2. Section B - Previous exam questions

Question 1

Criminal damage - simple

Answer 1

1. Simple/basic criminal damage - s1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971
2. Intentionally or recklessly
3. Destroys or damages property (needs both + ‘property’)
4. Belonging to another
5. Mention of relevant case law e.g. Hardman (1986), G and Another(2003)
   Damage will be determined by the time and cost of repairing.

Question 2

Criminal damage - Lawful excuse

Section?

Answer 2

1 defence of ‘lawful excuse’(S5(2)(b)) Criminal Damage Act 1971)
2 If successful then this is a complete defence
3 He would need to show that he believed/a belief the property was in immediate need of protection
4 And the means adopted were reasonable in the circumstances
5 Hill;Hall(1988)
6 objective test (Johnson(1994))

Question 3

Defence - Self defence

Answer 3

2 A complete defence if successful
3 There is no duty to retreat (or avoid…)
4 Although it can be taken into account
5 reasonable force to protect himself
6 Or protect property or prevent crime
7 The use of force must be necessary - a subjective test
8 In relation to the facts as they were (or the defendant believed them to be)
9 It must be an honest belief
10 The use of force must be proportionate - an objective test
11 Excessive force is unreasonable
12 Mention of relevant case law e.g. Clegg(1995), Martin(2000)

Question 4

Theft

Answer 4

1 Theft s1Theft Act 1968
2 Dishonestly (exceptions in s2 apply ) - Ghosh (1982) test/Ivey (2017) (Barton and Booth(2020)
3 Appropriates - assumes the rights of the owner
4 Property belonging to another - real/tangible in this instance / property
5 Intention to permanently deprive

Question 5

Murder

Answer 5

1a Identification and explanation of the offence of murder:

1. Identification of the offence of murder
2. the unlawful killing
3. of a human being within the Queen’s Peace
4. Malice aforethought
5. A direct intention or oblique/indirect intention - Indirect intention is an alternative for the jury to consider / Indirect intention can be shown if the result was ‘virtually certain’ to occur (and the defendant knew this)
6. Mention of case law e.g. Nedrick(1986), Woollin(1998) in relation to oblique intention
7. to kill
8. or cause GBH/really serious injury

Question 6

Causation - Fact & Law

Answer 6

Q1c An explanation of causation in fact and in law, as it applies to the circumstances:
1 Factual causation – the ‘but for’ test
2 But for D, V would not have died
3 Relevant case White (1910), Pagett (1983)
4 Legal causation
5 More than minimal cause
6 Need not be the sole cause (thin skull Blaue)
7 D’s actions were the operating and substantial cause of death/made a significant contribution
8 Case law e.g. Cheshire(1991),Smith(1959)
9 Dr’s, etc actions would not create a break in the chain (Jordan(1956))

Question 7

Partial defence - loss of control

Answer 7

1 Identification of loss of control
2 Under s54/S55 Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009
3 If successful it reduces liability from murder, to (voluntary) manslaughter
4 There must be a loss of control
5 It need not be sudden
6 revenge/premeditated killings are excluded from the defence
7 Sexual infidelity is not (on its own) a qualifying trigger
8 There must be a qualifying trigger… which is either:
9 a fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant/ another identified person
10 Or a thing/things said or done which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
11 The objective ‘third’ test’ - a reasonable person of D’s age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint would have acted in the same/similar way
12 Mention of a relevant case e.g. Richens(1993), Pearson(1992), Dawes(2013), Clinton(2012)

Question 8

Transfer Malice

Answer 8

3a Explanation of the doctrine of transferred malice:
• The doctrine (principle) of transferred malice may apply here
• where the mens rea for the intended offence is transferred (to the unintended victim)
• The mens rea can be intention or recklessness
• The crime actually committed must be of the same type
• Relevant case e.g. Latimer(1886), Mitchell(1983), Pembliton(1874) or facts or relevant case

Question 9

Unlawful Act (constructive) manslaughter

Answer 9

2 There must be an unlawful act/crime
3 It must be an act and not an omission
4 The mens rea is the mens rea for the unlawful act
5 Franklin (1883) BRIGHTON PIER, Lamb(1967) SHOT FRIEND REVOLVER , Lowe (1973) ERROR STARVED CHILD
6 The act must be objectively dangerous
7 Church(1965) BAD DATE
8 The act must cause death
IN APPLICATION
Cases Larkin(1943) RAZOR , Goodfellow(1986) COUNCIL HOUSE FIRE
The principles of causation in fact (the ‘but for’ test)
… and causation in law are satisfied

Question 10

Involuntary manslaughter – gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 10

1 Involuntary manslaughter / Gross negligence manslaughter
3 The mens rea is less than that of murder (but no intention?)
4 Conduct – an act or omission
5 There must be a duty of care
6 The duty must be breached
7 Breach of duty creates a risk of death
8 Which is obvious to a reasonable person
9 The breach causes the death
10 In factual and legal terms
11 Breach has to be so gross that it is not possible to punish it in civil courts/treated as a criminal offence
12 Case law e.g. Adomako(1994), Pitwood(1902)(omissions), Evans(2009)

Question 11

DEFENCE - intoxication voluntary & voluntary

Answer 11

2 refute the allegation of mens rea 
3 available for specific intent or basic intent offences 
4 Voluntary Intoxication = specific intent, but not basic intent 
5 Majewski (1976)
6 Specific intent offences require proof of intention 
7 Basic intent offences only require proof of recklessness 
8 The issue is not whether the defendant was capable of forming the intention, but whether he did or did not form the intention 
9 ‘Dutch courage’ can never be used a defence (Gallagher(1963))

IN APPLICATION
voluntarily intoxicated
• Theft is a specific intent offence, so voluntary intoxication is potentially available as a defence
• intoxication not negated the mens rea of the offence of theft (had the intention)

NOTE
Basic criminal damage, reckless aggravated criminal damage by arson and involuntary manslaughter are all offences that require basic intent, therefore, voluntary intoxication would not apply. The defence not available in relation to any of the offences above.
The defence of voluntary intoxication only applies to specific intent offences.
Aggravated criminal damage is an offence that requires basic intent.

Question 12

Attempted Theft

Section

Answer 12

S1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981)
• an act
• which is more than merely preparatory
• Tosti and White (1997) METAL DOOR,
Jones (1990)
• indictable offence - includes eitherway offences
• With intent to commit the offence Khan (1990
-offence is impossible, e.g Shivpuri (1987), Jones (2007).

Question 13

Arson - simple

Answer 13

• Simple damage comes within s1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971
• Intentionally or recklessly
• Destroys or damages property
• belonging to another
• Case e.g. Hardman (1986), Woollin (1998), G and Another (2003)
• Damage by fire is arson
• The offence comes within s1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971

Question 14

Defence - Duress Threats

Answer 14

• It is duress by threats
• To be successful, it must be shown that the defendant has not been at fault in associating with a group whom he knew might put pressure on her to commit an offence
• Case e.g. Sharp (1987), Heath (2000), Hasan (2005)
• The defendant’s will must have been overborne by the threat of death or serious injury (as in this case)
• It is a subjective test
• The threat must be against the defendant / or for someone whom the defendant regards themselves as reasonably responsible for (Shayler (2001)
• The threat must be imminent (Hudson and Taylor (1971)
It must be made with the purpose of compelling the defendant to commit a particular type of crime
• A sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the characteristics of the defendant, would have responded as the defendant did
• Case e.g. Graham (1982), Bowen (1996), Rogers (1999)

Question 15

Defence - Mistake

Answer 15

• The defence of mistake may be available
• This is a denial of mens rea
• The claim is based on a mistake of facts (not of law)
• The mistake has to be honest
• On the facts as the defendant believed them to be (subjective test)
• But does not need to be reasonable.
• Case e.g. B (a Minor) v DPP (2000), Beckford (1987)

Question 16

Arson - Aggravated

Answer 16

• Aggravated Criminal Damage (by means of Arson).
• Identify the offence of Aggravated Criminal Damage s1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971
• Intentionally or recklessly, destroying or damaging
• Any property (whether belonging to the defendant or another)
• Intending to endanger life by means of the destruction/damage
• or being reckless as to the endangerment of life by means of the destruction/damage
• Damage by fire is arson s1(3)
Steer(1987), Webster(1995)

Question 17

Partial defence - diminished responsibility

Answer 17

• The partial defence of diminished responsibility may apply, under s52 CorJA 2009
• The defendant must suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning Byrne (1960)
• Which arose from a recognised medical condition
• Which substantially impaired e.g. Golds (2016) the defendant’s ability to understand their conduct, form a rational judgement, or exercise self-control
• It provides an explanation for the defendant’s acts/omissions - (cause/contributory factor)

Question 18

Causation - Breaks in causation - Escape

Answer 18

• is death or GBH was virtually certain to occur as a result of trying to escape
• did D appreciate this
• If direct intention is not found indirect/oblique intention is likely to be established due to demeanour and behaviour.
• but for D’s conduct, V would not have tried to escape. •Injuries resulting from an attempted escape will not break the chain unless Vs actions were not reasonably foreseeable.
• Is it an novus actus interveniens
• no breaks to the chain of causation, which means that D’s actions were the sole cause of V’s death:
• Robert (1971), Corbett (1996).

Question 19

Causation - Breaks in causation - Medical

Answer 19

•A result crime, means D’s acts must have caused the result
•‘But for’ D’s initial actions V would not have died
•Legal causation is only considered if factual causation has been proved.
•Did X’s actions break the chain of causation • novus actus interveniens.
•or
•do D’s actions remained the operating and substantial cause of V’s
death:
•Smith (1959) DRAGGED SOILDER.
•courts are very reluctant to hold that medics break the chain of causation as primarily they would be trying to save the patient.
• Cheshire (1991), - it should be asked whether the doctor’s act in misdiagnosing V’s injuries was palpably wrong, so independent of D’s act and so potent in causing V’s death that it rendered D’s act insignificant.

Question 20

Criminal damage - Aggravated

Answer 20

Aggravated criminal damage 
statutory offence 
section 1(2) CDA 1971.
property, 
belong to the defendant or someone else, 
was destroyed or damaged. 
The mens rea is intention or recklessness as to damage to property and an intention to endanger life of another through the damage, or recklessness as to whether life of another is endangered. Life does not actually have to be endangered.
Webster (1995), Warwick (1995).

Question 21

DEFENCE - intoxication - involuntary

Answer 21

Has not come up yet

…

Question 22

Defence - duress circumstances

Answer 22

Has not come up yet

…