Criminal Unit 8 SBAQs Flashcards
(26 cards)
Ervin discovers that his business partner, Guy, has been stealing large amounts of money from the business. Furious at this, Ervin buys a hand gun and ammunition and drives to Guy’s house where he believes he will find him. Ervin puts on a disguise, loads the gun, gets out of his car and approaches Guy’s property. He sees Guy through the window and takes aim with his gun, before pulling the trigger. The gun jams and no bullet is discharged.
Which of the following will the prosecution have to prove in order to establish the actus reus for an offence of attempted murder, contrary to s.1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981?
A. That Ervin has done everything that he could to kill Guy.
B. That Ervin has performed some preparatory acts to kill Guy.
C. That Ervin has embarked on the crime proper.
D. That Ervin wanted to kill Guy.
C is correct
option C is the correct answer as the test under R v Gullefer [1987] is that the defendant must have embarked on the crime proper to be guilty of an attempt, and not as described in options A and B. Option D is wrong as it relates to the mens rea.
Continuing with the scenario set out in question 1, assume that the gun which Ervin used to try to kill Guy had a fault with its firing mechanism, so that it was impossible for the bullet to be fired.
Which of the following statements best describes the effect of impossibility on an attempt?
A. Impossibility to fire the gun may amount to a defence.
B. The fact that it would have been impossible to fire the gun is no defence.
C. The defendant is judged on the facts as they are, and not as the accused believed them to be, so the defendant would be found not guilty.
D. The defendant has an evidential burden to raise the issue of impossibility as a defence.
B is correct
the correct answer is option B as impossibility of means will not prevent the establishment of the actus reus of attempt; hence option A is wrong.
With regard to the mens rea, the defendant is judged on the facts as they believed them to be; as a consequence, option C is wrong.
Option D is wrong because this is not one of those occasions where the defendant has a burden of proof, evidential or otherwise. The prosecution must disprove this aspect beyond reasonable doubt in the usual way.
In which ONE or MORE of the following situations would Rohit be guilty of attempted murder? In each case, assume Rohit has the requisite mens rea.
A. He leaves his daughter Amina without food or water hoping she will die. Amina is found by relatives and survives.
B. He stabs Hans without realising that Hans died of natural causes ten minutes ago.
C. He buys a gun planning to kill Tonya next week.
D. He puts a gun to Tonya’s head, releases the safety catch and is about to pull the trigger when he is arrested.
B and D are correct
Rohit is not guilty of attempted murder in option A, as s.1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981 requires the commission of an act - omissions do not establish the actus reus of an attempted offence. He will be guilty of attempted murder in option B because impossibility is no defence to a charge of attempting to commit a crime.
Rohit cannot be convicted in option C as he has not gone beyond the preparatory stage. He is likely to be guilty in option D because there is sufficient evidence that Rohit has done something more than merely preparatory towards committing murder, although this is for the jury to decide.
Which of the following statements correctly describes what the prosecution must prove in order to establish the mens rea for an attempt contrary to s.1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981?
A. For attempted criminal damage, that the defendant intended to destroy or damage property belonging to another.
B. For attempted grievous bodily harm, that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the infliction of serious bodily harm on the victim.
C. For attempted aggravated arson, that the defendant intended to destroy or damage property belonging to self or another and intended to endanger life
A is correct
Option A is correct because, for attempted criminal damage only, an intent to commit the offence will suffice (even though recklessness is an adequate mens rea for the full offence).
Option B is wrong because for assaults under ss.18 and 20 OAPA 1861, the prosecution must prove that the defendant intended grievous bodily harm. As a consequence, there would be no advantage to prosecuting a defendant for attempted wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm under s.20 OAPA 1861.
Answer C is also wrong as, for aggravated criminal damage and arson, the prosecution need only establish that the defendant was reckless as to the endangerment to life, although an intent to destroy or damage property is required.
Identify which one of the following defendants is most likely to escape liability for attempted murder.
A. Marina, wanting to really hurt Will, stabs him in the leg. Will’s artery is partially severed but he survives.
B. Petra loses her temper with Jack and, wanting to kill him, throws a heavy object at his head. She misses by some distance and Jack walks away uninjured.
C. Lewis, wanting to seriously hurt Ernest, pushes him off a 50 metre cliff. Miraculously Ernest survives his fall with only two broken legs.
A is correct
Marina satisfies the AR as, in stabbing Will, she has clearly gone beyond mere preparation. However, with regard to the MR, her direct intent is not to kill, and here a jury is unlikely to find that death is a virtual certainty given that Will is stabbed in his leg. The case of R v Whybrow [1951] confirmed that the mens rea of attempted murder requires an intention to kill and an intent to do really serious harm will not suffice. The mens rea of attempted murder is therefore different to that of the full offence of murder. Thus, Marina is not guilty.
With regard to option B, in throwing a heavy object aimed at Jack’s head, Petra has clearly gone beyond mere preparation (AR). Her direct intent is to kill and even though she fails, she is still guilty.
Lewis is guilty in option C as, in pushing Ernest off the cliff, he has certainly gone beyond mere preparation. With regard to the MR, his direct intent is not to kill but a jury is likely to find that death was a virtual certainty and that he foresaw this. He therefore has indirect / oblique intent to kill, which is sufficient for attempted murder.
Will the prosecution establish the actus reus of accomplice liability to murder in relation to Ronald in each of the scenarios set out below?
Ronald and Devon both shoot Lloyd who dies instantly of multiple gunshot wounds
NO
Scenario 1: Ronald and Devon both shoot Lloyd who dies instantly of multiple gunshot wounds.
No, as Ronald is a joint principal offender.
Will the prosecution establish the actus reus of accomplice liability to murder in relation to Ronald in each of the scenarios set out below?
Ronald supplies Devon with a gun, so Devon can shoot Lloyd. Devon uses the gun to do so and kills Lloyd.
YES
Scenario 2: Ronald supplies Devon with a gun, so Devon can shoot Lloyd. Devon uses the gun to do so and kills Lloyd.
Yes, as the actus reus of accomplice liability is established because Ronald offers physical assistance before the act to Devon by supplying him with a gun. He aids the offence of murder.
Will the prosecution establish the actus reus of accomplice liability to murder in relation to Ronald in each of the scenarios set out below?
Ronald tells Devon that Lloyd always walks home alone at 9.30 p.m. on a Friday evening. Devon attacks and kills Lloyd at 9.30p.m. on Friday.
YES
Scenario 3: Ronald tells Devon that Lloyd always walks home alone at 9.30 p.m. on a Friday evening. Devon attacks and kills Lloyd at 9.30p.m. on Friday.
Yes, as the actus reus of accomplice liability is satisfied because Ronald provides advice to Devon to enable him to kill Lloyd. He aids the offence of murder.
Will the prosecution establish the actus reus of accomplice liability to murder in relation to Ronald in each of the scenarios set out below?
Ronald sees Devon pointing the gun at Lloyd is he is passing by and shouts: “Go on – give it to him!”
YES
Scenario 4: Ronald sees Devon pointing the gun at Lloyd is he is passing by and shouts: “Go on – give it to him!”
Yes, as although mere presence at the scene is not usually sufficient to establish the actus reus of accomplice liability, Ronald encourages the offence by shouting: “Go on – give it to him!” and thus he abets the murder.
Will the prosecution establish the actus reus of accomplice liability to murder in relation to Ronald in each of the scenarios set out below?
Ronald comes across Devon who is trying to dispose of Lloyd’s body after killing him. Ronald has had no previous involvement with Devon but helps him to put Lloyd’s body into the boot of Devon’s car.
NO
Scenario 5: Ronald comes across Devon who is trying to dispose of Lloyd’s body after killing him. Ronald has had no previous involvement with Devon but helps him to put Lloyd’s body into the boot of Devon’s car.
No, because Ronald’s assistance occurs after the killing and accomplice liability only arises if assistance or encouragement is provided before or at the time of the principal offence.
Which of the following best describes what the prosecution must prove to establish the necessary mens rea for an accomplice? The accomplice must:
A. Intend to do the act or say the words that assist or encourage the commission of the principal offence and have knowledge of the circumstances which make the conduct criminal.
B. Intend or be reckless when helping the principal to commit the relevant offence.
C. Intend do the act or say the words that assist or encourage the commission of the principal offence and know that the principal will commit the specific crime.
D. Intend or be reckless as to doing the act or saying the words that encourage the commission of the principal offence and have knowledge of the circumstances which make the conduct criminal.
A is correct
Option B is wrong because recklessness does not satisfy the actus reus for accomplice liability and the remainder of the description is incomplete. Option C is wrong because the accomplice need not know the specific crime which the principal offender intends to commit; whilst D is wrong as the accomplice must intend to do the act or say the words that encourage the commission of the principal offence – recklessness will not suffice.
Susie gives Paulo the keys to a house where she works as a cleaner, knowing that Paulo will use the key to gain access to the house and commit an offence of burglary. Which one of the statements best describes what Susie would have to do to withdraw from the joint venture with Paulo?
A. Susie simply needs to decide that she no longer wants to help Paulo.
B. Susie would have to effectively withdraw her earlier assistance to Paulo, probably by getting the key back from Paulo before he can use it.
C. Susie must inform the police that Paulo intends to burgle the house.
D. Susie can never withdraw once she has given Paulo assistance to commit the burglary.
B is correct
According to R v Becerra [1975], withdrawal must be ‘effective’ if the accomplice wants to avoid criminal liability and option B correctly applies this test on what is likely to amount to an effective withdrawal.
Option A is wrong as Susie has given physical assistance by providing the key as well as advice, so she will need to do more to withdraw from the joint venture. Option C is wrong as there is no obligation to inform the police although, in certain circumstances, this may be required to withdraw satisfactorily from the plan. Option D is wrong as an accomplice can withdraw despite having given the principal offender assistance. However, the greater the help the accomplice has provided, the more they are likely to be required to do to withdraw successfully.
Kay and Diane agree to cause Wendy some bodily harm by hitting her with their hockey sticks. During the attack Diane produces a knife and deliberately and repeatedly stabs Wendy causing her serious injuries. In which of the following situations is Kay most likely to be found not guilty as an accomplice to causing grievous bodily harm with intent?
A. Kay hated Wendy and intended Diane to cause her serious injuries.
B. Kay knew that Diane carried a knife for ‘self-protection’ and that she might use it to stab Wendy.
C. Kay had never considered that Diane would do any more than they had agreed and did not want Wendy to suffer serious injuries.
C is correct
Kay is not an accomplice to causing grievous bodily harm with intent in option C as she clearly does not intend to assist or encourage Diane in stabbing Wendy with the necessary mens rea for this offence.
Kay is an accomplice to causing grievous bodily harm under s.18 OAPA 1861 in option A because she intended that Wendy should suffer serious injuries.
In option B, she contemplated that Diane might intentionally cause grievous bodily harm to Wendy, which is evidence from which the jury could conclude that she has the necessary mens rea to be liable as an accomplice to a s.18 assault - although it is not proof that she has the necessary intent.
Assume that the facts are as stated in question 9 (above). When questioned by the police, Kay admits that she is aware Diane is unpredictable and aggressive and known to be violent on occasion. Is the following statement true or false?
The jury may conclude that, despite Kay saying that she only foresaw some injury to Wendy, there is sufficient evidence to convict Kay as an accomplice to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
TRUE
The fact that Kay knows Diane is unpredictable and aggressive and known to be violent on occasion provides evidence from which the jury could infer that she has the necessary foresight / contemplation that Diane might cause grievous bodily harm using the knife with intent, whether Kay wanted her to or not.
Assume that Diane attacked Wendy with a hockey stick as planned and intended to cause grievous bodily harm, whereas Kay thought she would only cause a minor injury with the stick.
Which of the following correctly identifies the liability of Kay, if Wendy suffers serious injuries?
A. Principal to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
B. No liability for Wendy’s injuries.
C. Accomplice to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
D. Accomplice to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
D is correct
The actus reus is as contemplated by Kay - an assault - but this becomes a more serious assault than Kay envisaged. Because Diane intended serious harm, she is a principal offender to causing grievous bodily harm with intent. However, Kay is only liable to the extent of her own mens rea. She foresaw Wendy suffering a minor injury and so Kay becomes an accomplice to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Option A is wrong - Kay is not a principal offender because she does not commit the actus reus of the offence, as she does not hurt Wendy. Option B is incorrect because Diane has not completely departed from the plan; whilst Option C is also wrong because Wendy did not intend to assist or encourage Diane in causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
Assume that Diane and Kay both intended to cause only minor injury to Wendy. Unknown to either of them, Wendy suffers from a rare blood disorder. When Diane attacks Wendy, her medical condition means that her injuries are fatal. Both Diane and Kay are shocked by Wendy’s death.
Which of the following statements accurately reflects the liability of Diane and Kay?
A. Diane will be convicted of murder as a principal offender. Kay will be convicted as an accomplice to murder.
B. Diane will be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter as a principal offender. Kay will be convicted as an accomplice to unlawful act manslaughter.
C. Neither Diane nor Kay will be guilty of a homicide offence although they could face charges relating to non-fatal assaults.
D. Diane will be convicted of murder as a principal offender and Kay will be convicted as an accomplice to unlawful act manslaughter.
B is correct
Diane has committed an unlawful and dangerous act (the assault) which caused Wendy’s death and thus, is guilty of unlawful act manslaughter. Kay has the same level of mens rea and, thus, is guilty as an accomplice to unlawful act manslaughter.
Options A and D are wrong as Diane will not be convicted of murder because she did not intend to kill Wendy or to cause her grievous bodily harm. Option C is wrong because both the principal and the accomplice must take their victim as they find her and Wendy’s rare blood disorder will not break the chain of causation for her death. Option A is also wrong because Wendy did not intend to assist or encourage Diane in committing murder; hence, she is not an accomplice to murder.
A girl decides to set fire to the sports hall attached to her school one afternoon, as she is bored and thought it would be fun to watch the students run out of the building. She purchases some matches and lighter fuel, and approaches a litter bin that is full of paper. The girl pours the lighter fuel onto the paper and strikes a match. However, just as she is about to drop this into the bin, a member of staff sees her and asks what she is doing. The girl panics and drops the match, which has now been extinguished, onto the floor causing no damage. She runs away but is arrested at home by the police.
Which statement best describes whether the girl satisfies the mens rea for attempted arson and attempted aggravated arson?
A. The girl is not liable for either offence as she did not intend nor was she reckless as to endangering life.
B. The girl is liable for attempted arson as she intended to damage property belonging to another by fire, but she does not satisfy the mens rea for attempted aggravated arson.
C. The girl is liable for both offences because she intended to damage property belonging to another by fire and intended to endanger life.
D. The girl is liable for both offences because she was reckless as to damaging property belonging to another by fire and reckless as to endangering life.
E. The girl is liable for both offences because she intended to damage property belonging to another by fire and was reckless as to endangering life.
E is correct
The girl intended to commit arson as she ‘decides to set fire to the sports hall’ but was reckless as to endangering life (she was aware that students were still in the building as she thought it would be fun to watch them run out).
Option B is wrong because the girl does satisfy the mens rea for attempted aggravated arson and option A is wrong as he is criminally liable for both offences.
Options C and D are not the best answers because she intended the arson and was reckless as to the endangering life aspect, rather than intending or being reckless as to both.
A girl and a boy have fallen out with the victim in their college because she reported them to the police for bullying her online. They decide to punish her and wait for her outside her house. The girl acts as a lookout while the boy beats the victim repeatedly with an iron bar, causing a fractured jaw and a broken arm. He confirms in his police interview that he intended to cause the victim serious bodily harm. In contrast, the girl only thought that the boy would cause the victim some injury such as bruising, just to ‘teach her not to mess with us’.
The boy is convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Which one of the following correctly identifies the liability of the girl?
A. Principal to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
B. No liability for the victim’s injuries.
C. Accomplice to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
D. Accomplice to inflicting grievous bodily harm.
E. Accomplice to causing grievous bodily harm with intent
D is correct
The girl commits the actus reus of accomplice liability as she aids the offence. She also satisfies the first limb of the mens rea as she acted deliberately or intentionally in being the lookout. She is an accomplice to a s.20 assault (inflicting grievous bodily harm) as she contemplated the victim receiving ‘some injury such as bruising’ but not a really serious one. She aids the agreed act (the assault) but with a different mens rea from that of the principal and so she will be judged on the basis of her own level of mens rea.
Option A is wrong as the girl has a lesser involvement in the assault and is merely an accomplice. The person who actually commits the assault is the principal offender – the boy. However, because the boy has not completely departed from the plan, she does not escape liability altogether, so B is wrong. This is because there was an agreement to assault the victim, albeit not as severely as occurred.
Options C and E are wrong for the reasons set out in the discussion of option D. The girl does not intend to assist or encourage the boy in causing the victim grievous bodily harm with intent (s.18 OAPA 1861), or with intention or recklessness as to an assault only. The evidence is that the girl thought the boy would cause the victim ‘some injury’.
A woman runs a transport business, which has been struggling as a result of the downturn in exports. Her business has cash flow problems and she is worried that it will go into liquidation. Desperate to raise some cash, the woman plants a bomb on board one of her ships intending for it to explode while the ship is in the middle of the ocean, so that it sinks and thus enables her to claim a significant insurance payment. The bomb fails to detonate but is discovered when the ship arrives back in port. On closer inspection by the bomb disposal squad, it becomes apparent that the woman had not armed the bomb properly so it could never have detonated in its current state.
Is the woman liable for attempted murder?
A. Yes, because the woman is reckless as to whether those on board the ship will be killed.
B. Yes, because the woman is judged on her own understanding of the facts and she thought she had armed the bomb properly, so that it would explode when the ship was in mid-ocean.
C. No, because she does not intend to kill those onboard the ship.
D. No, because the substantive offence of murder could not have been committed as the bomb could never have detonated.
E. No, because planting a bomb is not an act that is more than merely preparatory to committing the full offence of murder.
B is correct
Option B is correct as the woman’s intention to commit the offence will be based on the facts as she believed them to be; and therefore she is guilty of attempted murder even though the full offence of murder was impossible.
Option A is wrong because recklessness as to causing the death of those on board the ship is not sufficient to satisfy the mens rea of an attempted murder.
Option C is also wrong as, although the woman’s direct intent is for the ship to sink so that she can claim on the insurance, she has an indirect intent to kill (an intent to cause grievous bodily harm is not sufficient). In other words, even though the woman may not have desired the death of those on the ship, she must have foreseen this outcome as a virtual certainty had the ship sank mid-ocean. This will be sufficient to fulfil the mens rea.
Option D is wrong as the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 provides that the accused may be liable for an attempt even if the crime is factually impossible. Option E is wrong because, once she planted the bomb, the woman has clearly passed from the ‘preparation phase’ to the ‘commission phase’; indeed, there was nothing more she could do to commit the substantive offence.
A man plans to carry out a robbery of a bank, but the police are tipped off and are lying in wait for him. In preparation, the man has located a bank to rob, obtained an imitation firearm, written a demand note which is in his pocket, been seen loitering outside the bank wearing sunglasses and carrying a heavy object (an imitation firearm), failed to give any warning about his intended actions and had just entered the bank when he was stopped and arrested.
Which of the following statements correctly describes whether the man satisfies the actus reus of attempted robbery?
A. The judge would not allow the matter to proceed to the jury as there is insufficient evidence that the man has moved from the preparatory stages to commit the full offence of robbery.
B. The jury may take account of all the defendant’s actions and omissions when determining if he is guilty of attempted robbery.
C. The jury must decide, as a question of fact, whether what the defendant has done is sufficient for the offence of attempted robbery.
D. To be guilty of an attempted robbery, the man must have embarked on the middle stages of the crime, and the evidence provided suggests that he has.
E. The jury is unlikely to conclude that the man satisfies the actus reus for attempted robbery, as he has not completed the final act towards committing the full offence.
C is correct
option C is the correct answer as this is the question for the jury to decide. Option A is wrong because, in a scenario such as this, there is sufficient evidence to allow the matter to go to the jury. Option B is wrong because the jury cannot take account of the defendant’s omissions, such as his failure to give any warning, when determining if he is liable for attempted robbery.
Option E is also wrong. The jury is likely to conclude that the man has moved from the preparatory stage to the commission stage and the prosecution do not have to wait until he has completed the final act before the event. The man must have embarked on the ‘crime proper’ to be guilty of attempted robbery – not the ‘middle stages of the crime’ – hence, Option D is wrong.
A woman and her boyfriend are rock climbing when an argument develops. As they are perched together on a high ledge, she gives him a shove. He falls off the ledge and descends 60 metres, before landing on a patch of grass. Miraculously, he survives sustaining only a broken leg and two broken arms. When interviewed, she says she did not want to kill him but she did want to seriously hurt him and she foresaw that death was highly probable.
If she is charged with attempted murder which of the following statements best describes her chances of being convicted?
A. She would be found guilty as she has done an act more than merely preparatory and she intended grievous bodily harm.
B. She might be found not guilty as she has done an act more than merely preparatory but she lacked the mens rea for attempted murder which requires an intention to kill.
C. She might be found guilty as she has done an act more than merely preparatory and a jury is likely to find that grievous bodily harm was a virtual certainty and that she foresaw this.
D. She might be found guilty as she has done an act which is more than merely preparatory and a jury is likely to find that death was a virtual certainty, and that she foresaw this.
E. She might be found not guilty as although she has committed the actus reus, she has not committed the mens rea as only a direct intent will suffice for an attempt.
D is correct
For attempts, the actus reus is doing an act more than merely preparatory and the mens rea is intending the commission of the offence. For attempted murder, this means the defendant must intend to kill. Intention to cause grievous bodily harm is not sufficient - R v Whybrow [1951] although the intent can be direct or indirect - R v Pearman [1985]. Therefore, although the woman has only admitted that she wanted to cause him serious bodily harm, given that she pushed him off the edge of a cliff with a 60-metre drop, it is likely that the jury would conclude that death was a virtual certainty and that she would have foreseen this.
Options A and C are wrong because an intent to cause grievous bodily harm is not sufficient for attempted murder.
Option B is wrong because while she may not have a direct intent to kill, she may well have an indirect intent to kill on the facts. See Option A. Option E is wrong because intent can be direct or indirect.
A woman has recently discovered her husband has been having an affair. Furious, she decides to kill him. The woman purchases a handgun on the internet which she intends to use to shoot her husband. Unknown to the woman, the handgun is a fake. The woman waits for her husband outside of his work, checks the handgun is loaded and tucks it into her back pocket. She hides some distance away, intending to run at her husband and shoot him when he appears. When her husband appears, she changes her mind but is apprehended by a security guard who has spotted the handgun.
Is the woman guilty of attempted murder?
A. Yes, she has done something more than merely preparatory and intended to kill her husband.
B. Yes, she has done something more than merely preparatory and impossibility of means is not a defence.
C. Yes, she has done something more than merely preparatory and it does not matter that she changed her mind.
D. No, she has not done something more than merely preparatory as she did not have a real handgun.
E. No, she has not done something more than merely preparatory as she had not yet embarked on the crime proper.
E is correct
Option E is correct as the woman has only hidden and not yet run at her husband, pointed the handgun or pulled the trigger. She has not gone beyond preparation and embarked on the crime proper - R v Jones [1990].
Option A is wrong as whilst the mens rea for attempted murder is an intention to kill, the woman had not done something more than merely preparatory. Option B is also wrong as although impossibility of means is not a defence, the woman had not done something more than merely preparatory.
Option C is wrong as the woman had not done something more than merely preparatory, the actus reus is not satisfied and her change of mind is therefore irrelevant. Finally, option D is wrong as although the woman had not done something more than merely preparatory, that is because she is still hidden and not because she has a fake handgun.
The principal offender is told by his girlfriend that a man slapped her at a nightclub one evening. She says: ‘If you find him, I hope you teach him a lesson!’ Later that night, the principal comes across the man and knocks him to the ground, where he repeatedly kicks and stamps on him. The man dies of his injuries.
Which of the following best describes whether the girlfriend satisfies the actus reus of secondary liability for the man’s death?
A. The girlfriend is a joint principal to the man’s death.
B. The girlfriend does not satisfy the actus reus of accomplice liability for the man’s death.
C. The girlfriend abets the principal in the man’s death.
D. The girlfriend counsels the principal in the man’s death.
E. The girlfriend procures the principal in the man’s death.
D is correct
The girlfriend counsels the principal by encouraging him before the death of the man takes place and, thus, she satisfies the actus reus of secondary liability.
Option A is wrong because the girlfriend is not a principal offender; her involvement is a lesser one to the principal who actually carries out the attack. Option B is also wrong as the girlfriend does satisfy the actus reus of accomplice liability. Option C is wrong as the girlfriend’s words of encouragement take place before the offence and abetting must be during it. Option E is wrong because more is required to establish that the girlfriend procured the killing. She only suggests the man be taught a lesson, whereas procurement requires her to take a more active role and to produce his death by endeavour.
The head teacher of a school is desperate to raise funds for the school. She asks an engineer to write a report saying that extensive work is needed to the school wall to make it safe. The head teacher and the engineer both know there is no problem with the wall. The engineer knows that the head teacher plans to submit the false report to the company that insures the school premises, and that she hopes to use the insurance money to fix the school roof. The engineer writes the report as requested but the insurance company rejects the claim stating that the engineer’s report is false.
The head teacher is charged with an offence of fraud and pleads guilty. When questioned by the police, the engineer says he had hoped the head teacher would not go ahead with the claim.
Which of the following statements best describes the engineer’s potential liability as an accomplice to this offence of fraud?
A. The engineer is guilty of being an accomplice to fraud because he intentionally procured the commission of the offence.
B. The engineer is guilty of being an accomplice to fraud because he counselled the commission of the offence with the relevant mens rea.
C. The engineer is guilty of being an accomplice to fraud because he helped the head teacher to commit the offence, realising what the head teacher planned to do with the report.
D. The engineer is guilty of being an accomplice to fraud because he intentionally helped the head teacher by writing the report.
E. The engineer is guilty of being an accomplice to fraud because he helped the head teacher by intentionally writing the report, knowing what the head teacher planned to do with it.
E is correct
the correct option is E because it describes both the actus reus and mens rea elements of accomplice liability. The engineer aided the head teacher by writing the report (the actus reus) and intended to do the act (of writing the report), so he satisfies the first limb of the mens rea. The engineer also satisfies the second limb as he did so with knowledge of what the head teacher planned to do (commit an offence of fraud).
A is not the best option as the engineer did not procure, namely ‘produce by endeavour’ or bring about, the offence of fraud – Attorney General’s Reference (No.1 of 1975) [1975]. Nor is option B as he did not counsel (encourage) the commission of the offence.
C is not the best option because the prosecution also has to prove he intended to do the act that assisted (the first limb of the mens rea). Finally, option D is not the best answer because the prosecution also has to prove that he knew the circumstances of the offence.
