Criminal Law Flashcards

Question

Can you consent to an assault?

Answer 1

Can consent to simple assault and battery, not ABH or GBH with and without intend (unless exception like surgery, tattoo - body mods don't count.) Types: 1. Actual consent (e.g surgery, dentist, tattoo); and 2. Implied consent (inevitable touching day to day). How must consent be given? a. Freely and given by informed and competent adult (ie can’t withhold info, be a child, be mental etc); b. Not valid if obtained by fraud as to identity or as to nature/quality of act.

Answer 2

1. Actus reus: The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s peace (common law) – if killed enemy in combat may be defence; 2. Mens rea: Malice aforethought but this is misleading, modern definition of the mens rea for murder is an intention either to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. SUBJECTIVE. No malice needed, even if sympathy killing. Specific intent so can’t be committed recklessly. - Mandatory life sentence. May not spend whole life in jail, judge decides min term and if deemed no longer a threat will be released. When back in community, subject to life license so can be recalled back if commit further offence.

Answer 3

- Victim must be human being (once baby is born it counts even if injury in womb). Time of death considered when brain stem has died i.e can’t breath etc – turning machine off isn’t the important bit - Must CAUSE death

Answer 4

Same as murder: 1. Actus reus: The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s peace (common law) – if killed enemy in combat may be defence; 2. Mens rea: Malice aforethought but this is misleading, modern definition of the mens rea for murder is an intention either to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. SUBJECTIVE. No malice needed, even if sympathy killing. Specific intent so can’t be committed recklessly. This is essentially murder but has been downgraded due to diminished responsibility; loss and control or suicide pact. No mandatory life sentence, judge has discretion.

Answer 5

It downgrades murder to manslaughter, it focuses on external factors that led to killing. Requirements: 1. D must lose control (SUBJECTIVE i.e not reasonable person - was there element of planning?); 2. Caused by qualifying trigger; and 3. Person of same age and sex and normal degree of tolerance MIGHT HAVE acted in the same way.

Answer 6

S 54 Criminal Justice Act 2009 - Conventional evidential burden – need to adduce some evidence and then Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Answer 7

1. Fears SERIOUS violence from victim (against themselves or another); 2. Things said or done of (a) an extremely grave character and (b) caused the D to have a JUSTIFIABLE sense of being seriously wronged; 3. Defendant's loss of control was a combination of matters. Not infidelity, can't have been planned, no need to be sudden (think domestic violence), not desire for revenge.

Answer 8

- Murder to manslaughter - Focus on internal workings of mind Requirements: 1. Suffering from ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FUNCTIONING (subjective - would reasonable person deem it abnormal); 2. Abnormality arising from RECOGNISED PSYCHIATRIC CONDITION (need medical evidence - balance of probs); 3. Substantially impaired ability to; (a) Understand nature of conduct; or (b) Form rational judgment; or (c) Exercise self control. 4. Provides explanation for the act or omission in doing the killing.

Answer 9

Prosecution have to prove mens rea and actus reus beyond reasonable doubt. Evidential burden on defendant as normal, but also has a legal burden to prove on the balance on probabilities.

Answer 10

D commits crime that is objectively dangerous and that causes victim’s death. Need not be assault. 1. Actus reus: do an unlawful act which is dangerous and causes victim’s death; 2. Mens rea: Of the unlawful act. - Mens rea must be intent or recklessness, negligence doesn’t count (unlawful ACT not omission) - If child died by neglect it would not be unlawful act manslaughter - Need positive action

Answer 11

R v Church 1966, unlawful act must be one that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm … albeit not serious harm. OBJECTIVE. What knowledge is the reasonable person expected to have? - The reasonable person is considered to have the same knowledge the Defendant had, or SHOULD have had, at time of offence. - R v Dawson: 3 D attempted to rob petrol station, attendant (60 y/o) died of a heart attack due to pre-existing condition. Invol mans. quashed as reasonable person would not realise he had a heart condition.

Answer 12

Yes - Unlawful act must cause death - rules of causation: drug offences, if D injected drug supplied to them is an intervening act that breaks chain

Answer 13

1. Owe duty of care; 2. Breached duty; 3. Causes death; and 4. Conduct was grossly negligent. - Need not have intention to kill or cause GBH - Act or omission counts - Need not have criminal mindset like with unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 14

- Omissions – think of exceptions in ch 1: o Special relationship (e.g case of dad’s girlfriend); o Statutory e.g mother and child; o Created dangerous situation; o Contractual duty e.g employment; o Voluntarily assumed responsibility.

Answer 15

TEST: Leading case: R v Adomako (1995), anaesthetist failed to notice oxygen was disconnected and patient had a heart attack. Court found having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct was so bad in all circumstances to amount to a criminal act or omission.

Answer 16

- Risk of death: R v Singh 1999 reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk not just of injury (or even serious injury) but of DEATH

Answer 17

TEST: R v Bateman (1925), the conduct must be such that the negligence went beyond mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and deserving of punishment.

Answer 18

- Does count: D smuggled illegal immigrants in back of lorry, sealed air vent to reduce risk, victims died. - Does not count: o Dr failed to attend 12 yea old who died from very rare disease – a reasonably prudent person could not foresee the risk of death o Dr failed to spot abnormalities during routine eye exam and victim died – risk of death must be clear and unambiguous, not one which is apparent on further investigation.

Answer 19

- Either way offence, up to 7 years in jail - Specific intent crime - Authority: s1 Theft Act 1968 “A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”

Answer 20

1. Actus Reus: Appropriation of property belonging to another; and 2. Mens Rea: Dishonesty coupled with an intention to permanently deprive.

Answer 21

- Goes further than just taking something belonging to another – appropriation is any assumption of the rights of an owner: o Switching label on piece of meat (R v Morris 1984) o Property passing with consent of the owner i.e paying with a fraudulent cheque (DPP v Gomez 1993) o The receipt of a gift (R v Hinks) - Theft if do not appropriate property when first come into contact, but later keeps it or deals with it as owner (e.g borrow a book but later decide to keep) - Can you commit theft multiple times on same item, i.e every time you assume the right of an owner – when you steal the object, when you sell the object etc NO ONLY ONCE!

Answer 22

- Mushrooms, flowers, fruit on wild land - Wild creates unless at zoo or someone has already taken possession

Answer 23

- Property belongs to another if they have: o Possession o Control o A proprietary right - There can therefore be multiple owners of property (i.e if I stole a phone off James, but it belonged to Joe, James would be the owner but so would Joe as he would be in possession. Or, if I have a joint bank with James, because we are business partners, if I spend all the money in the account, that’s theft because he has a proprietary right or interest.

Answer 24

Usually no, but can if someone has taken your property lawfully (i.e you owe them money). (In R v Turner man stole back his own car from garage, it was found it did not belong to him as the garage was owned money by the D and it was lawful for them to possess car).

Answer 25

Edwards v Ddin 1976 – not guilty of theft because when he decided to steal petrol it was already in his car so didn’t belong to another.

Answer 26

Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other. i.e if I am given money to deposit in bank for friend, but I keep it, this is still theft – s5(3) Theft Act. o R v Waion 1995: D raised money by organising events for a charity. He paid it into a special bank account but then, rather than pay the sponsorship money over to the charity, he spent it on himself. Property DID belong to another as he was under obligation to deal with it in particular way. o R v Hall 1993: D was a travel agent and received money from various clients to pay for flights, which went into his general business account. The flights were not booked and no monies were refunded. D was not obliged to use the money that had been given to him for that specific purpose. This was because he was under no obligation to preserve the money in a separate fund. Property did NOT belong to another – seems unfair.

Answer 27

- Abandoned property can not be stolen. Courts reluctant to treat objects as abandoned: o Seamus is walking home one evening when he passes a charity shop. He sees a bin bag full of clothing lying next to the door of the shop. Because it is very cold, Seamus selects a jumper from the bag, puts it on and then continues on his way. THEFT. Owner intended charity shop to have. o Leon goes to a local golf club at night with sub-aqua diving equipment and retrieves a large number of golf balls from a lake on the course, which he sells online. His submission that the golf balls have been abandoned by the owners fails as, although the individual golfers may have abandoned the balls, they remain the property of the golf club itself. Therefore stealing food from supermarket bin is theft.

Answer 28

- When are you not dishonest: o Have a right in law to property (stealing £10 back that is owed) o Owner would have consented if they had known (ran out of food so took friend’s) o Owner cannot be discovered by taking REASONABLE STEPS (picks up a tenner on street – doesn’t count if found purse with ID) – SUBJECTIVE TEST – WHAT DID THIS D BELIEVE? - When are you dishonest: o Dishonest even if willing to pay (takes concert ticket from friend but leaves the money in its place) – D must raise these issues, then P prove beyond reasonable doubt

Answer 29

Court will use the following in this order: 1. If clear dishonesty; 2. Partial definitions in theft act s2; then 3. Test in Invey v Genting Casinos 2017 TEST in Ivey v Gentings: civil test for dishonesty applies to crim cases: o Ascertain (subjectively) actual state of D’s knowledge as to facts; then o Determine if conduct was dishonest or honest by the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people

Answer 30

- S6 TA – intention if he treats the property as his own - Company accountant writes out (unauthorised) cheques for his own benefit. He submits that he did not intend to permanently deprive his employers of the money because he believes – correctly – that the bank will reimburse the company as the money was taken by fraud. The argument fails because the accused treated the credit balance in the company account as his own by using it to transfer money from the company account to his – Chan Man-sin v A-G of Hong Kong [1988] 1 All ER 1. - Borrowing isn’t stealing unless when give back its worthless i.e concert tickets after a concert. - Parting with property under condition to return – if may not be able to get it back then theft (think pawning – even if prospects of paying loan are good).

Answer 31

TEST: R v Lloyd 1985 – D worked at cinema and loaned film to his friend to make copy. Defence was the film was returned after few hours. Court says borrowing will only be intention to deprive if goodness and virtue had gone. The film was returned and shown to public in few hours so not theft.

Answer 32

Authority: s8 Theft Act 1968 “A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force” - Indictable only - Can get life in jail

Answer 33

1. Actus reus of theft (appropriating property belonging to another); 2. Mens rea of theft (dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive); 3. D threatens or uses force; 4. Immediately before or at time of offence; 5. Motivation is in order to steal. - First prove elements of theft - Consider robbery “aggravated theft” - Approach to Robbery is different, consider theft first then look at the 3 elements of offence: use or threaten force, at or right before offence, in order to steal

Answer 34

- Violence not required- nudging or pushing is enough - Force can be against object e.g snatching a bag – force must justify i.e very lightly brushing is probs just theft - Force can be against “any person” pursuant to s8 TA, however, if the force is threatened against another person then the INTENDED VICTIM MUST BE AWARE. Ex, James is around the corner and the defendant comes over to me and threatens to punch James if I don’t hand over my bag. James is not paying attention and does not realise what is happened. Theft.

Answer 35

- “immediately before or at time”, examples: o Fight broke out, someone drops phone, offender waits until fight breaks up and takes phone. Not robbery – too late o TEST: R v Hale 1978 – is the appropriation continuing at the time the force was used? In this case, the defendant stole various items from the victim’s home and then, on the way out, threatened her young son if she rang the police within five minutes of his leaving. The court held that at the time the threat of force was made, the theft was continuing and, therefore, the defendant was guilty of robbery. Common sense view.

Answer 36

Force must be used in order to steal, e.g, I punch a man because I hate him, then when he is on the floor I take his wallet. This is assault and battery (maybe ABH?) and theft. The reason for force was not to steal.

Answer 37

- Authority: s9(1)(a) & s9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968 - Either-way offence - Jail time: o Max 10 years o Max 14 years for burglary of a welling - 91a focuses on D’s thoughts when entering, and b is D’s actions once inside

Answer 38

1. Actus reus: Enter the building (or part of building) as a trespasser; 2. Mens rea: (a) Know or be reckless as to being a trespasser (b) Intend to commit theft, inflict GBH or criminal damage in the building or that part of the building. - Must have mens rea of trespasser upon entering as offence is complete at this point

Answer 39

1. Actus reus: (a) Enter the building (or part of building) as a trespasser (b) commit theft, inflict GBH or attempt theft or GBH; 2. Mens rea: (a) Know or be reckless as to being a trespasser and (b) mens rea of theft or GBH (s18 or s20) or an attempt of either. - Must have mens rea of trespasser upon entering as statute says “having entered”

Answer 40

TEST: R v Collins – D took off all his clothes, climbed up ladder to victim’s bedroom, victim mistakes D for boyfriend and has sex with him. Could be let in as at time of incident, trespasser with intent to rape. But was he invited in? Jury to decide if D made an EFFECTIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL entry into the room. TEST: R v Brown 1985 – leaning through shop window and searching shelf is entering – entry need only be effective

Answer 41

o Pushes fingertips through door of a house: No – not effective o R v Ryan 1996 – stuck with head and arm inside window is effective – does not matter D incapable of committing crime o Inserting wire hanger through letter box? May be an extension of body

Answer 42

- What qualifies as a building (structure of significant size with some degree of permanence): o House, offices, warehouse (need not have someone living there or occupying) o Garden sheds (need not have someone living there or occupying) o Inhabited vehicles & vessels – e.g houseboat, but person must LIVE THERE. Need NOT BE HOME

Answer 43

- Can enter part of a building i.e allowed in one area but not another TEST: R v Walkington 1979 the defendant entered a department store just before closing time and went behind a three- sided, movable counter into an area reserved for staff . It was held that the counter was ‘a physical demarcation’ and was sufficient to count as a part of a building .

Answer 44

- Banned from property but covers face to enter - Defrauds security guard about ID - Enters supermarket intending to steal (only have permission to browse products and legally purchase – going beyond permission) R v Jones and Smith [1976] 1 WLR 672, Smith entered his father’s house and stole two television sets. He was found guilty of burglary as, although he had a general permission to enter the house, he exceeded that permission when he entered with the intention to steal the items . Asked to leave house? Implied permission to take most direct route. Can’t stop upstairs for a poo.

Answer 45

- Know they are a trespasser or foresee a risk they do not have permission to enter and go on, without justification, to take that risk - Is this door locked? Area roped off? Signs saying “do not enter”? - Conditional intent will suffice – Attorney General 1 & 2 (1980) - wandering around a department store where she has permission to be. When she goes behind the perfume counter, she becomes a trespasser. Her stated intention is to try to steal the cash if the till is open. She is guilty of burglary as a conditional intent will suffice

Answer 46

- Authority: s10(1) Theft Act 1968 “A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any fi rearm or imitation fi rearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive.” - Indictable only - Jail time: max life

Answer 47

1. All elements of either: o S9(1)(a) Burglary; or o s9(1)(b) Burglary 2. Possession of weapon at time of burglary

Answer 48

- Firearms (inc imitation firearms – don’t need to be capable of discharge) - “Weapon of offence” i.e can be adapted for use, e.g broken glass bottle, hammer, length of rope, handcuffs - Explosives - NOT: fencing sword – made for sport and intended for this use - D MUST KNOW HE HAS THE WEAPON ON HIM

Answer 49

Varies for each burglary offence: 1. S9(1)(a): Have weapon when entering as this is when the offence is complete 2. S9(1)(b): When the ulterior actus reus is completed, i.e when the theft, GBH or attempt is committed R v Francis 1982 – Entered a house armed with sticks but discarded them before committing the offence of theft. Not aggravated as could not be shown that had sticks when intended to steal

Answer 50

1. Making a false representation – s2 FA 2. Failing to disclose information – s3 FA 3. Abuse of position – s4 FA

Answer 51

Either way, 10 years, unlimited fine or both

Answer 52

1. Actus reus: Make a false representation; 2. Mens rea: (a) Know the rep is false or might be false (b) Dishonesty and (c) Intend to make gain for themselves or intend to cause loss to another, or intend to expose a risk of loss to another.

Answer 53

“‘less than wholly true and capable of an interpretation to the detriment of the victim”

Answer 54

- It may relate to: o A fact; o The law; o The state of mind of the person making the rep, or any other person. - It may be: o Express; o Implied. - How must it me communicated: o Words o Conduct (e.g writing, spoken, on website) - Examples: o Money lender tells debtor she has no legal defence for payment, knowing she does (misrep the law); o Wealthy farmer promises to put son in will – promise is a rep o May be express, such as declaration on job form o May be implied: orders a meal at maccies, implied she will pay, or offering card as payment knowing its not your card

Answer 55

- Need not deceive other, just need to make the false rep - Can make false rep to machine - Rep only needs to be submitted and not communicated! Email made as soon as sent. Putting PIN in machine is a rep. Entering stolen bank details on site is the rep

Answer 56

1. Common sense; 2. Ivey v Genting test (test for dishonesty is the same in civil cases i.e a. decipher facts as the D sees them (subjective) and b. based on facts as D saw them, were they dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people (objective)).

Answer 57

- Need link between the false rep and intending to make gain or cause loss i.e making false rep in order to cause gain or loss. Only need ONE - Loss or gain need not be permanent ! - No need to be successful in aim, just need to make false rep and have intent & dishonesty

Answer 58

1. Actus reus: Fail to disclose information to another person which D is under a legal duty to disclose; 2. Mens rea: (a) Dishonesty and (b) Intend to make gain for themselves or intend to cause loss to another, or intend to expose a risk of loss to another.

Answer 59

- Under statute (e.g notify change in circumstances for welfare benefits claim); - Transaction of utmost good faith (insurance contracts); - Express or implied terms of contract; - Custom of trade or market; or - Fiduciary relationship. Examples: - Failing to disclose heart condition for travel insurance - Applies for teaching position, express term of contract that application is a person of good character, failed to disclose she cheated on her exams at uni. Duty arises under terms of employment contract

Answer 60

1. Actus reus: (a) Occupying a position in which D is expected to safeguard, or not act against, the financial position of another and (b) abuse of that position by ACT or OMISSION; 2. Mens rea: (a) Dishonesty and (b) Intend, by means of abuse of position, to make gain for themselves or intend to cause loss to another, or intend to expose a risk of loss to another.

Answer 61

- ¬Think of fiduciary relationships: o Trustee and beneficiary o Director and company o Professional person and client (e.g lawyer) o Agent and principal o Employee and employer o Between family members or voluntary work - Need not be a fiduciary relationship: o R v Valujevs (2014) – unlicensed gang-masters, exploited migrants, made unlawful deductions from their wages, expected to safeguard.

Answer 62

- Act or omission - R v Rouse guilty of fraud s4, manager of care home, expected to safeguard financial interests of residents, used their cards to withdraw money from cash point

Answer 63

In the Criminal Damage Act 1971 there are four different types of criminal damage: 1. Simple criminal damage – s1(1); 2. Aggravated criminal damage – s1(2); 3. Simple arson – s(1)(3) and s(1)(1); and 4. Aggravated arson – s1(3) and s1(2). Offence to PROPERTY not person

Answer 64

1. Actus reus: a. Defendant destroys or damages b. Property c. Belonging to another d. Without lawful excuse 2. Mens rea: a. Recklessness (subjective) or intent to cause criminal damage b. Knew (or ought to have known) property belonged to another

Answer 65

- Damage: usually if had to pay expense to fix is indicator: o Drawing on pavement in chalk – local authority have to pay to clean so is damage; o Spitting on officer’s jacket – NOT as just wipe off

Answer 66

s5 CDA: 1. belief in consent - 1 test subjective 2. protection of property

Answer 67

1. D's purpose - does D honestly and subjective believe damage was for protection, or is capable of protecting? 2. Does Court objectively think D's honest belief amount to prop protection? (think cut fence around navel base too remote case) 3. Was property in immediate danger - subjective - think squatter cutting loc to put his own on case. 4. Was damage entirely reasonable in all circumstances - subjective - think moving gate example

Answer 68

R v G 2003 - foresee some risk and go on to take risk unjustified. Boy and girl lighting newspaper on fire

Answer 69

Know, or ought to know, property belongs to another – if reasonably think its yours then no offence – SUBJECTIVE on HONEST BELIEF

Answer 70

1. Actus reus: a. Destroys or damages b. Property c. Belonging to another d. Without lawful excuse e. By fire 2. Mens rea: a. Intention or recklessness as to crim damage b. Known, or ought to have known, prop belonged to another Either way offence, think crim damage by fire

Answer 71

1. Actus reus: a. damage or destruction b. to property c. belonging to one self or another 2. Mens rea: a. reckless or intent to cause damage b. recklessness or danger as to endangering life Prop can belong to you No lawful excuse

Answer 72

TEST: R v Dudley 1989 – does not matter if actually endangered life, just need to intend or be reckless. In this case man threw firebomb at friends house. They were home so quickly put out but this was pure luck. Guilty. TEST: R v Steer 1987 – need not intend on endangering life but need to be reckless. Man fired a shot through window, 2 people stood behind. Danger must come from the damage and not the act. Here the endangering must come from broken glass not the man firing – otherwise its an assault offence or attempted assault. For arson would need to come from falling ceilings NOT THE SMOKE OR FIRE. Remember – it’s a property offence. Not assault offence.

Answer 73

1. Actus reus: a. Destroying or damaging b. Property c. Belonging to oneself or another d. By fire 2. Mens rea: a. Intention or recklessness as to cause crim damage b. Intention or recklessness as to endangering life - Aggravated criminal damage with fire - Lawful excuse does not apply - Property can be your own

Answer 74

Self defence, alibi, infancy

Answer 75

Two stage test – R v Palmer [1971]: a. Did the Defendant honestly believe the force was NECESSARY to (a) defend oneself (b) to defend another (c) or prevent a crime? Subjective b. Was the degree of force REASONABLE based on the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be? Objective

Answer 76

If the Defendant mistakenly believes the force was necessary, as long as they were not voluntarly intoxicated, they are entitled rely on the belief as long as it was honestly held (because its subjective). Invol intoxication is ok S76(4) Criminal Justice and Investigations Act 2008 Williams (Gladstone) [1987] 3 All ER 411, M witnessed a youth rob a woman of her handbag. He chased the youth and knocked him to the ground. The defendant only saw the last part of the incident from his seat on a passing bus and, believing that he was defending the youth from an unlawful attack, he punched M in the face. In fact, M was a police officer trying to prevent the youth escaping criminal liability for the robbery. The defendant argued that his mistaken belief that force was necessary to protect the youth did not preclude him from relying on the defence. The appeal court agreed and confirmed that it was sufficient for the defendant’s belief to be honestly held.

Answer 77

2. Reasonable force – s76 CJIA 2008 – was it reasonable in circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. Not to be disproportionate, if defence claims reasonable force, up to P to prove it wasn’t beyond reasonable doubt.

Answer 78

Can be disproportionate but not grossly disproportionate - must be reasonable still. Have to be in dwelling and think trespasser

Answer 79

4. Retreating – R v Bird 1985 – No requirement defendant needed to run or retreat, but may be a factor when considering reasonability of force. 5. Pre-emptive strikes – R v Beckford 1988 – No requirement defendant can’t attack first, as long as genuinely believes there is an imminent attack, allowed to pre-emptively attack. 6. Mistake about use of force – R v Scarlett 1994 – genuinely thought necessary to use force, was the force reasonable in circumstances as defendant honestly believed, shouldn’t convict unless degree of force was plainly more than necessary. 7. R v O’Grady [1987] – can’t rely on voluntary intoxication for self defence. 8. Houseowner cases – R v Palmer 1971 – a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action, if jury thought he had done what was honestly and instinctively thought necessary, potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action taken

Answer 80

Crimes of specific intent but not basic (reckless) - must lack mens rea entirely. E.g Jaggard v Dickson, crim damage to wrong house thinking owner would consent, judged on facts as you honestly believed them so count R v O’Grady 1987 – fight when drunk, honestly thought being attacked, manslaughter up held as mistake made when drunk - no self defence

Answer 81

also only to specific intent crimes, but it depends on the defendant’s actual state of mine and of he had the necessary mens rea (R v Kingston 1994). When will the defendant be considered involuntarily intoxicated?: a. Prescription drugs – if don’t know about intoxicating effects; b. Sleeping pills; or c. Spiked. R v Hardie 1985 – took some of girlfriends Valium after relationship ended to calm nerves, started fire, claimed didn’t know what he was doing due to drugs, considered non-dangerous drug that had an unusual effect. Conduct in taking Valium was not reckless as it is a sedative.

Answer 82

drunk to summon courage will never be defence.

Answer 83

1. Actual consent (e.g surgery, dentist, tattoo); 2. Implied consent (inevitable touching day to day). 1. No consent if harm intended or caused, exceptions: a. Surgery b. Circus acts c. Sport (not all behaviour) d. Piercing and tattoo e. Horseplay (sometimes) Can only consent ro simple assault and battery, not ABH and above unless above exception. Not sado-masochism and body mpds

Answer 84

1. Freely given and informed; 2. no fraud as to identity or quality/nature of act.

Answer 85

Authority: Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Nearly all indictable crimes. Not summary - unless specific offence made in diff statute (out of scope).

Answer 86

Actus reus: An act more than preparatory in commission of offence Mens rea: Intent to commit crime (higher than normal) E.g murder usually need intention to murder or cause GBH. You would need intent to murder. s 20, instead of intent or recklessness as to cause some bodily harm (ABH) you need intent to GBH (i.e s.18 mens rea). For ulterior mens rea (i.e agg crim damage) just need intent for first bit i.e intent to commit crim damage. The endangering life bit just needs to be recklessness.

Answer 87

No only positive acts

Answer 88

R v Gullefer 1987 - begins when merely preparatory ends and embark on crime proper. bet on dog race, going to lose, ran on track to make steward stop race. Attempted theft quashed as act merely preparatory. D would need to go to bookie with ticket to get refund.

Answer 89

No. Actus reus - Even if act impossible, just attempting offence is enough e.g pickpocketing someone but there was nothing in pocket or stabbing someone with paper straw - Factual impossibility does not matter Mens rea - Judged on facts as believed them to be. If believed something in pocket (above example) or could kill with paper straw, judge on such belief.

Answer 90

1. Actus reus (ordinary meaning): a. Aiding; b. Abetting; c. Counselling; or d. Procuring commission of offence. 2. Mens rea: a. Intention to do act/say words, or deliberately do them; and b. Knowledge of circumstances.

Answer 91

TEST: National Cal Board v Gamble: need not intend, act just needs to be A POSITIVE ACT OF ASSISTANCE, VOLUNTARILY.

Answer 92

TEST: Johnson v Youden 1950: AIDING & ABETTING, must know (a) circumstances of the actus reus and (b) awareness of the offender’s state of mind (mens rea). Contemplating these is enough.

Answer 93

Aiding – before or at time of offence - Aiding is assisting or supporting - Ex: procuring weapon, holding down victim - CANNOT be disposing of evidence (as that is after)

Answer 94

Abetting – at the time - Think of as encouraging so must be at time - E.g saying “kick him!” during assault, gesturing such as thumbs up - Presence at scene not usually enough, (or failure to intervene) need words/actions. Think of case where man at scene, wanted to be involved but didn’t. Not convicted. - Case: man spectating at guilty concert, wouldn’t have been a concert if no spectators so was encouragement) - Attendance alone not usually enough unless attendance by prior agreement i.e support, or actually encouraged

Answer 95

Counselling – before - Think of as instigating so must be before - Can threaten the principal to do - Different to abetting as that happens at same time. Can be same act i.e words of encouragement but different time: o Case law: man said, I’m going to kill your wife, man said “oh goody” in return and it was considered enough to counsel.

Answer 96

Procuring – at time - Actually has to cause crime - I.e slipping friend a drink knowing they will drive home - Puts offender in position to commit crime when wouldn’t have ordinarily

Answer 97

Procuring. Need CAUSAL LINK. Don't for others - could have happened without.

Answer 98

- Accomplice cannot be liable unless PO actually carries out actus reus, however, need not be prosecuted o Case law: Man encourage husband to rape wide. He did commit the rape, but husband had defence he thought wife would consent. Man convicted for counselling. o Case law: Principal cannot be found. 2 men in shoot out, other man shot and killed someone. Accomplice aided. Couldn’t find man that killed but accomplice convicted. - ACTUS REUS NEEDS TO BE CARRIED OUT BEFORE LIABILITY If use innocent agent to carry out actus reus (i.e agent has no mens rea) accomplice becomes principal

Answer 99

TEST: R v Brainbridge 1960 – supplied oxygen cutting equipment for bank burglary. It was found that you NEED NOT KNOW THE EXACT NATURE OF THE CRIME, JUST THAT A CRIME OF THE TYPE IN QUESTION was intended. i.e just a burglary – don’t need details like time, place. Need to know more than “some sort of illegal act” EXTENDED TEST; Maxwell v DPP 1978 – drove car to pub where terrorist attack happened. If know one or more of RANGE OF OFFENCES will take place, and you intentionally assist principal who commits at least one, then liable.

Answer 100

- Some offences have same actus reus but different mens rea i.e manslaughter and murder s 18 and s 20 - Accomplice judged on own mens rea even if higher or lower - R v Howe: Principal was told gun was not loaded, shot man who then died, so was gulty of unlawful act manslaughter (dangerous act). Accomplice gave gun, knew it was loaded, he is guilty of accomplice to murder. Beyond plan? - Did accomplice intend new crime? - Did they forsee it? I.e knew principal brought gun, had history of violence? Didn’t necessarily intend but could forsee it may happen. This is enough. If did not know had gun or history of violence then may well not be guilty.

Answer 101

Before offence - communication TEST: R v Grundy: Gave info tot burglars 6 week s before crime, 2 weeks before tried to persuade men not to do it. Evidence of effective withdrawal. Communication vital – just no turning up not enough. Q of fact for jury. TEST: R v Becerra 1976: Agree to burgle house, gave co accused knife, when man came home said “there is a bloke, lets go” and then jumped out window. Principal remainder and stabbed man .Not effective. MORE NEEDED: o Physical intervention:  Grabbing knife  Standing in front of victim to protect them

Criminal Law Flashcards

(128 cards)