reckless as to whether the property belongs to another

Answer 36

1. Destroys or damages 2. Property 3. By fire

Answer 37

1. Intention or Recklessness to destroy or damage property 2. Intention or Recklessness as to the ENDANGERING OF LIFE OF ANOTHER (by the damage)

Answer 38

Physical Assault (6 months) or Simple Assault (6 months)

Answer 39

Wound or Cause GBH

Answer 40

DPP v Smith

Answer 41

GBH = Really serious harm

Answer 42

Really serious psychiatric harm, if a recognised condition

Answer 43

R v Birstow

Answer 44

Breaking both layers of skin/drawing blood constitutes wounding

Answer 45

Moriarty v Brookes

Answer 46

Bruising/Internal Bleeding is not wounding (inc. nosebleed)

Answer 47

JCC v Eisenhower

Answer 48

See s.18, minus resisting arrest

Answer 49

‘Maliciously’ i.e. intention or recklessness as to ABH

Answer 50

1. Simple physical assault 2. Causing 3. ABH

Answer 51

Any hurt/injury calculated to interfere with the health and wellbeing of the victim

Answer 52

R v Miller

Answer 53

May include psychiatric harm if a recognised condition

Answer 54

R v Ireland , R v Chan-Fook

Answer 55

Intention or recklessness as to the infliction of unlawful personal force, i.e. physical assault only

Answer 56

The defendant need not have intended or foresaw the ABH

Answer 57

R v Savage ; R v Parmenter

Answer 58

Infliction of unlawful personal force upon the victim – no injury is required, spitting is enough

Answer 59

Infliction may be indirect; e.g. setting a dog on someone

Answer 60

Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire

Answer 61

Intention or recklessness as to the INFLICTION of unlawful force

Answer 62

Acts or words | That cause the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force

Answer 63

Acts or words

Answer 64

R v Ireland

Answer 65

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Answer 66

That cause the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force

Answer 67

- Acts or words (R v Ireland) - That cause the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner) - Victim may only fear that the force COULD occur immediately

Answer 68

Victim may only fear that the force COULD occur immediately

Answer 69

R v Burstow

Answer 70

Intention or recklessness as to the victim apprehending such force (R v Venna)

Answer 71

(OAPA 1861) > | s.39 CJA 1988 Simple Assault > Mens Rea

Answer 72

Permanent disability/loss of sensory function, more than minor breaks; substantial blood loss (usually requiring transfusion); injuries resulting in lengthy treatment/incapacity.

Answer 73

Minor cuts (where medical treatment required, e.g. stitches); extensive bruising, temporary loss of consciousness, minor fractures, broken nose.

Answer 74

Minor cuts (where medical treatment required, e.g. stitches); extensive bruising, temporary loss of consciousness, minor fractures, broken nose.

Answer 75

General Rule: Only available where no harm caused or intended

Answer 76

Collins v Wilcock

Answer 77

Attorney General’s Reference No. 6 of 1980

Answer 78

Sport, provided the assault was within the rules and spirit of the game Surgical Operations Dangerous Exhibitions Other lawful activities e.g. tattooing, piercing, circumcision providing: • There is knowledge of the nature of the act • There is a genuine belief in consent, and, • There must have been consent to the actual risks involved.

Answer 79

Sport, provided the assault was within the rules and spirit of the game

Answer 80

R v Barnes

Answer 81

Other lawful activities e.g. tattooing, piercing, circumcision providing:

Answer 82

Other lawful activities e.g. tattooing, piercing, circumcision providing: • There is knowledge of the nature of the act

Answer 83

R v Tabassum

Answer 84

Other lawful activities e.g. tattooing, piercing, circumcision providing: • There is a genuine belief in consent, and,

Answer 85

Other lawful activities e.g. tattooing, piercing, circumcision providing: • There must have been consent to the actual risks involved.

Answer 86

R v Dica, R v Konzani

Answer 87

* There is a risk of corrupting young men, spreading disease, or the level of pain getting out of control * The acts ‘breed and glorify cruelty’ or * It is within public interest to criminalise the act

Answer 88

Public Interest argument failed – the victim found to have validly consenting to the defendant branding her buttocks

Answer 89

R v Wilson

Answer 90

Consent will not be valid where the realistic risk of harm is beyond transient or trivial injury

Answer 91

R v Emmett

Answer 92

Must establish that (a) the defendant used reasonable force (b) in the circumstances as he believed them to be.

Answer 93

(a) the defendant used reasonable force | (b) in the circumstances as he believed them to be.

Answer 94

Self-defence can be pre-emptive

Answer 95

Discretion in decision making allowed in the heat of the moment

Answer 96

Palmer v R

Answer 97

The defendant is to be judged on the facts as he honestly believed them to be, EVEN IF this was unreasonable or mistaken

Answer 98

R v Williams (Gladstone)

Answer 99

• Mistake was due to voluntary intoxication (requirement for reasonable force = by a sober man’s standards)

Answer 100

R v O’Grady, R v Hatton

Answer 101

• Mistake derives from psychiatric ailment (appears inconsistent)

Answer 102

R v Martin (Anthony)

Answer 103

Allows reasonable and disproportionate force to be used in such cases provided it is not grossly disproportionate

Answer 104

The self-defence cases have been codified into the s.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which was subsequently amended by s.43 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 in relation to HOUSEHOLDER cases

Answer 105

Held that this is compatible with Article 2 of the ECHR as it does not give householders carte blanche in the degree of force the use

Answer 106

R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice

Answer 107

Above interpretations of s.76(5a) followed

Answer 108

Parents/those in loco parentis can use reasonable force to discipline their children

Answer 109

R v Hopley

Answer 110

The defendant must establish: 1. The defendant reasonably believes he is THREATENED with death or serious injury to himself or another (subjective) 2. A person of reasonable firmness of the defendant’s age and gender would have given way to the threats as the defendant did (objective)

Answer 111

R v Graham

Answer 112

provided that the defendant lacks the requisite MR then • Involuntary intoxication can provide a defence to all assaults covered but; Voluntary intoxication can ONLY provide a defence to s.18 OAPA as it cannot be a defence to basic intent crimes

Answer 113

Voluntary intoxication can ONLY provide a defence to s.18 OAPA as it cannot be a defence to basic intent crimes

Answer 114

DPP v Majewski

Answer 115

Sexual Offences, s.1,2 and 3 SOA 2003, note a person can be guilty of all three offences

Answer 116

14 years (defendant over 18)

Answer 117

5 years (defendant under 18)

Answer 118

1. Penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth 2. Of another person 3. With penis and 4. The victim does not consent

Answer 119

Includes surgically constructed elements to part 1 of the AR (covers transgender victims)

Answer 120

1. Intentional penetration and | 2. Lack of reasonable belief in consent

Answer 121

DPP v Morgan

Answer 122

Objective Test for reasonable belief

Answer 123

1. Penetration of vagina or anus 2. Of another person 3. With a part of the defendants body or object 4. Victim does not consent, and, 5. Penetration is ‘sexual’

Answer 124

Definition any activities that: i. By their nature are sexual, or, ii. By their nature may be sexual due to the circumstances are sexual

Answer 125

Jury must ask the following: a) Could it be sexual? b) Was the purpose in fact, sexual?

Answer 126

1. Intentional penetration | 2. Lack of reasonable belief in consent

Answer 127

1. The defendant touches the victim | 2. The touching is sexual (see above for meaning)

Answer 128

Touching of clothing may be sexual

Answer 129

1. The defendant intentionally touches the victim, and, | 2. Absence of reasonable belief in consent

Answer 130

Definition of consent: agreeing by choice, having the freedom and capacity to make that choice

Answer 131

Situations of desperation/coercion may remove your capacity to consent; submission is not consent

Answer 132

Consent can be withdrawn at any point during penetration. Any continuation by the defendant will amount to the AR of rape (as penetration is a continuing at, s.79(2))

Answer 133

Kaitamaki v R

Answer 134

Drunken (voluntary intoxication) consent may be valid, but depends on whether the victim still capable of choosing – capacity may evaporate before unconsciousness

Answer 135

Inability to recall whether consented or not will be insufficient to establish a lack of consent or lack of capacity to consent

Answer 136

R v Dougal

Answer 137

Having unprotected sex where victim only consented to protected sex may amount to AR of rape

Answer 138

Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority

Answer 139

The defendant did the relevant act; any of the following six circumstances existed; and the defendant knew the circumstance existed.

Answer 140

* Violence or threat thereof against the victim * Violence or threat thereof against another person * The victim was, and the defendant wasn’t, unlawfully detained * The victim was asleep or unconscious * The victim could not communicate to the defendant due to physical disability or * The victim was intoxicated by any person without their consent

Answer 141

The defendant intentionally deceived the victim as to the nature or purpose of the act (narrowly interpreted)

Answer 142

• R v Jheeta (Harvinder Singh) ; Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority

Answer 143

It will turn on the nature and extent of the deceit

Answer 144

R v Devonald

Answer 145

The defendant intentionally induces consent by impersonating someone known to the victim

Answer 146

Lack of consent may still be found, even if these presumptions do not apply

Answer 147

R v Jheeta

Answer 148

s.1,2 and 3 then s.9 Defendant is over 18 / s.13 Defendant is under 18

Answer 149

s. 5 rape s. 6 Assault by penetration s. 7 Sexual assault s. 9 Defendant is over 18 / s.13 Defendant is under 18

Answer 150

1. The defendant touches the victim | 2. The touching is sexual

Answer 151

1. The defendant intentionally touches the victim and | 2. The victim is under 16 and the defendant doesn’t reasonably believe the victim is 16 or over.

Answer 152

If the defendant is over 18 = 14 years / if the defendant is below 18 = s.13 = 5 years

Answer 153

Where the victim is 13 their consent or otherwise is irrelevant. Offences are strict liability

Answer 154

s.5 rape s.6 Assault by penetration s.7 Sexual assault s.9 Defendant is over 18 / s.13 Defendant is under 18 Mirroring the above adult offences

Answer 155

Intoxication is only a defence if the defendant lacks the MR

Answer 156

R v Kingston

Answer 157

Where the defendant has no knowledge of the consumption of alcohol/drugs.

Answer 158

Includes where an administered (non-dangerous) drug produces adverse side effects

Answer 159

R v Hardie

Answer 160

Defence to crimes of Specific AND Basic intent

Answer 161

Anything not involuntary, including if the defendant knew he was drinking, but underestimated the effect

Answer 162

Definition (R v Allen)

Answer 163

Only defence to crimes of SPECIFIC intent

Answer 164

DPP v Majewski

Answer 165

Should be treated as BASIC INTENT crimes, meaning voluntary intoxication will not be a defence to them.

Answer 166

Ss. 1,2,3,9,13 SOA | R v Heard

Answer 167

Voluntary intoxication will be a defence to Simple Criminal Damage, even though it is a basic intent crime.

Answer 168

Jaggard v Dickinson

Answer 169

Voluntary intoxication will be a defence to Simple Criminal Damage, even though it is a basic intent crime.

Answer 170

Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher

Answer 171

Dutch Courage – The defendant cannot rely on the defence of voluntary intoxication if he had the MR of the crime before he started drinking.

Answer 172

Where the defendant was mistaken in using force due to voluntary intoxication then the defence of self-defence will fail

Answer 173

R v O’Grady

Answer 174

Confirmed O'Grady. A person mistaken due to voluntary intoxication does not have a defence to a charge of murder or manslaughter

Answer 175

R v Hatton

Answer 176

Majewski = general rule (voluntary intoxication = specific intent crimes only) UNLESS O’Grady applies, that voluntary intoxication lead to the defendant using mistaken self-defence (confirmed in R v Hatton)

Answer 177

1. The defendant must cause the: 2. Unlawful killing (R v Coke) 3. Of a human being, not unborn child (R v Poulton) 4. Under the Queen’s peace (R v Coke, R v Clegg)

Answer 178

Actus Reus > 2. Unlawful killing

Answer 179

R v Poulton

Answer 180

Actus Reus > | 3. Of a human being, not unborn child

Answer 181

R v Coke, R v Clegg

Answer 182

Actus Reus > | 4. Under the Queen’s peace

Answer 183

Death occurs when there has been the irreversible death of the brain stem

Answer 184

R v Malcherek and Steel

Answer 185

The defendants act or omission must accelerate death and be a substantial/significant cause of death

Answer 186

Causation is a question of fact for the jury to decide

Answer 187

R v Clarke and Morabir

Answer 188

But for the defendants actions, the victim would not have died as and when he did

Answer 189

Acceleration must be significant, more than minimal

Answer 190

R v Cheshire

Answer 191

* An event intervenes with the defendants conduct and the end result, unless the event was foreseen/foreseeable, or; * There is an intervening act but the injuries inflicted by the defendant were still the, “operating and substantial” cause of death (Malcherek and Steel)

Answer 192

There is an intervening act but the injuries inflicted by the defendant were still the, “operating and substantial” cause of death

Answer 193

R v Malcherek and Steel

Answer 194

The defendant need not be the sole cause of the victim’s death, it only need contribute significantly (more than minimal – Cheshire) There can be more than one defendant

Answer 195

R v Pagett

Answer 196

Take your victim as you find them. (e.g. if the victim refuses a blood transfusion for religious reasons, the defendant cannot assert this breaks the chain of causation)

Answer 197

Death from fright; no physically inflicted injuries. Apply test: would a sober and reasonable person foresee that the act created a risk of some physical harm occurring to the victim?

Answer 198

R v Watson

Answer 199

There will still be legal causation if the original wound is an operating and substantial cause of death AT THE TIME OF DEATH

Answer 200

Medical Negligence will only break the chain of causation if, ‘so independent of the defendants acts, and in itself so potent in casuing death, the defendants acts were an insignificant contribution to death.’

Answer 201

R v Cheshire

Answer 202

If the victim dies of a pre-existing condition, but the injuries prevented treatment, medical negligence cannot be cause of death (egg shell skull rule)

Answer 203

R v McKechnie

Answer 204

* Intention to kill, or * Intention to cause GBH, i.e. very serious harm * NOT RECKLESSNESS

Answer 205

For intention use Moloney/Woollin

Answer 206

Murder with Malice Aforethought

Answer 207

Intention to cause GBH, i.e. very serious harm

Answer 208

DPP v Smith

Answer 209

NOT RECKLESSNESS

Answer 210

R v Moloney

Answer 211

Irrelevant that the defendant killed with benevolent intentions, as in mercy killings

Answer 212

R v Inglis

Answer 213

The offence will be reduced to one of manslaughter

Answer 214

On the defendant – ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES

Answer 215

(a) Diminished Responsibility | (b) Loss of control

Answer 216

• Abnormality of mental functioning which; • Arises from a recognised medical condition, including; o WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and o Diseases not included if they are generally recognised but not yet included, and which; • Substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct and/or form a rational judgement, and/or exercise self control.

Answer 217

Defendant's Impairment must be substantial, more than minimal

Answer 218

• Provides an explanation for the defendant’s acts and omissions, in doing or being a party to the killing. It must be more than merely trivial; there must be causation.

Answer 219

Alcohol Dependence syndrome is among the recognised medical conditions on the WHO ICD. The Jury should therefore focus exclusively on the effect of the alcohol consumed as a direct result of the illness and ignore the effect of any voluntarily consumed alcohol.

Answer 220

R v Dietschmann

Answer 221

There are Three elements to consider: 1. The defendants acts and omissions in doing or being party too the killing resulted from the defendants loss of self-control and; 2. The loss of control had a qualifying trigger 3. A person of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint in the circumstances, of the defendant, might have acted in the same or similar way to the defendant

Answer 222

2. The loss of control had a qualifying trigger, for example i. The defendant fears serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another identified person ii. Things done or said that (a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and (b) caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. Or, iii. A combination of the above iv. Unless the defendant caused any of the above

Answer 223

i. The defendant fears serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another identified person

Answer 224

ii. Things done or said that (a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and (b) caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

Answer 225

iii. A combination of the above (fear of serious violence, grave character, justifiable sense of being seriously wronged) iv. Unless the defendant caused any of the above

Answer 226

(3. A person of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint in the circumstances, of the defendant, might have acted in the same or similar way to the defendant.) s. 54(3) : i. Take into account all circumstances, other than those whose only relevance is what they bear on the defendants conduct

Answer 227

The judge will allow the defence to be raised if there is enough evidence

Answer 228

Sexual Infidelity will not amount to a qualifying trigger.

Answer 229

R v Clinton, Parker and Evans

Answer 230

1. Do an unlawful Act 2. The unlawful at is dangerous 3. The unlawful act causes the victim’s death

Answer 231

Crime requires proof of intention/recklessness, cannot be negligent

Answer 232

Any unlawful Act

Answer 233

DPP v Newbury and Jones

Answer 234

Cannot be an Omission

Answer 235

Must carry SOME risk of harm (objective test)

Answer 236

DPP v Newbury and Jones

Answer 237

Some risk of harm: | e.g. would a sober and reasonable person who watched the act be carried out think that it would be dangerous?

Answer 238

R v Ball, R v Church

Answer 239

Burglary could amount to a dangerous act depending on the circumstances

Answer 240

R v Burstow

Answer 241

Mens Rea of the relevant unlawful act

Answer 242

1. Duty of Care owed to the victim. 2. Breach of that duty. 3. Risk that the defendants conduct could cause death. 4. Evidence that breach did cause death 5. Reasonable – Jury’s conclusion that the defendant fell so far below the standards of the reasonable person in that situation that he can be labelled grossly negligent and deserving of criminal punishment

Answer 243

R v Willoughby Whether a duty of care exists is a matter for the jury once the judge has decided that there is evidence capable of establishing a duty

Answer 244

R v Khan May be an omission, providing there is a duty to act Where there is a special relationship (R v Stone and Dobinson); contractual duty (R v Pittwood); a statutory duty, or the defendant created a dangerous situation (R v Miller)

Answer 245

Risk of serious injury is not enough, must be death

Answer 246

It is not appropriate to take into account what the defendant would have known but for his breach of duty

Answer 247

No MR – just make out test and apply to facts

Answer 248

Causes death of another whilst driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously, on a road or in another public place. - No need to establish risk of death, only dangerous

Answer 249

Way he drives falls far below a competent, careful driver, and Would be obvious for a competent and careful driver that drivng in that way would be dangerous

Answer 250

Causes death of another whilst driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or in another public place Without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other road users.

Answer 251

No MR for the offence of Careless and Inconsiderate Driving (s.3 RTA 1988). Driver is assessed against the standards of the reasonable driver – a fixed objective test.

Answer 252

McCrone v Riding

Answer 253

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (CMCHA)

Answer 254

(a) The defendant is a qualifying organisation (b) The organisation owes a duty of care (c) The organisation breached that duty (d) The breach caused death (e) The breach is a GROSS BREACH of that duty (f) Management failure by Senior Management

Answer 255

The organisations to which is section applies are s.1(2) • A corporation • A department • A police force and • A partnership/trade union/employer’s association that employs people

Answer 256

This includes any duty owed under negligence (s.2) for example: • Duty to employees/other persons working for the organisation • Duty as an occupier • Duty in connection with: o The supply of goods and services o Construction/maintenance o Any commercial activity, or o The keeping of a thing for another • Any person for whom the organisation is responsible. This is a question of law for the judge.

Answer 257

Consider the facts

Answer 258

There must be legal and factual causation (see Murder)

Answer 259

Conduct falls far below what can be reasonable expected in the circumstances (s.1(4)(b) Consider s.8: • How serious the failure was; • How much risk of death it posed; • Attitudes that were likely to have encouraged any such failure or encourage tolerance of it; • The health and safety guidance, and • Other relevant matters

Answer 260

• A substantial element of the breach was in the way the activities were managed and organised by Senior Management s.1(3) • Senior management is people who play significant roles in s.1(4)(c) o DECISION-MAKERS or o HANDS-ON MANAGEMENT • Management failure includes the following: o Poor training of frontline employees o Procedures not followed by employees o Poor management at an operational level of business, and o Failing to put proper health and safety systems in place, or failing to manage and enforce those systems effectively

Answer 261

Corporate Manslaughter Reform ‘07 | There may be problems with interpreting ‘gross breach’ and ‘senior management’

Answer 262

Consider Health and Safety – Has the Organisation complied with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA)

Answer 263

Employer required to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all individuals

Answer 264

Those who are not employed shouldn’t be exposed to risks of health and safety

Answer 265

If the organisation has complied, it should be safe from prosecution under the CMCHA

Answer 266

If Coporate Manslaughter is made out, consider penalties@ - Fine - Additional Sentencing - Liability of Individual Directors

Answer 267

The seriousness of the offence. - Consider harm and culpability. How foreseeable was the injury? How far short of the expected standard did the defendant fall?

Answer 268

* Micro-organisation (turnover up to £2m) * Small organisation (turnover between £2m and £10m) * Medium organisation (turnover of between £10m-£50m) * Large Organisation (turnover of £50m+)

Answer 269

- Fines range from a minimum of £180k to a maximum of £20m, given this, must consider overall means of the defendant.

Answer 270

1. The seriousness of the offence. 2. Type of organisation 3. Proportionality 4. Profitability of organisation 5. Economic Benefit derived from offence 6. Will the fine put the defendant out of business? - Relevant but may be an acceptable consequence

Answer 271

Remedy the breach s.9 Name and shame by making a publicity order s.10

Answer 272

Gross negligence manslaughter (see above) – a duty of care is owed (R v Pittwood) Disqualification of Director: if convicted, an indictable offence in connection with the way the company was managed Conviction as an accomplice to the organisations corporate manslaughter NOT possible (s.18 CMCHA)

Answer 273

The defendant had no knowledge of consumption of alcohol/drug and

Answer 274

Administered drugs adverse side effects

Answer 275

R v Hardie

Answer 276

If MR is absent, involuntary intoxication will succeed as a defence to murder, voluntary manslaughter, or constructive manslaughter.

Answer 277

However, if MR is present, the defendant may get a reduced sentence

Answer 278

R v Kingston

Answer 279

Anything not involuntary, including if the defendant knew he was drinking, but underestimated the effect.

Answer 280

If MR is absent, voluntary intoxication will only succeed for crimes of specific intent, i.e. murder and voluntary manslaughter.

Answer 281

EFFECT: | DPP v Majewski

Answer 282

Theft s.1 Theft Act 1968 (7 years)

Answer 283

Fraud s.2 The Fraud Act 2006 (10 years and an unlimited fine)

Answer 284

Making off without Payment s.3(1) Theft Act 1978 (two years)

Answer 285

1. Appropriation 2. Of Property 3. Belonging to Another

Answer 286

An assumption of the rights of an owner – including where a person acquires property without stealing it, but then later assumes the rights of an owner (s.3(1) TA 1968)

Answer 287

s.3(1) TA 1968

Answer 288

Consent of the owner is irrelevant as to appropriation

Answer 289

DPP v Gomez

Answer 290

Can be a valid gift of property

Answer 291

Not appropriation if you purchase goods • For value • Acting in good faith

Answer 292

s.3(2) TA 1968

Answer 293

Appropriation must involve some contact with property. Not sufficient for the defendant to merely cause the victim to use the property in a manner beneficial to the defendant

Answer 294

R v Briggs

Answer 295

Cannot steal property more than once – although appropriation can be continuous

Answer 296

R v Atakpu

Answer 297

The list is virtually endless

Answer 298

R v Smith, Plummer and Haines

Answer 299

Things in action = intangible property, capable of being enforced by legal action, e.g. IP Bank accounts, overdrafts..

Answer 300

Chan Man-Sin v R

Answer 301

s. 4(1) TA 1968 Money, real property, personal property s. 4(3) TA 1968 Wild plants if picked for commercial purposes s. 4(4) TA 1968 Wild animals, if tamed/ordinarily kept in captivity

Answer 302

Confidential Information

Answer 303

Oxford v Moss

Answer 304

Electricity (covered by a separate offence s.13 TA 1968, the unlawful extraction of electricity)

Answer 305

Low v Blease

Answer 306

Property can belong to another, (even if the property is in fact your own)

Answer 307

R v Turner [No.2]

Answer 308

Property can belong to another if they have possession of/control of/proprietary interest in the property and

Answer 309

s.5(1) TA 1968

Answer 310

the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of the defendant who had misappropriated money which he had raised for charity and collected in a special bank account.

Answer 311

R v Wain [1995]

Answer 312

breaching a contractual obligation is not the same as theft (travel agent failing to book flights that are paid for)

Answer 313

R v Hall [1973]

Answer 314

s.5(3) TA 1968 | DPP v Huskinson

Answer 315

Property can belong to another if you have received that property form another and are legally obliged to deal with it in a particular way.

Answer 316

It did not belong to the owner, AT THE TIME of the dishonest appropriation (in such cases consider the offence of making off without payment) or It is abandoned.

Answer 317

Edwards v Ddin

Answer 318

Property left for a specific purpose is not abandoned: | Clothing left outside charity stores

Answer 319

R (Rickets) v Basildon Magistrates Court

Answer 320

Property left for a specific purpose is not abandoned: | Rubbish left for collection

Answer 321

Williams v Phillips

Answer 322

1. Dishonesty | 2. Intention to permanently deprive

Answer 323

s. 2(1) TA 1968, The defendant is not dishonest, if he believes: i. he had the LEGAL RIGHT to deprive the other ii. the other would have CONSENTED iii. the other could NOT REASONABLY BE FOUND

Answer 324

The defendant is not dishonest, if he believes: | i. he had the LEGAL RIGHT to deprive the other

Answer 325

R v Turner

Answer 326

A willingness to pay for property is not an automatic defence to theft

Answer 327

s.2(2) TA 1968

Answer 328

Ivey v Genting

Answer 329

The defendant will have acted dishonestly if: (subjective) actual state of the defendants knowledge/belief of the facts was dishonest by the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people (the second limb of Ghosh no longer applies)

Answer 330

Where the victim only has limited interest in the property, e.g. the victim is borrowing the property himself

Answer 331

Where the defendant intends to replace the item, even where the replacement is identical (therefore applies to cash)

Answer 332

R v Velumyl

Answer 333

s.6(2) TA 1968

Answer 334

Where someone parts with an item under a condition as to its return that the defendant may not be able to perform

Answer 335

If the defendant does NOT intend to permanently deprive, he may still be deemed to if he treats item as his own to dispose of, regardless of owner’s rights

Answer 336

s.6(1) TA 1968

Answer 337

Selling used underground tickets

Answer 338

R v Marshall

Answer 339

Stealing from a company, believing the bank would reimburse the company

Answer 340

Chan Man-Sin v R

Answer 341

Offering items back to the owner to buy

Answer 342

R v Raphael

Answer 343

R v Lloyd Only if ‘the goodness of the virtue is gone’ R v Lloyd s.6(1) will only be used in exceptional circumstances

Answer 344

R v Lloyd Only if ‘the goodness of the virtue is gone’ R v Lloyd s.6(1) will only be used in exceptional circumstances

Answer 345

1. Making a Representation | 2. Which is False

Answer 346

Words or conduct (held that eating out in a restaurant amounted the a representation that the defendant had intention and means to pay)

Answer 347

Use of Credit Cards – the defendant had exceeded the credit limit but continued to use it

Answer 348

Express or implied representations

Answer 349

s.2(4) FA 2006

Answer 350

s.2(5) FA 2006

Answer 351

Representations made to a machine

Answer 352

Untrue or misleading

Answer 353

Misleading = ‘less than wholly true and capable of interpretation to the detriment of the victim’

Answer 354

Home office Guidance

Answer 355

`Having another person impersonate you to sit a driving test

Answer 356

Idrees v DPP

Answer 357

Falsely informing a customer that they did not have a winning lottery ticket

Answer 358

R v Nizzar

Answer 359

Falsely claiming that work had been done, requiring payment

Answer 360

R v O’Leary

Answer 361

* Any consequence to follow on from the representation, or, | * Someone, in fact, to be misled

Answer 362

1. Dishonesty 2. Intention, by making the representation to make a gain for himself/loss to another: • Gain/loss extends only to money or property s.5(2) • ‘Gain’ includes keeping what one already has s.5(3) • ‘Loss’ includes not getting what one might get s.5(4) 3. Knowledge/recklessness as to the possibility that the representation is untrue or misleading (or that it may be)

Answer 363

* Gain/loss extends only to money or property s.5(2) * ‘Gain’ includes keeping what one already has s.5(3) * ‘Loss’ includes not getting what one might get s.5(4)

Answer 364

s.3(1) TA 1978

Answer 365

1. Supply of goods or services (unless this is contrary to law or payment is not legally enforceable s.3(3) TA 1978) 2. The Defendant MAKES OFF FROM THE SPOT where payment is required • ‘On the spot’ includes payment at the time of collecting goods s.3(2) TA 1978 • Doesn’t include attempting to make off 3. WITHOUT paying as required or expected (includes paying with a worthless cheque, stolen credit card

Answer 366

1. DISHONESTY (Use Ivey Test) 2. KNOWLEDGE that payment on the spot was required 3. Intention to PERMANENTLY AVOID PAYMENT

Answer 367

R v Vincent Christopher James

Answer 368

Defence: where the defendant has obtained agreement of the victim that he will pay in the future (AR 2.KNOWLEDGE cannot be met)

Answer 369

The defendant will not be liable if he intends to return and pay later

Answer 370

It is important to distinguish between the MR of this offence and that of false representation. No false representation occurs if the person intends to pay, but then makes off

Answer 371

(see Edwards v Ddin in contrast with DPP and Ray)

Answer 372

s.8(1) TA 1968

Answer 373

s. 9(1)(a) TA 1968 | s. 9(1)(b) TA 1968

Answer 374

1. The defendant STOLE 2. The defendant USED or THREATENED FORCE on any person 3. The force/threat of force was IMMEDIATELY BEFORE, or AT THE TIME OF the theft 4. Force/threat of force was used IN ORDER TO STEAL

Answer 375

Outline the AR of Theft: s. 1(1) 1. Appropriation 2. Of Property 3. Belonging to Another

Answer 376

This is a matter for the Jury in each case to determine; but need NOT be significant

Answer 377

R v Dawson

Answer 378

(force) may be applied to someone’s property

Answer 379

R v Clouden

Answer 380

Slight touching will not amount to force, i.e. snatching a cigarette without making contact with the victim

Answer 381

Force may be in relation to any person – but where force is threatened against a third party, the third party must be aware of this threat

Answer 382

s.8(1) TA 1968

Answer 383

Jury must consider whether the appropriation was still continuing at the time the force was used. If yes, the defendant may be guilty

Answer 384

1. The defendant STOLE The MR of theft (R v Vinall) 2. Recklessness or intention as to the USE/THREAT OF FORCE

Answer 385

1. The defendant STOLE | The MR of theft (R v Vinall)

Answer 386

Argues Recklessness is enough

Answer 387

Prof JC Smith in ‘The Law of Theft’

Answer 388

1. Enter 2. Building or part of a building 3. As a trespasser

Answer 389

Entry must be EFFECTIVE for the purpose of burglary (matter for the jury)

Answer 390

Entry of some part of the defendants body into premises may be effective entry (whether the defendant is able to commit the crime or note)

Answer 391

Where an instrument is inserted to commit the offence, this amounts to entry (but not where it is used to gain access to building)

Answer 392

Prof Griew in The Theft Acts 1968 and 1978

Answer 393

‘Building’ includes inhabited vehicles and vessels | Must have a degree of permanence about it

Answer 394

Physical demarcation (e.g. roped off area or counter) that excludes the public from a certain area, may indicate that this is a SEPARATE PART OF THE BUILDING (question for the jury)

Answer 395

R v Walkington

Answer 396

Need proof that defendant entered WITHOUT CONSENT

Answer 397

Permission to enter gained through fraud is not true permission

Answer 398

If the defendant has permission to enter for a lawful purpose, but entered for an unlawful one, this will also be trespass - But only if the defendant knew or was reckless too that he was exceeding the terms of permission given, and intended to do so AT THE TIME OF ENTRY

Answer 399

R v Jones and Smith

Answer 400

1. Enter 2. Building or part of a building 3. As a trespasser (as s.9(1)(a)) 4. The Defendant commits the ACTUS REUS OF THEFT/ATTEMPTED THEFT or GBH/ATTEMPTED GBH

Answer 401

Wounding/Breaking of the skin will not suffice for GBH as it does for OAPA 1861) Must occur in the same part of the building that the defendant is a trespasser

Answer 402

1. MR of Trespass i.e. (a) The defendant knows/is reckless to the fact that they are entering as a trespasser (b) The defendant must posses this MR AT THE TIME OF ENTRY 2. Intent to commit theft/GBH/Criminal Damage

Answer 403

R v Collins | The defendant knows/is reckless to the fact that they are entering as a trespasser

Answer 404

MR of Trespass: | The defendant knows/is reckless to the fact that they are entering as a trespasser

Answer 405

* Intent must coincide with entry * Can be CONDITIONAL intent (e.g. conditional on there being something worth stealing) * If the defendant trespasses in part of a building, this intent must be in relation to the same part

Answer 406

1. MR of Trespass (as above) 2. Intent to commit Theft/GBH or Attempted Theft/GBH THE DEFENDANT CAN POSSESS MR AT TIME OF ENTRY OR AFTER

Answer 407

s. 9(1)(a) must posses at the time of entry/trespass | s. 9(1)(b) can posses on entry or after

Answer 408

AR and MR must coincide, but this can be within a series of acts,

Answer 409

Thabo-Meli v R

Answer 410

(AR and MR must coincide,) but this can be within a series of events

Answer 411

R v Le Brun

Answer 412

The doctrine of transferred malice applies to attempts

Answer 413

L v Latimer

Answer 414

For transferred malice, the AR must be the same type of crime that the defendant originally intended

Answer 415

R v Pembliton

Answer 416

Attempts s.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Answer 417

To do an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence

Answer 418

Impossibility does not prevent AR from being established, for example pick-pocketing an empty pocket or trying to break into a safe with a spoon

Answer 419

S.1(2) CAA 1981

Answer 420

Significant steps need to be taken towards the full offence, but not necessary for the defendant to have done all that he intends to do.

Answer 421

Pointing a gun at someone is more than merely preparatory

Answer 422

He must have at least embarked upon the crime proper, which is a question of fact, to be decided by the jury

Answer 423

R v Gullefer

Answer 424

Impossibility is irrelevant (s.1(2) CAA 1981) e.g. defendant believed he was carrying rugs which turned out to be talcum powder, still found to have completed AR

Answer 425

R v Shivpuri

Answer 426

Intent to commit the offence

Answer 427

Usually the prosecution must establish that the defendant intended the consequences that form the AR and MR of the full offence

Answer 428

For criminal damage and ‘result crimes’ like murder, intention must be present. Recklessness is not enough.

Answer 429

R v Whybrow, R v Millard and Vernon

Answer 430

For aggravated Criminal Damage, the defendant must intend to damage, but can be reckless as to whether life is endangered. No need for life to actually be endangered for AR.

Answer 431

Attorney General’s Reference No.3 1992

Answer 432

If recklessness with regards to existing circumstances is sufficient for full offence, it will be sufficient for an attempt. For rape, must intend intercourse and wither know of, or be reckless too, lack of consent.

Answer 433

Impossibility doesn’t prevent the MR of an attempt being established

Answer 434

R v Shivpuri

Answer 435

Adequate for the MR of an attempt e.g. ‘I’ll steal something if there’s something worth stealing.’

Answer 436

An accomplice assists in the commission of an offence whilst not committing the AR of the offence. An accomplice can be punished in the same way as the offender

Answer 437

s. 8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 For accomplice to Either way/indictable offences s. 44 Magistrates Court Act 1980 For accomplice to summary offences

Answer 438

Can’t be an accomplice after the fact (though can pervert the course of justice)

Answer 439

You can’t be an accomplice if you are the victim to a crime created to protect you. (e.g. a 14 year old girl persuading a 19 year old to have sex with her)

Answer 440

R v Tyrell

Answer 441

If the defendant had to do the act of assistance e.g. to fulfil a contractual obligation, they will still be liable for aiding a criminal offence as the criminal law will take precedence over the civil law.

Answer 442

Garrett v Arthur Churchill (Glass) Ltd and another

Answer 443

1. Aid, abet, counsel or procure | 2. A crime

Answer 444

Give assistance (no need for mental or causal link between accomplice and principal)

Answer 445

Give encouragement at the time of the offence (probably mental link, but not causal)

Answer 446

Give encouragement earlier i.e. prior to committing the offence (probably mental link, but not causal)

Answer 447

Bring about the offence (not mental link, but causal)

Answer 448

Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not in itself sufficient to amount to AR

Answer 449

R v Clarkson

Answer 450

Paying to attend an illegal event could amount to encouragement of the crime

Answer 451

Wilcox v Jeffrey

Answer 452

Remaining silent or failing to intervene where there is a right or duty to control actions of principal can amount to encouragement

Answer 453

Du Cros v Lambourne

Answer 454

Pub owner keeping pub open after hours was accomplice to drinking after hours

Answer 455

Tuck v Robson

Answer 456

Failure of parent to intervene with other parent in ill-treatment of child amounts to encouragement

Answer 457

R v Russel and Russel

Answer 458

A person who agrees to the joint enterprise pf having a shoot-out and causes another to shoot at him, is guilty of attempted murder himself

Answer 459

R v Gnango

Answer 460

The AR of an act must be committed by a principal offender for accomplice liability to arise

Answer 461

If the principal offender escapes liability, e.g. by raising a defence, an accomplice can still be convicted.

Answer 462

R v Cogan and Leak

Answer 463

Use of innocent agents to commit AR of a crime usually results in the defendant being convicted as principal rather than accomplice

Answer 464

The defendant can still be charged as an accomplice in such circumstances – different MR requirements.

Answer 465

R v Bourne

Answer 466

1. Consider general principles 2. Recent decisions in R v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen: 3. National Coal Board (NCB) v Gamble two elements to MR 4. If a principal offender acts beyond the scope of a plan

Answer 467

In strict liability cases were principal does not need MR, accomplice does not need MR

Answer 468

Callow v Tillstone

Answer 469

If an accomplice has a higher MR than the principle it is possible for the accomplice to face a more serious charge, so long as AR is met.

Answer 470

must have intention to assist or encourage the crime

Answer 471

2. Recent decisions in R v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen

Answer 472

(a) intention to do the act that aided the principle | (b) knowledge of circumstances

Answer 473

Provided by deliberate act/words of assistance amounting to encouragement. Fact that the defendant may not have wanted to or intended to assist in commission of offence is irrelevant.

Answer 474

If assistance has been physical, more than verbal communication may be necessary in order to constitute withdrawal

Answer 475

Elements of effective withdrawal include unequivocal, timely communication of intention to withdraw. If already at the scene of the crime, communication is probably not enough.

Answer 476

R v Becerra

Answer 477

Words alone may suffice where withdrawal takes place before a crime – e.g. two weeks of persuasion not to commit the crime

Answer 478

R v Grundy

Answer 479

The defendant must have known/suspected that certain things would/might happen which in fact constitute the AR of an offence. (Irrelevant whether the defendant knew their circumstances amounted to a crime)

Answer 480

Johnson v Youden

Answer 481

As long as the defendant has a specific type of offence (e.g. theft) in his contemplation, exact details are not necessary

Answer 482

R v Bainbridge

Answer 483

If the defendant has a range of offences within his contemplation, he is liable as accomplice for whichever one is committed

Answer 484

Maxwell v DPP Northern Ireland

Answer 485

Both principle and accomplice will be liable for unexpected consequences beyond the scope of the plan

Answer 486

R v Lovesey and Peterson

Answer 487

Where the accomplice assists the principal and has full contemplation of it, but different intent, there is no reason why he shouldn’t be liable for ‘degree of offence appropriate to intent with which he acted.’

Answer 488

R v Gilmour

Answer 489

Foresight is evidence of intent but no more

Answer 490

Accomplice can avoid liability by relying on R v English even if he foresaw that the principal may intentionally kill

Answer 491

R v Rahman

Answer 492

Two different types of knife are insufficient to take it beyond the scope of the initial plan

Answer 493

You cannot be charged with attempting to be an accomplice. (but you can be charged with being an accomplice to an attempt)

Answer 494

s.1(4)(b) CAA 1981

Answer 495

As a result of public pressure to legislate on self-defence, the Government has codified some of the principles above in s 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

Answer 496

(a) the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act; (b) the defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to the relevant act by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant.

Answer 497

This means that lack of consent and lack of belief in consent are conclusively established.

Answer 498

conviction quashed on appeal as the injury sustained was no longer an operating and substantial cause of death, the chain of causation was broken by the medical negligence the victim sustained.

Answer 499

R v Jordan

Answer 500

s2 of the Homicide Act 1957 which, according to the Court of Appeal in R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396, meant a state of mind so different from ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal.

Answer 501

1. abnormality of mental functioning; which 2. arose from a recognised medical condition; 3. substantially impaired D’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct, and/or form a rational judgment, and/or exercise self-control; and 4. provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.

Answer 502

Can Be raised in relation to any crime. This requires the defendant to prove, again on the balance of probabilities, that he was suffering from a ‘disease of the mind’ causing a ‘defect in reason’ so that either he did not know the ‘nature and quality’ of his act, or he did not know that his act was legally (and morally) wrong. This defence arises from M’Naghten’s Case (1843) [1843-60] All ER Rep 229.

Answer 503

 Qualifying organisation – s.1(2)  Owes a relevant duty of care – s.2(1) & (5)  Breaches duty – apply to facts  Breach causes death – link/causation  Breach is a gross breach – s.1(4)(b) & s.8  Substantial element of breach is in the way activities were managed or organised by senior management – s.1(3), s.1(4)(c) & s.8

Criminal Authorities Flashcards

(579 cards)