Criminal law Flashcards

Question

What are strict liability offences?

Answer 1

Offences that do not require a mens rea

Answer 2

Driving without insurance

Answer 3

When a defendant intends to harm one person but accidentally harms another

Answer 4

The requirement that the mens rea occurs at the same time as the actus reus

Answer 5

The actus reus can be sufficient if the mens rea occurred at some point during the act

Answer 6

Refers to the common law offences of assault and battery

Answer 7

Actual physical contact

Answer 8

* Causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful physical force * Intention or recklessness to cause apprehension

Answer 9

The threat must suggest that force will be inflicted in the very near future

Answer 10

When there is no lawful defense or consent

Answer 11

Self-defence or consent of the recipient ## Footnote Use of force is not an offence if there is a lawful defence such as self-defence or if the use of force is consented to by the recipient.

Answer 12

A certain amount of unwanted contact is deemed consented to as part of everyday life ## Footnote This includes situations like brushing past others on busy streets.

Answer 13

Application of unlawful physical force ## Footnote The act does not need to be of a particular level; even the slightest unlawful touch suffices.

Answer 14

Intention or recklessness regarding the victim's apprehension of unlawful force ## Footnote The defendant must either intend to apply unlawful force or be reckless about it.

Answer 15

The physical application of unlawful force to another person ## Footnote There is no need for injury; force inflicted is sufficient.

Answer 16

* Application of unlawful physical force * Force can be direct or indirect ## Footnote The touching or force can be very slight.

Answer 17

Any injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim ## Footnote It must be more than transient or trifling.

Answer 18

* Actus reus of assault or battery * Occasioning actual bodily harm ## Footnote The mens rea elements of assault or battery must also be proven.

Answer 19

Really serious harm ## Footnote GBH can include broken bones, severe burns, or serious psychiatric harm.

Answer 20

Intention to cause some harm or recklessness as to causing some harm ## Footnote The defendant does not have to intend grievous bodily harm specifically.

Answer 21

The mens rea for s 18 requires intention to cause grievous bodily harm ## Footnote S 20 offences only require intention to cause some harm.

Answer 22

* Valid * Informed * Freely and genuinely given ## Footnote Consent must be given without coercion and by someone capable of consenting.

Answer 23

* Medical treatment * Tattooing and ear piercing * Religious acts ## Footnote Consent can also apply to properly conducted games or sports.

Answer 24

Whether the consequence would have happened but for the defendant’s act ## Footnote If the consequence would have happened anyway, the defendant is not the factual cause.

Answer 25

The defendant’s action must be an operating and substantial cause of the result ## Footnote It does not need to be the sole or main cause.

Answer 26

An intervening act that breaks the chain of causation ## Footnote This can absolve the defendant from criminal liability if the chain is broken.

Answer 27

Unclear and not based on a solid set of principles. ## Footnote Legal uncertainty exists in the application of causation principles.

Answer 28

An unforeseeable natural disaster, also known as an act of God. ## Footnote Examples include lightning strikes or tsunamis.

Answer 29

The falling tree takes over as the cause of death. ## Footnote The tree's fall is an unforeseeable natural event.

Answer 30

The victim can become the cause of their own injury, death, or loss. ## Footnote This applies when the victim acts of their own free will.

Answer 31

The victim must have been acting of their own free will. ## Footnote This principle is crucial in determining liability.

Answer 32

If the victim's action is a result of something the defendant has done, the chain is not broken if the response was reasonably foreseeable.

Answer 33

The defendant must take their victim as they find them. ## Footnote This includes unusual or unknown conditions that make the victim more vulnerable.

Answer 34

A defendant inflicts a minor wound on a victim who is a haemophiliac, resulting in death. ## Footnote The defendant cannot escape liability by blaming the victim's condition.

Answer 35

The victim died not from the inflicted wound, but from refusing a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs. ## Footnote This case highlights the 'thin skull' rule.

Answer 36

When their actions were not reasonably foreseeable or if they commit a palpably wrong independent act. ## Footnote An example is R v Jordan (1956).

Answer 37

An act by a third party that is so significant it becomes an intervening act, breaking the chain of causation.

Answer 38

If the incorrect treatment is unforeseeably bad and the sole cause of death.

Answer 39

It is not necessarily clear or consistent in this area.

Answer 40

Summary of key principles * Criminal offences are constructed out of elements: o actus reus elements relate to the conduct, circumstances and consequences that form the crime, and o mens rea elements identify the mental characteristics of the defendant’s attitude or awareness that makes the action criminal. * Within offences against the person, the level of harm inflicted dictates the level of charge. Imagine the offences as being on a ladder, with assault being the bottom rung, moving up to battery, then OAPA s 47, then s 20 and finally, the top rung is s 18. * Minor offences against the person can be consented to but more serious forms of harm can only be consented to in a limited set of circumstances where it is deemed to be in the public interest, such as medical procedures. * Harm-based offences against the person require proof of a chain of causation between the defendant’s actions and the harm that was sustained. * The chain of causation can be broken by various intervening acts.

Answer 41

The prosecution must establish every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt ## Footnote This ensures that a defendant is acquitted if the prosecution fails to prove the offence.

Answer 42

Actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) ## Footnote These Latin terms are essential for understanding the components of a crime.

Answer 43

The guilty act that forms part of the offence ## Footnote It can include actions, circumstances, or consequences.

Answer 44

The guilty mind accompanying the actus reus ## Footnote It reflects what the defendant was thinking at the time of the offence.

Answer 45

Actions, circumstances, and consequences ## Footnote Each type can be involved in the commission of a crime.

Answer 46

beyond reasonable doubt

Answer 47

Voluntariness ## Footnote The act must be voluntary; involuntary actions typically do not qualify as actus reus.

Answer 48

A failure to act ## Footnote Criminal liability for omissions is rare and usually depends on specific duties.

Answer 49

* Contractual duty to act * Familial duty to act * Duty assumed by caring for another

Answer 50

* Intention * Recklessness * Negligence

Answer 51

What the defendant was thinking at the relevant time ## Footnote Intention is subjective and often requires evidence to establish.

Answer 52

Judging actions against a reasonable person's standard ## Footnote It does not consider the defendant's thoughts or intentions.

Answer 53

Offences that do not require mens rea ## Footnote The mere act is sufficient for liability, as in driving without insurance.

Answer 54

When mens rea is transferred from one victim to another ## Footnote This occurs if a defendant intends to harm one person but accidentally harms another.

Answer 55

The requirement that both elements occur simultaneously ## Footnote If not, the offence may not be established.

Answer 56

The Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) ## Footnote It builds on common law rules regarding assault and battery.

Answer 57

The common law offences of assault and battery charged under s 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 ## Footnote It includes distinct actus reus and mens rea requirements.

Answer 58

Causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful physical force ## Footnote This can involve gestures or words without physical contact.

Answer 59

That the force will be inflicted in the very near future ## Footnote This does not have to be instantaneous but should indicate an imminent threat.

Answer 60

Use of force not justified by law or consent ## Footnote Everyday contact is generally deemed consensual unless it exceeds reasonable limits.

Answer 61

* Intention to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful physical force * Recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful physical force

Answer 62

Use of force is not an offence if there is a lawful defence or if the use of force is consented to by the recipient.

Answer 63

The force used does not need to be of a particular level; even the slightest unlawful touch is sufficient.

Answer 64

The defendant must either intend or be reckless as to whether the victim apprehends the immediate application of unlawful force.

Answer 65

Battery involves the physical application of unlawful force to another person, without the need for injury.

Answer 66

* Application of unlawful physical force * Unlawful physical force

Answer 67

* Intention to apply unlawful physical force * Recklessness as to the application of unlawful physical force

Answer 68

It is a statutory offence that requires proof of assault or battery and actual bodily harm.

Answer 69

* Assault/battery * Occasioning * Actual bodily harm

Answer 70

Any injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim and is more than merely transient or trifling.

Answer 71

* Mens rea of assault * Mens rea of battery

Answer 72

Unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm upon another person.

Answer 73

* Inflicting grievous bodily harm

Answer 74

An injury that breaks through both layers of skin: dermis and epidermis.

Answer 75

* Intention to cause some harm * Recklessness as to causing some harm

Answer 76

s 18 requires a higher level of mens rea, specifically intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Answer 77

* Causing grievous bodily harm * Causing a wound

Answer 78

* Intention to cause grievous bodily harm * Intention to resist or prevent lawful apprehension

Answer 79

* Valid * Informed * Freely and genuinely given

Answer 80

* Common assault * Actual bodily harm in specific situations

Answer 81

Treatment must be performed by a medical professional for a valid medical purpose with valid, informed consent.

Answer 82

Determining whether the consequence would have happened but for the defendant's act.

Answer 83

The defendant’s action must be an 'operating and substantial' cause of the result.

Answer 84

An intervening act that can break the chain of causation.

Answer 85

* Unforeseeable natural events * Victim’s actions

Answer 86

If the victim's action is a result of something the defendant has done, the chain of causation is not broken.

Answer 87

The victim’s own actions can break the chain of causation ## Footnote This includes actions taken of their own free will that lead to their own injury, death, or loss.

Answer 88

Reasonable foreseeability ## Footnote If the victim's response was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant's action, the chain of causation remains intact.

Answer 89

Defendant must take their victim as they find them ## Footnote This means that if a victim has an unusual condition making them more vulnerable, the defendant is liable regardless of the victim's condition.

Answer 90

The victim died due to her refusal of a blood transfusion based on religious beliefs ## Footnote The defendant could not escape liability as the injury was still a result of their actions.

Answer 91

Deliberate acts of a third party ## Footnote This occurs when the third-party actions are not reasonably foreseeable or involve a palpably wrong independent act.

Answer 92

An act by a third party that is significantly wrong and breaks the chain of causation ## Footnote This can include situations where medical treatment fails as a direct result of the third party's actions.

Answer 93

Two situations: * Actions not reasonably foreseeable * Palpably wrong independent act ## Footnote The latter is often relevant in cases involving medical treatment and its failure.

Answer 94

It established the principle of palpably wrong independent acts breaking the chain of causation ## Footnote This case illustrates how third-party actions can be a significant cause of harm, overshadowing the defendant's original act.

Answer 95

Criminal offences are constructed out of elements: o actus reus elements relate to the conduct, circumstances and consequences that form the crime, and o mens rea elements identify the mental characteristics of the defendant’s attitude or awareness that makes the action criminal. * Within offences against the person, the level of harm inflicted dictates the level of charge. Imagine the offences as being on a ladder, with assault being the bottom rung, moving up to battery, then OAPA s 47, then s 20 and finally, the top rung is s 18. * Minor offences against the person can be consented to but more serious forms of harm can only be consented to in a limited set of circumstances where it is deemed to be in the public interest, such as medical procedures. * Harm-based offences against the person require proof of a chain of causation between the defendant’s actions and the harm that was sustained. * The chain of causation can be broken by various intervening acts.

Answer 96

A form of blameworthiness required for conviction of a criminal offence ## Footnote Mens rea varies depending on the specific offence

Answer 97

Objective and subjective mens rea states ## Footnote Objective mens rea relates to a reasonable person's perspective, while subjective mens rea focuses on the defendant's actual beliefs or intentions

Answer 98

Based on what a reasonable person believes about a situation ## Footnote It involves negligence, dishonesty, or gross negligence as perceived by the jury

Answer 99

Requires proof of actual realization or belief by the defendant about a particular fact ## Footnote Examples include foresight for intention and recklessness, knowledge, and belief

Answer 100

The defendant must intend or be reckless regarding the application of unlawful force ## Footnote This relates to subjective mens rea

Answer 101

The jury can use what would have been obvious to a bystander in the defendant's position ## Footnote This helps determine what the defendant did or did not foresee

Answer 102

A jury should consider if the defendant foresaw the relevant result as virtually certain ## Footnote If so, they may conclude that the defendant intended that result

Answer 103

A defendant is reckless if they foresee a result as a possible risk and unreasonably take that risk ## Footnote Recklessness is subjective but the assessment of reasonableness is objective

Answer 104

The defendant must know that the property belongs to someone else ## Footnote A mistake of fact may prevent the establishment of knowledge

Answer 105

Gross negligence involves a more significant and serious level of negligence ## Footnote It justifies treating civil wrongs as criminal

Answer 106

Dishonesty is a core element determined by the jury, considering the defendant's understanding of the situation ## Footnote The jury assesses dishonesty objectively while incorporating the defendant's subjective perspective

Answer 107

* Basic criminal damage * Aggravated criminal damage * Arson * Aggravated arson ## Footnote Each offence has specific mens rea and actus reus requirements

Answer 108

Damage or destruction of property belonging to another without lawful excuse ## Footnote Damage is assessed as a question of fact and degree

Answer 109

* Intention or recklessness as to damage to property * Intention or recklessness as to endangering life by the destruction or damage ## Footnote Actual endangering of life is not necessary; it focuses on mens rea

Answer 110

* Tangible property * Land * Money * Tamed or captured wild animals ## Footnote Wild plants or fungi do not qualify as property under the Act

Answer 111

Any lawful reason that negates criminal liability, such as self-defense ## Footnote Specific provisions apply under CDA s 5(2)

Answer 112

The defendant believed that the property owner would have consented to the damage ## Footnote This belief must be honestly held

Answer 113

Destruction was for the purpose of protecting property and believed to be immediately necessary ## Footnote The assessment of immediacy is objective, based on the defendant's belief

Answer 114

Endangering life by the destruction or damage ## Footnote There does not need to be actual endangerment of life for the offence to occur.

Answer 115

The damage must be what endangers life, not the actions leading to the damage.

Answer 116

Damage or destruction caused by fire ## Footnote Arson is sentenced more harshly than basic or aggravated criminal damage.

Answer 117

* Murder * Manslaughter * Assisted suicide * Infanticide * Causing death by dangerous driving

Answer 118

Murder partially excused due to diminished responsibility or loss of control.

Answer 119

Involuntary manslaughter lacks the mens rea of murder and is a specific type of offence.

Answer 120

* Actus reus: unlawful killing of a living person * Mens rea: intention to kill or cause serious harm

Answer 121

Murder is when a man of sound memory unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace.

Answer 122

* Intention to kill * Intention to cause grievous bodily harm

Answer 123

A common law offence requiring an underlying crime that leads to death.

Answer 124

* An unlawful act * The act killed a living person * The act is dangerous

Answer 125

An unlawful act must be such that sober and reasonable people would recognize it as posing a risk of physical harm.

Answer 126

* Duty of care to the victim * Breach of duty * Obvious risk of death * Breach causes death * Breach amounts to gross negligence

Answer 127

A breach of duty that is so bad it ought to be condemned as criminal.

Answer 128

* Actus reus: unlawful killing * Mens rea: intention to kill or cause serious harm

Answer 129

* The killing must be unlawful * The act must cause death * The victim must be a living human being * The act must occur under the King's peace

Answer 130

If a defendant intends to kill one person but accidentally kills another, they can still be guilty of murder.

Answer 131

Physical harm; emotional or psychological harm is insufficient.

Answer 132

Gross negligence involves an obvious risk of death, whereas ordinary negligence does not.

Answer 133

A defence is raising a dispute against the prosecution case, such as denying presence at the crime scene or suggesting a lack of foresight of harm.

Answer 134

There can be no conviction.

Answer 135

A defence that can be applied to all crimes, such as self-defence or prevention of crime.

Answer 136

The partial defence of loss of control, which applies to reduce murder to manslaughter.

Answer 137

* Insanity * Duress

Answer 138

It reduces, rather than removes, a defendant’s liability.

Answer 139

Liability for voluntary manslaughter arises.

Answer 140

A murder must be proven, along with intention to kill or cause serious harm.

Answer 141

Denying prosecution elements that may require establishing additional facts or specific rules.

Answer 142

Denying intent or foresight due to intoxication.

Answer 143

The prosecution must disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.

Answer 144

In cases of diminished responsibility.

Answer 145

Produce enough evidence to put the matter in issue.

Answer 146

Call enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude the defence might be more likely than not.

Answer 147

The defendant only needs to raise a reasonable doubt.

Answer 148

There must be sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably conclude the defence might apply.

Answer 149

Evidence that suggests the defence could reasonably apply, beyond just a statement of loss of control.

Answer 150

By considering if each element of the defence might apply.

Answer 151

Being intoxicated in some form. ## Footnote Intoxication is a critical factor in specific offences that require proof of being under the influence.

Answer 152

It is not generally relevant to whether a defendant has committed an offence, but it can be an aggravating feature in sentencing. ## Footnote Intoxication can affect sentencing but not necessarily the guilt of the defendant.

Answer 153

Rules that address the defence of intoxication in relation to a defendant's mens rea. ## Footnote These rules can lead to reduced criminal liability if mens rea cannot be proved due to intoxication.

Answer 154

A person is intoxicated if they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, including prescription drugs. ## Footnote The focus is on the impact on the defendant's capacity to think and predict.

Answer 155

Their intoxication is irrelevant, as it merely reduces inhibitions. ## Footnote Case law states 'a drunken intent is still an intent.'

Answer 156

Taking intoxicants to build up courage or motivation to commit an offence. ## Footnote This indicates that the mens rea was formed prior to intoxication.

Answer 157

* Whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary * Whether the offence is of basic or specific intent.

Answer 158

Intoxication where the person does not realize they have taken an intoxicant, such as having a drink spiked. ## Footnote If the intoxication renders them unable to form mens rea, they are not guilty.

Answer 159

Intoxication where a person chose to take intoxicants, even if the effect was greater than anticipated. ## Footnote This includes situations like misjudging the strength of low-alcohol beer.

Answer 160

Crimes that can be proven with recklessness, such as criminal damage or assault. ## Footnote Basic intent does not require foresight.

Answer 161

Crimes that can only be proven with intention, such as murder or grievous bodily harm. ## Footnote Specific intent requires a higher level of mens rea.

Answer 162

The court assesses if they had the necessary mens rea; if not, they are not guilty. ## Footnote If they formed the intent while intoxicated, they are guilty.

Answer 163

The court assesses if they would have had the necessary mens rea if sober. ## Footnote Recklessness in becoming intoxicated can lead to guilt.

Answer 164

* Self-defence of oneself * Defence of another * Defence of one’s property * Self-defence to prevent a crime or assist in lawful arrest.

Answer 165

* The defendant used force * The defendant believed it was necessary to use force * The force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

Answer 166

No, self-defence cannot be used as a defence to an offence that does not involve force on another person.

Answer 167

The defendant must genuinely believe it was necessary to use force. ## Footnote Mistaken beliefs due to voluntary intoxication cannot be relied upon.

Answer 168

The circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, which is subjectively assessed. ## Footnote Objective assessments are made to determine if the force used was reasonable.

Answer 169

Force used is only unreasonable if it was grossly disproportionate in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.

Answer 170

A defence that reduces murder to manslaughter if established, applying only to the offence of murder. ## Footnote Loss of control is considered a mitigating factor in other offences.

Answer 171

* The murder resulted from a loss of control.

Answer 172

It serves as a partial defence, reducing murder to manslaughter under CJA 2009 s 54(1).

Answer 173

The requirements are: * The murder resulted from a loss of control * The loss of control resulted from a qualifying trigger * A person of the defendant’s sex and age would have reacted similarly.

Answer 174

No, there is no requirement for the loss of control to be sudden (s 54(2)).

Answer 175

It refers to a delayed reaction to a trigger that builds up over time until the defendant loses control.

Answer 176

The defence of loss of control will not apply (s 54(4)).

Answer 177

It is where the loss of control comes from the defendant’s fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another identified person.

Answer 178

The fear trigger applies when self-defence is not strictly necessary or reasonable.

Answer 179

The restrictions are: * The fear must be of violence from the victim of the killing * The fear must be of serious violence to the defendant or another identified person.

Answer 180

It is where the loss of control is due to circumstances of an extremely grave character that cause the defendant to feel seriously wronged.

Answer 181

The jury determines whether the circumstances are of an extremely grave character.

Answer 182

Yes, a defendant's characteristics may be relevant to the objective evaluation.

Answer 183

sufficient evidence

Answer 184

A threat from a spouse about not seeing grandchildren can constitute an extremely grave character.

Answer 185

Things said or done ## Footnote General stressful conditions or circumstances do not qualify.

Answer 186

No ## Footnote It protects partners from jealous acts of rage.

Answer 187

The defendant’s own actions ## Footnote This prevents orchestrating situations for violence excuses.

Answer 188

Ordinary man test ## Footnote It considers a person of D’s sex and age with normal tolerance.

Answer 189

* The defendant’s age * The defendant’s sex * Individual characteristics ## Footnote Includes vulnerability factors like physical disability.

Answer 190

A state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that it is termed abnormal ## Footnote Covers all aspects of the mind's activities.

Answer 191

On the balance of probabilities ## Footnote This is different from the usual criminal standard.

Answer 192

* Abnormality of mental functioning * Arising from a recognized medical condition * Substantially impaired abilities * Caused or significantly contributed to the killing ## Footnote Each element must be proven on the balance of probabilities.

Answer 193

It must prove the abnormality is medically recognized ## Footnote Reference is often made to ICD and DSM classifications.

Answer 194

No ## Footnote However, alcohol dependency syndrome may qualify if it leads to substantial impairment.

Answer 195

* Ability to understand the nature of one’s conduct * Ability to form a rational judgement * Ability to exercise self-control ## Footnote Each capacity must be assessed for substantial impairment.

Answer 196

Something important or weighty ## Footnote Defined by the Supreme Court in R v Golds.

Answer 197

The abnormality must explain the defendant's acts or omissions ## Footnote It does not need to be the sole cause of the killing.

Answer 198

Defences raise new issues that need to be proven (by the prosecution or the defence) before guilt is established. * The defendant always bears a burden to call some evidence to put a defence in issue at trial (but how much depends on the particular defence). * Usually, the prosecution has to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt. * The defendant must prove diminished responsibility on the balance of probabilities. * Where a defendant is intoxicated but forms the mens rea, they will still be guilty of the offence. * Where a defendant is intoxicated and does not form the mens rea for an offence that requires proof of actual intention (specific intent), they will not be guilty whether they were voluntarily or involuntarily intoxicated. * Where a defendant is involuntarily intoxicated and fails to form the mens rea of an offence requiring recklessness (basic intent), they will not be guilty of that offence. * Where a defendant is voluntarily intoxicated and fails to form the mens rea of an offence requiring recklessness, they will still be guilty of that offence. * A person who knowingly takes potential intoxicants will generally be treated as voluntarily intoxicated. * A person who reasonably uses force in self-defence will not be guilty of a crime. * Whether force is used reasonably is based on the defendant’s perception of the situation but judged objectively. * A person who loses self-control and commits murder may only be guilty of manslaughter if they were reacting to a qualifying trigger in the way a person of their age and sex, but with normal capacities of tolerance and restraint, would. * A qualifying trigger can be either fear of violence or a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. * A person who commits murder but who suffers from a medically recognised mental impairment of their ability to exercise understanding, judgement or control may be guilty of manslaughter instead under the doctrine of diminished responsibility.

Answer 199

Secondary party, accessory, accomplice

Answer 200

They are charged on the same count on the indictment without needing to distinctly allege accessory status

Answer 201

Clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt of their role

Answer 202

Principals can use an innocent party to perform the actus reus

Answer 203

Aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of a principal offence

Answer 204

The actus reus of the offence must have been completed

Answer 205

* Providing information about an offence * Providing physical assistance * Keeping a lookout * Enabling an escape

Answer 206

Inciting, instigating, or encouraging a crime

Answer 207

Providing advice about how to commit the offence

Answer 208

To produce by endeavour someone into committing an offence

Answer 209

No, presence must actually encourage the commission of the offence

Answer 210

* Intentional act * Intention to help the principal commit the offence * Knowledge of circumstances * Knowledge that the act was capable of assisting or encouraging

Answer 211

They may not be guilty if they clearly communicate their withdrawal before completion

Answer 212

Guilt for attempting to commit a criminal offence that falls short

Answer 213

An act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence

Answer 214

* Intention to commit the offence * Intention as to any actions or consequences * Knowledge or recklessness as to any circumstances

Answer 215

It is a question of fact for the jury to determine

Answer 216

To drive it ## Footnote This indicates the necessity of intention in establishing criminal liability.

Answer 217

To enter the property as a trespasser ## Footnote The intention is crucial for defining the act of trespassing.

Answer 218

The defendant's actions must lead to a virtually certain consequence of that harm ## Footnote An example is throwing someone off a roof, which virtually guarantees death.

Answer 219

To kill ## Footnote This highlights the necessity of specific intent in serious crimes.

Answer 220

Intention to bring about the harm ## Footnote This emphasizes the distinction between recklessness and intention.

Answer 221

To enter the building as a trespasser and to commit theft or cause grievous bodily harm ## Footnote This specifies the necessary intentions for the crime of burglary.

Answer 222

Knowledge that a circumstance does exist ## Footnote This indicates the mental state required for criminal liability.

Answer 223

Recklessness as to the possibility of circumstances ## Footnote This case established that recklessness can meet the criteria for an attempted crime.

Answer 224

The defendant must intend all elements of the actus reus, including circumstances ## Footnote This case clarifies the requirement for intention in criminal attempts.

Answer 225

A mistake about relevant facts and circumstances ## Footnote This is supported by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s 1(2).

Answer 226

Yes, if the defendant's belief about the situation would make the action criminal ## Footnote This is outlined in Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s 1(3).

Answer 227

An offence can be jointly committed by more than one principal, so long as they each have the actus reus and mens rea of the principal crime. * A person can also be guilty as a principal if they cause an innocent agent to carry out the actus reus on their behalf (and they have the mens rea). * A person can be guilty as an accessory if they encourage or assist the commission of the principal offence, intending to provide encouragement or assistance and with awareness of the circumstances that will make their encouragement and assistance criminal. * A defendant who does not complete an offence can be guilty of an attempt if their acts were more than merely preparatory to complete that act and they intended to complete the full offence. * To be guilty of attempt, the defendant either needs to know or to be reckless as to the relevant circumstances that make it an offence criminal, but the law is unclear on this point. * A person can be guilty of attempting an offence, even if it was impossible for them to succeed.

Answer 228

Theft is an offence that includes appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to deprive that person of it. ## Footnote Theft serves as a basis for other offences like burglary and robbery.

Answer 229

* Actus reus: appropriation of property belonging to another * Mens rea: dishonesty and intention to deprive the other person of the property

Answer 230

Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner. ## Footnote This includes rights such as selling, giving away, or destroying the property.

Answer 231

No, appropriation does not require the act to be hostile.

Answer 232

* Money * Real property * Personal property * Things in action and other intangible property

Answer 233

* Electricity * Confidential information * Wildflowers and fruit (unless picked to sell) * Wild animals (unless reduced into possession)

Answer 234

Property is regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest.

Answer 235

Yes, property can belong to another even if it appears lost or abandoned.

Answer 236

* Belief that they have the right in law to deprive the owner * Belief that the owner would consent to the appropriation * Belief that the true owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps

Answer 237

Whether the defendant's actions were dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people.

Answer 238

It means intending to keep the property, even if the thief later changes their mind.

Answer 239

Robbery is violent theft, where force is used or threatened to steal property.

Answer 240

* Actus reus: steals immediately before or at the time of stealing and uses force * Mens rea: dishonesty and intention to deprive the other person of the property

Answer 241

No, there is no minimum amount of force required.

Answer 242

The use of force or the threat of force must occur.

Answer 243

Burglary is an offence of intrusion into property with the intent to commit crimes.

Answer 244

* Intentional burglary (s 9(1)(a)) * Action-based burglary (s 9(1)(b))

Answer 245

* Actus reus: entry into a building as a trespasser * Mens rea: intention to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm, or cause unlawful damage

Answer 246

* Actus reus: entry as a trespasser * Actus reus and mens rea of theft, attempted theft, inflicting grievous bodily harm, or attempted grievous bodily harm

Answer 247

Entry is effective if a person enters a building or part of a building, even partially.

Answer 248

Trespass occurs when someone enters someone else’s property without lawful authority or permission.

Answer 249

The defendant must know they are entering as a trespasser or be reckless about it.

Answer 250

The defendant must know that they are entering as a trespasser or be reckless as to this act ## Footnote This means awareness or realization of not having authority or permission to enter.

Answer 251

No, entering a private garden is not considered burglary, even with criminal intent ## Footnote Burglary requires entry into a 'building' or part of one.

Answer 252

An 'inhabited vehicle or vessel', such as a caravan or houseboat, qualifies as a building ## Footnote This is true even if it is not inhabited at the time of entry.

Answer 253

No, a building does not have to be ordinarily inhabited; offices, churches, and permanent outbuildings can qualify ## Footnote However, different penalties apply for dwellings.

Answer 254

The maximum penalty for burglary of a dwelling is 14 years ## Footnote Compared to the usual penalty of 10 years for other types of burglary.

Answer 255

The charge specifies whether or not the burglary is of a dwelling ## Footnote This distinction affects the severity of the penalty.

Answer 256

Entering a different part of a building as a trespasser, even if lawfully in another part, constitutes burglary ## Footnote This can include entering a different room or a clearly segregated area.

Answer 257

It is a matter for the jury to decide which parts of a building a person has permission to enter ## Footnote This involves assessing the context and circumstances of the entry.

Answer 258

[burglary]

Answer 259

False ## Footnote Burglary requires entry into a building or part of one.

Answer 260

An additional mens rea element at the point of entry of the building or part of the building.

Answer 261

The intent to commit theft, inflicting grievous bodily harm, or criminal damage.

Answer 262

Enter a different part of the building.

Answer 263

A person commits a further offence having entered as a trespasser.

Answer 264

Burglary with the added offence element of possessing a dangerous or offensive weapon.

Answer 265

* Firearm * Weapon of offence * Explosive

Answer 266

Airguns and items that appear to be firearms, regardless of discharge capability.

Answer 267

Items made or adapted for causing injury or incapacitating a person.

Answer 268

Either a manufactured explosive or one intended by the defendant to have that effect.

Answer 269

At the time of committing the burglary or at the point of committing the additional offence.

Answer 270

The defendant must know that they possess the relevant item.

Answer 271

Dishonesty intention to gain for self or another or intention to cause loss to another.

Answer 272

* False representation (s 2) * Non-disclosure (s 3) * Abuse of position (s 4)

Answer 273

Dishonesty.

Answer 274

Dishonestly and knowingly making a false representation with the relevant intent.

Answer 275

* Statements of fact * Statements of law * Statements of opinion (implied) * States of mind

Answer 276

It must be untrue or misleading.

Answer 277

Dishonestly failing to disclose information that the defendant is under a duty to disclose.

Answer 278

A legal duty to disclose.

Answer 279

Occupying a position of trust that is dishonestly abused to gain or cause loss.

Answer 280

Whether the defendant's conduct breaches any defined fiduciary duty.

Answer 281

Failing to take steps to protect the relevant interest.

Answer 282

Theft Act and Fraud Act offences require an understanding of principles of property law and other aspects of civil law. * The actus reus for theft is broad, in that it covers a wide range of actions, including the taking of, disposing of, using, selling of “property”, which is also very widely defined. * Theft, fraud, robbery and most burglaries require dishonesty. * Dishonesty is determined objectively – do the magistrates or jury think the conduct is dishonest? * However, for Theft Act offences, there are three s 2(1) situations where a person is not dishonest based on their honest belief. * Robbery is a theft committed with use of force or threats. * There are two types of burglary – those where a person trespasses into a building, intending a particular offence and those where a person, having entered as trespasser, commits a particular offence. * A person moving around a building can become a burglar even if they did not enter as a trespasser. * Not all burglaries involve thefts – they can involve intention to commit criminal damage or cause grievous bodily harm or the actual commission of a grievous bodily harm offence. * For intentional burglary, a person must intend the ulterior offence when entering as a trespasser. * For the other sort of burglary, they only need to enter as a trespasser and then commit the offence. * There is an aggravated form or burglary that involves having weapons or explosives at the time of the burglary (entry or commission of additional offence). * There are three types of fraud – false representations, failing to mention facts and abuse of position. * All three types require the conduct to be dishonest and an intention to cause gain or loss.

Answer 283

Self-defence is a complete defence. In order for it to operate, you first need a trigger, which is that D thought the use of force was necessary because they thought they were going to come under imminent attack. This belief can be mistaken. The intruder had a toy gun and D is elderly – they likely mistook this as a real gun. Then the response – needs to be proportionate and reasonable unless it is a householder case, in which case it just cannot be grossly disproportionate (it still needs to be a reasonable level of force, but when assessing what is reasonable a disproportionate level of force is allowed). This is quite a high bar, especially because, as far as D was aware, V had a gun. Self-defence is therefore likely to apply. Blackletter law rule: when assessing self-defence for a householder case, the test is would a reasonable man have used the level of force D used if he held D's beliefs BUT when assessing the use of force a disproportionate use of force is allowed.

Answer 284

The starting point is that all ordinary witnesses, whatever their age and unless certain rules apply (such as if the witness is the defendant or D’s spouse) are competent and compellable for the prosecution. That includes child witnesses. It would only be if the child could not understand the questions being put to her or give intelligible answers that she would not be used (and that is up to the judge), but a 14-year-old would likely be fine. There is no minimum age below which a child cannot give evidence (but judicial discretion is used). However, special measures will be presumed to apply for a child witness - a video examination-in-chief and live video link cross-examination. Blackletter law rule: an ordinary witness is competent and compellable for the CPS. There is no minimum age for a witness to give evidence, but a child under 18 will likely give it via special measures (presumed a video recording and live link will apply).

Answer 285

under PACE Code D, the video identification procedure is the preferred method the police should use and should be used where practicable to do so.

Answer 286

This is a tricky MCQ. It is testing you on the definition of hearsay itself, rather than on the grounds of hearsay. The definition of hearsay is a statement not made in oral evidence in proceedings which is tendered as evidence of any matter stated. That means it is being used in court by one side to prove what they are alleging is true. The CPS is trying to prove that the solicitor facilitated the sale of a property to a client using the proceeds of crime. A text message that said something like “thanks for arranging this” or “I will pay you the fees for the transaction soon” would be admissible hearsay evidence on this basis. But just asking about the price of something is not enough – it is not proving that the solicitor actually facilitated a transaction. Blackletter law rule: hearsay is a representation of fact or opinion made by a person otherwise than in oral evidence in the proceedings in question when tendered as evidence of any matter stated by that representation.

Answer 287

The “detention clock” is the maximum time the police can detain a suspect without charge for evidence-gathering and questioning. The clock starts running when the suspect arrives at the police station (here, 14.00 pm). The police have 24 hours initially, then the superintendent needs to authorise more time up to a maximum of 36 hours. Blackletter law rule: for a suspect who is arrested and brought to the police station, the detention clock starts when they arrive at the police station.

Answer 288

If D in the proceedings is charged with or convicted of murder or attempted murder; rape or attempted rape; manslaughter; or serious sexual offences, and has been previously convicted of one of the above offences and if the offence was manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) was imprisoned (or if a young person, subject to a long-term detention order), D should not be put on bail unless there are exceptional circumstances. The presumption of bail will not exist. Serious offences and the right of bail Blackletter law rule: in general, bail will be presumed for a pre-convicted defendant (but that can be rebutted under the Bail Act 1976 conditions). However, the presumption will not exist and bail will likely not be granted if the defendant is charged with or convicted of murder or attempted murder; rape or attempted rape; manslaughter; or serious sexual offences, and has been previously convicted of one of the above offences and if the offence was manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) was imprisoned (or if a young person, subject to a long-term detention order), D should not be put on bail unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Criminal law Flashcards

(323 cards)