Association 6 Flashcards
- List 5 Intentional Acts that prove the Actus reus of an accessory after the fact
- receives
- comforts
- assists
- tampers with evidence
- Actively suppresses evidence.
- Ingredients of fabricating evidence under S113 CA1961
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to mislead any tribunal holding any judicial proceeding to which section 108 applies, fabricates evidence by any means other than perjury.
- Explain what the Doctrine of recent possession is
It is the presumption that, where the defendant acquired possession willingly, the proof of possession by the defendant of property recently stolen is, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, evidence to justify a belief and finding that the possessor is either the thief or receiver, or has committed some other offence associated with the theft of the property, eg burglary or robbery.
The doctrine of recent possession rule allows for proof of theft or receiving by way of circumstantial evidence. In circumstances where a person is found in possession of stolen property reasonably soon after the theft, an inference may be drawn that the person in possession either stole the property or received it from the thief. This doctrine is important where no other material evidence is available. But this presumption does not arise unless there is proof that the property has in fact been stolen or obtained by another crime.
- What was held in R v DONNELY
Where stolen property has been physically recovered by the Police, it is legally impossible to commit the crimes of receiving or attempted receiving in respect of it, although there may be evidence of conspiring to receive property dishonestly obtained.
- Exception to the hearsay rule (Conspiracy)
Anything a conspirator or party to a joint charge says or does to further the common purpose is admissible against the others involved, this being an exception to the hearsay rule and as such conspirators should be jointly charged.
However, this does not include explanations made after the common purpose is carried out. Then, the explanation is evidence only against the person making it.
- The 3 points you are unable to charge a defendant with an attempt charge
You cannot prosecute someone for an attempt to commit an offence where:
• The criminality depends on recklessness or negligence, eg in manslaughter an attempt to commit an offence is included within the definition of that offence; in assault ‘that he has, present ability to affect his purpose’.
• The offence is such that the ultimate act must be completed in order for the offence to exist at all, eg a person cannot attempt to demand money with menaces.
- When is ‘receiving’ complete?
S246(3) Crimes Act 1961
The act of receiving any property stolen or obtained by any other crime is complete as soon as the offender has, either exclusively or jointly with the thief or any other person, possession of, or control over, the property or helps in concealing or disposing of the property
- What must prosecution prove against a receiver having control over stolen property?
Where property is located at a place, over which the receiver has control, then the prosecution must prove the receiver arranged for the property to be delivered there, or alternatively, that upon discovering the property, he or she intentionally exercised control over it. As noted above, intent to possess the property must also be satisfied.
- Under Section 55 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, what must the High Court satisfy when making a profit forfeiture?
(1) The High Court must make a profit forfeiture order if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that—
(a) The respondent has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity within the relevant period of criminal activity; and
(b) The respondent has interests in property.
- What must occur before criminal proceeds action can be taken? pg. 104 What must occur before criminal proceeds action can be taken
A restraining order is the first step in the asset seizure process. In the case of tainted property and benefits from crime an application made to the High Court must show reasonable grounds for belief that the property is tainted – that it has been acquired, or directly or indirectly derived, from “significant criminal activity”.
