Criminal Law Flashcards
(118 cards)
1
Q
When does the burden of disproving the defence of self-defence arise?*
A
Once the woman gives some evidence of it in court (not at police station), must then be disproved beyond reasonable doubt.
2
Q
What may the actus reus of an offence involve?*
A
An act or an omission (conduct crimes), certain consequences being caused (result crimes), or the existence of surrounding circumstances (state of affairs crimes).
3
Q
List the hierarchy of assaults? *
A
- Assault (common law offence)
- Battery (common law offence)
- Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) (statutory assault).
- Maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) (statutory assault).
- Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent (statutory assault).
4
Q
What is the actus reus of simple assault? *
A
Causing another to apprehend immediate unlawful personal force (conditional/future threats do not suffice).
- No need for violence or touching; no injury necessary.
5
Q
What is the actus reus of battery? *
A
Infliction of unlawful personal force on the victim.
6
Q
How may force be applied to satisfy the actus reus for battery? *
A
By direct bodily contact between 2 people including pushing, prodding, or hitting (with or without weapon).
The application of force may not involve direct contact and may include where the defendant throws an object or spits at a victim, or even purposely cycles over their foot.
A defendant who sets their dog on the victim or who deliberately places an obstacle so the victim trips.
N.B. Degree of force required is very slight.
7
Q
What is the mens rea for simple assault and battery? *
A
Simple assault - Intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force.
Battery - Intention or recklessness in relation to the infliction of unlawful force on another person.
8
Q
Give an example when it may be possible for battery to occur alone (without simple assault; rare)? *
A
Where e.g. the defendant approaches the victim from behind, unheard and hits him over the head. As the victim did not apprehend the force there is no simple assault - just battery.
9
Q
What is the actus reus and mens rea for assault occasioning ABH under s47 OAPA? *
A
Actus reus - Simple or physical assault causing ABH.
– Slaps/minor bruises that fade or other harm which is only ‘transient or trifling’ will not satisfy actus reus, but any injury more than this will (e.g. swelling, stitches etc).
– Can include psychiatric harm (recognised clinical condition required).
Mens rea - intention or recklessness as to the simple or physical assault (no need for defendant to have intended or foreseen the actual bodily harm).
– N.B. All prosecution need to prove is that the accused e.g. hit the victim deliberately and it caused sufficient injury.
10
Q
What is the only difference between the actus reus and mens rea for simple assault or battery and the s47 assault? *
A
The actus reus for s47 assault requires some bodily harm to be caused.
11
Q
What is the actus reus and mens rea for maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH under s20 OAPA? *
A
Actus reus - unlawfully wounding or inflicting GBH (‘really serious harm’) upon another person.
– E.g. fractured skull, broken limbs, severe internal injuries.
– Wounding e.g. breaking both layers of the skin resulting in bleeding; minor cut oddly would suffice, but not e.g. internal bleeding.
Mens rea - intention or recklessness as to the harm caused.
– Defendant must intend or be reckless as to a different injury to that which resulted.
– If defendant foresees no risk of harm, mens rea not made out.
12
Q
What is the actus reus and mens rea for wounding or causing GBH with intent under s18 OAPA? *
A
Actus reus - unlawfully wounding or causing GBH to a person.
Mens rea - intention to cause wound or GBH or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of any person, coupled with the intention or recklessness as to causing some bodily harm.
– High threshold; look for evidence of clear planning, use of a weapon or repeated punching/stamping for intent; recklessness will not suffice.
The only time a defendant who is reckless as to causing some bodily harm or worse may be successfully prosecuted for an s18 assault is if the prosecution can also prove the intention to resist or prevent arrest.
13
Q
What different ways can s18 offence be committed? *
A
Ordinary victim - AR (wound/GBH), MR (intention to cause GBH).
Police officer victim - AR (wound/GBH), MR (intention to resist/prevent arrest and intention/recklessness as to causing ABH).
14
Q
Which type of offence are each of the 5 assault offences? *
A
1) Assault - summary only.
2) Battery - summary only.
3) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - either way.
4) Maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH - either way.
5) Wounding or causing GBH with intent - indictable only.
15
Q
Is consent implied to simple or physical assault? *
A
Yes; provided no harm is intended or caused; consent is not available as a defence to any assault where harm is intended or caused.
16
Q
What are the exceptions to the general rule regarding consent in relation to assaults under sections 18, 20 and 47 of the OAPA? *
A
Surgery.
Dangerous exhibitions.
Sport (provided within normal rules of the game).
Ear-piercing and tattooing.
N.B. In such cases, defendant must be acquitted.
17
Q
When will consent be valid and invalid? *
A
Valid only if given by a fully informed and competent adult.
Invalid if obtained by fraud as to the identity of the defendant or fraud as to the nature and quality of the act.
18
Q
What are the exceptions of there being no liability for omissions? *
A
- A statutory duty to act.
- Contractual duty to act (doctors, lifeguards etc).
- Special relationship between the victim and defendant.
- Voluntary assumption of care.
- Duty to avert a dangerous situation once created.
N.B. Often, phoning emergency services will suffice.
19
Q
What is the test for factual causation?
A
But for the defendant’s conduct, the result would not have occurred as and when it did.
20
Q
What is the test for legal causation?
A
Requires defendant’s conduct to be more than a minimal cause of the result, so that it is an operating and substantial cause of the outcome.
- Culpable act need not be the sole cause (just because there are multiple causes of a particular result, liability is not protected and more than 1 person may be liable).
21
Q
Do both types of causation have to be present for causation to be established as part of the actus reus?
A
Yes.
22
Q
Can medical treatment break the chain of causation?
A
Very rare; provided that the original injury is still operating at the time, defendant will find it hard to escape liability for death.
23
Q
Will natural events ‘Acts of God’ break the chain of causation?
A
Possibly but the foreseeability of the subsequent event is the determining factor for liability.
- If unforeseeable, chain of causation broken.
24
Q
What will the court consider in escape cases?
A
Whether the escape is within the range of reasonable responses to be expected of a victim in that situation.
Whether the victim’s response is proportionate to the threat.
Whether it is ‘so daft’ as to be a voluntary act.
The fact that the victim is acting in ‘the agony of the moment’ without time for thought or deliberation.
25
Can 3rd party intervention break the chain of causation?
Yes; if free, deliberate and informed OR not reasonably foreseeable.
26
Define what is meant by direct intent?
Where the defendant's primary purpose was to bring about a particular consequence, they intended that consequence, however unlikely they were to succeed.
27
Define what is meant by indirect intent?
Where the consequence was virtually certain to occur and the defendant foresaw that consequence as being virtually certain to occur.
28
What are the 2 distinct elements to consider when dealing with recklessness?
The risk must be an unjustified or unreasonable one to take.
The defendant must be aware of the risk and go on to take it.
N.B. Test for recklessness is subjective; applies to all offences where recklessness is part of the mens rea.
29
Compare recklessness vs negligence?
Recklessness is the conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk.
- Test is a subjective one.
Negligence is the inadvertent taking of an unjustifiable risk.
- Test is an objective one.
30
When does the doctrine of transferred malice apply?
From person-to-person (esp in murder cases) or object-to-object but only where the actus reus of the committed offence is the same type of crime that defendant had in mind.
- If the intended and actual offences are different, the 'malice' cannot be transferred.
N.B. If the mens rea of the offence includes recklessness, it may not be necessary to consider the doctrine of transferred malice at all.
31
Is mens rea required in strict liability offences?
No.
N.B. Strict liability in drink-driving, food health and safety etc for policy reasons.
- Aim being to discourage incompetence and unsafe actions and to encourage greater safety.
32
What is the difference between crimes of basic and specific intent?
Basic intent - may be committed intentionally or recklessly and cannot rely upon intoxication as a defence.
Specific intent - may only be committed intentionally and can plead intoxication as a defence.
33
What are the 2 exceptions to the rule that the actus reus and mens rea of an offence must coincide in time for the defendant to be guilty of an offence?
The continuing act principle applies where the defendant's act satisfies the actus reus of an offence, and at some point they also have the necessary mens rea for that offence.
The single transaction principle is relevant where there is a series of events and from the outset, the defendant is involved in criminal activity. As long as death is part of same sequence of events, time lapse does not matter.
34
Explain what homicide covers? *
All unlawful killings (murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, unlawful act manslaughter).
N.B. If convicted of manslaughter, the judge has sentencing discretion and may account for all relevant factors instead of just applying a mandatory life sentence.
35
What is the common actus reus for homicide offences? *
The unlawful killing of a human being (not a foetus) under the King's peace.
- N.B. As soon as a baby is born and has an existence independent of the mother it is protected by law of homicide.
36
What is the mens rea for murder? *
The intention to kill or cause GBH.
37
What are the partial defences to murder? *
Loss of control and diminished responsibility to reduce conviction to voluntary manslaughter.
38
List the 4 elements to diminished responsibility that need to be proved? *
1) An abnormality of mental functioning, which
-- N.B. Interpreted widely; need not be the sole cause of defendant's acts.
2) Arose from a recognised medical condition, and
-- WHO's list (includes psychiatric conditions).
3) Substantially impaired the defendant's ability to understand the nature of their conduct, and/or form a rational judgment and/or exercise self-control, and
4) Provides an explanation for the defendant's act or omission in doing the killing.
-- Causal link between the defendant's medical condition and their behaviour.
39
Who has the legal burden of proof for diminished responsibility? *
The defendant on the balance of probabilities.
40
Can diminished responsibility be relied upon if drunk? *
Not if voluntarily intoxicated, but yes if a recognised medical condition.
N.B. When determining if defendant's mental responsibility for victim's death was substantially impaired as a result of his alcohol dependency syndrome, the jury must focus on the alcohol consumed as a result of this and ignore effects of any voluntarily consumed alcohol.
41
List the 3 components to the loss of control partial defence? *
1) The defendant must lose self-control (question for jury to decide).
-- No need for it to be sudden; defendant may 'snap' or react in response to a culmination of events over time (DV cases).
2) The loss of control must have a qualifying trigger.
-- Fear trigger applies where loss of control attributable to the defendant's fear or serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another identified person.
-- Anger trigger applies where loss of control attributable to things said and/or done that amounted to circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being wronged.
3) A person of the defendant's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way as the defendant did.
-- N.B. To judge a child defendant against the level of control expected of an adult would be unjust.
-- All circumstances taken into account except defendant's general capacity for tolerance and self-control e.g. aggression/short temper.
N.B. Accused must successfully meet all 3 requirements.
42
Who has the burden of proof in loss of control? *
Provided the accused can produce some evidence that raises the defence, the burden will revert back to the prosecution to disprove loss of control beyond reasonable doubt.
N.B. Conventional criminal burden of proof.
43
Will the loss of control defence apply where the defendant acted out of a considered desire for revenge? *
No.
Factors to satisfy the court of a considered desire for revenge include the defendant arming themselves with a weapon, evidence of planning, time delay between provoking words or conduct and the killing.
44
Can a defendant rely on the qualifying triggers where they have incited the situation to provide them with an excuse to use violence in response?
No.
45
Can sexual infidelity be relied upon as its own qualifying trigger? *
No; but its existence does not prevent reliance on the defence where there are other qualifying triggers.
Where other factors suggest a qualifying trigger, sexual infidelity may also be taken into account in assessing whether things said or done amounted to circumstances of an extremely grave character and gave the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
46
In what cases has the judge intervened to remove the partial defence entirely from consideration? *
Deaths in response to a baby's persistent crying, 'honour killings', a conditional threat to prevent the defendant seeing his children unless he agreed to the victim's divorce settlement terms.
47
Can both partial defences to murder be raised at the same time? *
Yes.
48
How is involuntary manslaughter distinguished from murder and voluntary manslaughter? *
By the mens rea; no requirement to prove that the defendant intended to kill or cause GBH.
49
What is required of unlawful act manslaughter? *
Prosecution must show that the defendant did an unlawful act (criminal offence in law, positive act), which is dangerous and causes the victim's death.
Mens rea requirement is linked to the unlawful act.
N.B. For dangerous act, the defendant need not foresee the precise form or sort of harm that ensues; reasonable person deemed to have the knowledge the defendant had or should have had at the time of the offence.
N.B. Cannot be committed negligently.
50
What is required for gross negligence manslaughter? *
Court must be satisfied that;
- The defendant owed the victim a DOC.
- The defendant breached that duty.
- The breach caused the death of the victim.
- The defendant's conduct was grossly negligent.
N.B. May be committed by an act or omission and must be a risk that their conduct could cause death.
51
List the 4 property offences to consider? *
1) Theft - s1 Theft Act.
- Either-way offence; max imprisonment 7 years.
2) Robbery - s8 Theft Act.
- Indictable-only offence; max life imprisonment.
3) Burglary - s9 Theft Act.
- Either-way offence; max imprisonment 10 years (14 in case of burglary of dwelling).
4) Aggravated Burglary - s10 Theft Act.
- Indictable-only offence; max life imprisonment.
52
What is the actus reus for theft? *
Appropriation of property belonging to another.
- Any assumption of ownership rights; immaterial whether appropriation made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit.
53
How can land be stolen and list some items that cannot be stolen? *
Land can be stolen by a trustee in breach of trust, tenants taking fixtures they are not allowed to, and someone taking something off land they do not own.
Confidential information, wild creatures (not tamed or in zoo), mushrooms, flowers growing wild on land, electricity cannot be stolen.
54
When will property be regarded as belonging to another? *
Where any person has;
- Possession.
- Control.
- Any proprietary right or interest in the property in question.
N.B. If under an obligation to deal with money in a particular way, property will be deemed to belong to another for the purposes of theft.
55
What is the actus reus for robbery? *
Theft + use/threatening of force against a person immediately before or at the time of theft in order to steal.
N.B. Violence not required; simple nudging/pushing of victim so another member of the gang can take their wallet will suffice.
N.B. Defendants can be found guilty of robbery despite not touching the victim, where the force was directed against property e.g. a bag.
N.B. Does not matter if the item is not taken from the scene so long as defendant has already appropriated it.
N.B. Force used or threatened does not need to be against the owner of the property.
N.B. Regarding force 'immediately before or at the time of theft in order to steal', the issue is whether the appropriation was still continuing at the time the force was used. Force must also be used to steal and for no other purpose.
56
What is the mens rea for theft and robbery? *
Dishonesty and an intention to permanently deprive.
57
When will a defendant not be regarded as being dishonest? *
Where he believes;
- He has the right in law to the property (taking 'your own £').
- The owner would have consented had they known of the circumstances.
- The owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps (required to trace owner of purse; can keep £20 note).
N.B. A willingness to pay for an item is not proof of a lack of dishonesty.
58
What test is to be applied to determine dishonesty in the absence of clear dishonesty (e.g. shoplifting), and the 3 factors above? *
Ivey test;
- Subjective; what was the defendant's knowledge or belief as to the facts.
- Objective; was the defendant's conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.
-- If yes, defendant is dishonest.
59
In what situations will be accused have an intention to permanently deprive? *
Meaning the owner permanently to lose the item (ordinary meaning)
Where parting with item under a condition as to its return which defendant may not be able to perform e.g. pawning.
Treating item as defendant's own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights.
- Borrowing for period equivalent to outright taking (e.g. taking concert ticket and only returning after performance).
- Lending for period equivalent to outright disposal.
60
What is the actus reus for burglary? *
Defendant must enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser (no express or implied permission to enter, obtaining permission by deceiving the owner).
N.B. Buildings = structures of considerable size with some degree of permanence or inhabited vehicles or vessels e.g. caravan but not temporary structures e.g. tent.
61
Give some examples of effective entry? *
Climbing through the open window of a factory.
Breaking the down of an office building and entering.
Sticking head and arm inside householder's window.
NOT pushing fingertips through ajar house door; entry not effective.
62
What is the mens rea for burglary? *
Knowledge/recklessness as to being a trespasser.
-- At time of entry, defendant's intent (to steal, inflict GBH or inflict criminal damage) makes them liable as burglary with intent offence can be made out upon entry in, OR
-- Defendant attempted to inflict these with the mens rea for the committed offence made out when inside property.
N.B. Entry of some part of defendant's body into the premises could amount to effective entry and the fact that at that point defendant was incapable of committing any crime is irrelevant.
63
What must a defendant intend to do if entering a part of a building? *
Intend to or actually commit the ulterior offence in that part.
64
What are the key features of aggravated burglary? *
Burglary + defendant has a weapon (firearm or imitation firearm or weapon of offence e.g. hammer, length of rope etc or explosive) at time of offence (doesn't matter whether brought or found prior to offence).
N.B. 'At time of offence' means either at the time of entry or when the ulterior offence (theft, GBH, attempted theft, GBH) was committed.
65
What type of offence is fraud and what is the punishment? *
Either-way; max imprisonment of 10 years in Crown Court and/or unlimited fine.
66
How can fraud be committed? *
By making a false representation (wide offence)
By failing to disclose information.
By abuse of position (widely interpreted; includes trustee/beneficiary, director/company, professional person/client).
67
What is the actus reus and mens rea of the offence of making a false representation? *
AR - making a false representation.
MR - Knowledge the representation is not might be false, dishonesty, intention to make a gain or cause a loss or expose another to risk of loss.
68
What is the actus reus and mens rea of the offence of abuse of position? *
AR - occupying a position in which defendant is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person + abuse of that position.
MR - dishonesty, intention to make a gain or cause a loss or expose another to risk of loss.
N.B. Position can be abused by an act or omission.
69
In what situations is the defendant under a legal duty to disclose? *
Statute requires
Transaction of utmost good faith e.g. insurance.
Express/implied contract terms.
Existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (e.g. trustee/beneficiary, agent/principal).
70
When is a representation by email deemed to be made? *
As soon as sent, regardless of whether the intended recipient reads or receives it.
71
Is entering stolen bank details on a website a representation? *
Yes.
72
When is the representation made when withdrawing money from a cash machine? *
When the pin is entered to withdraw money.
73
What is the actus reus for simple criminal damage? *
Defendant must destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse.
74
What is the mens rea for simple criminal damage? *
Intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property belonging to another and knowledge or belief that the property belongs to another.
75
When will a defendant have lawful excuse? *
Where;
- Belief in consent; must be honestly held belief that the person entitled to consent to the damage or destruction had consented or would have consented if they had known of the circumstances.
- Protection of property; was the defendant's real purpose the protection of property. If so, did defendant honestly believe the property was in immediate need of protection, and adopted means were reasonable in the circumstances.
76
When may the lawful excuse defence be relied upon? *
For simple criminal damage or arson; not aggravated criminal damage.
N.B. In practice, depends on how convincing the evidence is, and whether the prosecution can disprove it.
77
When will property be deemed to be 'belonging to another' for the purposes of criminal damage offence?
Property which the victim has;
- Custody or control.
- A proprietary right or interest.
- A charge.
78
Are animals/flowers included in the meaning of 'property'?
Only if tamed or kept as a pet or growing in a garden.
N.B. Wild flowers are not included.
79
What suffices as 'damage' for the purposes of criminal damage offence?
Usually if some form of expense is incurred as a result of defendant's act.
80
What suffices as 'destruction' for the purposes of criminal damage offence?
Includes physical harm, whether permanent or temporary as well as impairment of property e.g. removing a part from a machine.
81
How is the offence of aggravated criminal damage different to simple criminal damage?
The property that is damaged/destroyed may belong to either defendant or another; instead of in criminal damage where the property must belong to someone else.
MR - Intent to endanger life or be reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered.
N.B. Life need not actually be endangered as luck dictates this (e.g. how a fire takes hold).
82
Define arson offence?
Criminal damage by fire.
83
What is required for aggravated arson offence to be made out?
Criminal damage + 'extra' MR of intention or recklessness as to endangering life + fire.
84
When may intoxication be used as a defence?
When the defendant is so intoxicated they lack the mens rea entirely.
85
When does involuntary intoxication provide a defence?
To crimes of specific and basic intent, but only where the defendant is unable to form the necessary mens rea.
N.B. In cases of drugs, consider whether the taking of the drug was reckless, or was it just that unexpected side-effects occurred?
86
When does voluntary intoxication provide a defence?
Only to crimes of specific intent e.g. murder where someone is unable to form the necessary mens rea (intention) at the time of killing.
-- Murder cannot be committed recklessly.
N.B. No defence of intoxication for crimes of basic intent.
87
Can defendants who commit crimes under 'Dutch Courage' rely upon their intoxication to negate the mens rea of the offence?
No.
88
Can the defence of self-defence be relied upon where a defendant's mistaken belief is induced by voluntary intoxication?
No.
Defendant may only rely on self-defence if their reaction did not exceed that of a sober person in the same situation.
N.B. Lawful excuse.
89
What is required for the defence of lawful excuse to apply?
Applies to defendants accused of simple criminal damage or arson.
If the defendant honestly believed that the owner of the property had consented or would have consented to the damage had they known of the circumstances.
-- Because the belief need only be genuinely held, irrelevant that the defendant came to it due to intoxication.
90
What level of force may a person use in self-defence cases?
Such force as is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, to defend themselves or another from attack or to prevent the commission of a criminal offence.
Defendant is judged on facts as they honestly believe them to be, even if they are mistaken.
Applies even if the defendant's belief was unreasonable.
Defendant's characteristics can be considered when assessing whether force was reasonable in the circumstances; psychiatric conditions are not relevant.
91
How are householders dealt with differently under self-defence?
The degree of force used by the defendant is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate.
Means the householder may use force that is both reasonable and disproportionate.
92
What is classed as a 'householder' case in the statute?
One in which the defendant uses force in self-defence or in defence of another while in or partly in;
- A building or part of a building that is a dwelling.
- Forces accommodation.
- A vehicle or vessel that is a dwelling.
N.B. The defendant need not be the homeowner; all that is required is they are not a trespasser and are in or partly in a dwelling.
93
Can the householder defence be relied upon when assault occurs outside X's house on the driveway?
No.
94
What is the effect of self-defence?
Provides a complete acquittal.
95
What is required for illegality to operate as a defence?
A close connection between claimant's wrongdoing and their loss so that the damage arises directly out of the illegal activity in such a way that it would be contrary to public policy to allow claimant a remedy.
96
What offences can be the subject of an 'attempts' charge? *
Almost all indictable offences but summary-only offences are excluded.
97
What is the actus reus of an attempt? *
Defendant must do an act (not omission) that is more than merely preparatory (jury to assess whether defendant has embarked on 'crime proper') to the commission of the full offence.
-- E.g. point gun, jump into car, says 'you're not going to like this' (not where loading gun, disguising etc).
98
What is the mens rea of an attempt? *
Defendant must intend to commit the specific offence attempted.
99
What must be proved in an attempt of criminal damage? *
Prosecution must prove that defendant intended or was reckless as to destroying/damaging property AND intended/was reckless as to endanger life (aggravated form).
100
When may an offence be impossible? *
As to the end result (e.g. pickpocketing V to find empty pockets).
As to the means (e.g. trying to stab someone with a paper straw).
101
When will the law treat you as guilty for an impossible attempt? *
If actions go beyond merely preparatory and the defendant is judged on the facts as they believe them to be.
Prevents incompetent offenders escaping liability.
102
List the 4 ways in which an accomplice can satisfy the actus reus of accomplice liability? *
1) Aiding
2) Abetting
3) Counselling
4) Procuring
the commission of the principal offence.
103
Explain what aiding is and how it can be committed? *
Helping, assisting or supporting the principal in some way (either before or at the time of the offence) to enable them to commit the offence.
E.g. providing principal with the weapon, acting as lookout etc.
104
Explain what abetting is and how it can be committed? *
Requires the accomplice to encourage the principal (during its commission) to commit the offence.
E.g. words or actions.
105
Explain what counselling is and how it can be committed? *
Involves instigating, soliciting or encouraging, or even threatening the principal (before the offence) to commit the offence.
E.g. winding up the principal offender before he assaults X.
N.B. Amount of encouragement does not need to be particularly high.
106
Explain what procuring is and how it can be committed?*
The accused sets out to achieve a particular state of affairs and takes appropriate steps to bring about that offence.
Before the offence - e.g. secretly adding alcohol to friend's drink, knowing that the friend would shortly be driving home, procures the offence of driving with excess alcohol.
107
Does a mere presence at the scene and a failure to intervene or prevent the offence constitute abetting?*
No; requires some evidence that active steps were taken, whether by words or action.
-- E.g. if attendance was by prior arrangement with the principal; effectively acting as a support in the situation.
108
In what cases is a 'meeting of the minds' (contact between the principal and accomplice) required?*
Abetting and counselling.
N.B. Not procurement or aiding.
109
Can you be guilty as an accomplice where assistance is given even if the principal is entirely unaware of the help given?*
Yes.
110
Is a causal link required in cases where the prosecution allege procurement? *
Yes; between the accomplice's behaviour and the commission of the offence.
N.B. No causal link required for offences of aiding, abetting or counselling the offence. Means that no need to establish that the help impacted or influenced their decision to commit the crime.
111
In what 2 rare situations may the principal not be convicted but the accomplice is? *
Where principal has a defence.
Where principal cannot be found.
112
What must happen before an accomplice can attract liability? *
The actus reus of the principal offence has been carried out.
113
What is the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability?
1) Mens rea in relation to intention to act or speak words that establish the actus reus of accomplice liability.
2) Knowledge of circumstances; accomplice must know that certain things are going to happen, or at least they contemplate that those things might happen, which in fact constitute an offence.
Satisfied if accomplice intends principal offender to commit the specific crime.
114
How specific does the accomplice's knowledge need to be to satisfy mens rea requirement of accomplice liability?
If accomplice does not have knowledge of the specific offence principal offender intends to commit, but;
-- Knows a type of crime in a limited range will be committed,
Accomplice is guilty as an accomplice to the offence committed.
115
What happens where the parties do the agreed act but with a different mens rea?
The accomplice can be charged with an offence higher or lower than principal depending on their own mens rea.
E.g. most common with murder/manslaughter or ss18/20 assaults.
116
What is required for accomplice to be liable for the 'new offence' where principal offender goes beyond the scope of the plan?
That they intend to assist or encourage principal offender in the new offence.
Foresight of what principal offender might do is evidence of such intent but no more.
-- Consider facts of case and what accomplice knows about principal.
117
What is required for withdrawal to escape liability?
Before the offence - unequivocal communication of withdrawal.
N.B. The more you have done to assist principal, the more is required to effectively withdraw.
During the offence - more than simply communicate intention.
-- E.g. physical intervention, standing in front of victim to protect them.
118
Can you be an accomplice to murder if you are only involved after the crime has been committed?
No.
