CL

Question 1

GOALS OF CRIMINAL LAW

Answer 1

GOALS OF CRIMINAL LAW
* Punishment
* Incapacitation
* Deterrence
* Rehabilitation

Question 2

Question: What are the primary aims of criminal prosecutions?

Answer 2

Answer with Example: The primary aims of criminal prosecutions are to punish, incapacitate, deter, and rehabilitate offenders. For instance, punishment could involve sentencing a thief to prison, incapacitation could involve detaining a dangerous individual to keep the public safe, deterrence might be achieved through imposing fines on tax evaders to discourage similar offenses, and rehabilitation could involve mandatory participation in substance abuse programs to address underlying issues contributing to criminal behavior.

Question 3

Question: How does the burden of proof in criminal law differ from civil law, and what does “innocent until proven guilty” entail?

Answer 3

Answer with Example: In criminal law, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, unlike in civil law where the burden is often on the balance of probabilities. “Innocent until proven guilty” means that a defendant doesn’t need to prove their innocence; it’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt. For example, in a theft case, the prosecution must provide substantial evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the theft, whereas the defendant isn’t required to prove they didn’t commit the theft.

Question 3

Question: How do strict liability offenses differ from other criminal offenses, and what is their significance?

Answer 3

Answer with Example: Strict liability offenses do not require proof of mens rea, meaning the prosecution only needs to prove the actus reus for a conviction. These offenses usually relate to public safety and are considered culpable regardless of the defendant’s intent. An example is driving under the influence of alcohol; the law penalizes the act of driving with a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit, irrespective of the driver’s perception of their ability to drive safely.

Question 3

Question: What constitutes the actus reus and mens rea in criminal offenses, and why must they occur concurrently?

Answer 3

Answer with Example: Actus reus refers to the physical act of the crime, while mens rea refers to the mental intent to commit the crime. They must occur concurrently, meaning the wrongful act and intent must be present at the same time for a crime to have been committed. For instance, in a hit-and-run accident, the actus reus is hitting the victim with a car, and the mens rea could be the intention to flee the scene to avoid legal consequences. If the driver accidentally hit the victim without the intent to flee but decides to run away after assessing the victim’s condition, it might not constitute a specific intent crime like murder due to the lack of concurrent mens rea with the actus reus.

Question 4

If a defendant wishes to raise the defence of insanity, the defendant must prove it
* (A) Beyond a reasonable doubt
Incorrect
* (B) On the balance of probabilities

Answer 4

(B) is correct. Although the prosecutor must prove the elements of every offence, the defendant has the burden of proving certain defences, including insanity. These defences must be proved on the balance of probabilities.

Question 5

CRIMINAL OFFENCE

Answer 5

CRIMINAL OFFENCE
* Actus reus
* Mens rea

Actus res
- Physical element
* Mens rea
Mental element

Concurrence
- Actus reus and mens rea occur at the same time

An offence has different parts: actus reus (guilty act) mens rea (guilty mind)
Some offences only have actus reus.
These are strict liability offences.

Question 6

1. Question: What constitutes the actus reus in criminal offenses, and what are its potential parts?

Answer 6

Answer with Example: The actus reus, or physical act of an offense, can include three parts: conduct, circumstance, and outcome, though not all offenses require all three. For example, the conduct element can be seen in battery, where hitting someone with a bat constitutes the physical action required. Circumstance might be illustrated in theft, where the property must belong to someone else for the offense to occur. Outcome is relevant in result crimes like murder, where the conduct (e.g., stabbing) must lead to a specific result (death).

Question 7

2. Question: How can an omission result in criminal liability, and under what conditions?

Answer 7

Answer with Example: An omission, or failure to act, can lead to criminal liability if there is a duty to act that is breached. Duties can arise from various sources such as statutes, special relationships (e.g., a parent’s duty towards their child), voluntary assumption of care, contracts, or creating a dangerous situation. For instance, a parent who fails to rescue their drowning child in a pond breaches their duty, resulting in liability, unlike a passerby without such a duty.

Question 8

3. Question: What is the significance of causation in result crimes, and how is it established?

Answer 8

Answer with Example: Causation is crucial in result crimes to connect the defendant’s conduct with the outcome of the crime. It is established through two tests: factual causation (the “but for” test) and legal causation (the conduct must be a substantial and operative cause). For example, in a poisoning case where the victim dies from an unrelated heart attack, factual causation fails because the death would have occurred even without the poisoning.

Question 8

4. Question: How do intervening acts affect the chain of causation in criminal law?

Answer 8

Answer with Example: Intervening acts can break the chain of causation if they are free, deliberate, informed actions that significantly alter the sequence of events leading to the outcome. However, this is rare. Victim’s actions, third-party interventions, and medical treatment can potentially break the chain, but only under specific circumstances. For instance, a third party’s deliberate and informed act that is independent of the defendant’s conduct might break the chain, while ordinary malpractice in medical treatment typically does not.

Question 9

DUTY TO ACT

Answer 9

DUTY TO ACT

• Statute
• Special relationship
• Voluntary assumption of duty of care
• Contract
• Defendant created dangerous situation and is aware of it

Question 10

ACTUS REUS

Answer 10

ACTUS REUS
* Conduct
* Circumstance
* Outcome

Actus reus: always involves conduct, and can also include circumstance and results.

AR usually requires action, though it can be completed by omission if there is a duty to act which has been breached.

Duty can arise from special relationship, voluntary assumption, contract or statute, or creating a dangerous situation.

Result crimes require causation to be satisfied - factual and legal. Factual is the
‘but for’ test, legal is the substantial and operative test.

Substantial means more than minimal.
Operative means the chain of causation is not broken by the victim, by a third party, or by poor medical treatment.

Question 11

CAUSATION

Answer 11

CAUSATION
* Factual causation
Legal causation

Question 12

LEGAL CAUSATION

Answer 12

LEGAL CAUSATION
* Substantial: More than minimal
* Operative: No break in chain of causation

Question 13

BREAK IN CHAIN OF CAUSATION

Answer 13

BREAK IN CHAIN OF CAUSATION
* Victim’s behaviour if so daft as to be unforeseeable
* Third party if act is free, deliberate, and informed
* Medical treatment if so bad and so independent of original injury

Question 14

An act of the victim can break the chain of causation if the victim’s act is
_, and a third party can
break the chain of causation if their act is
* (A) So daft as to be unforseeable; bad and independent of the original injury
* (B) so daft as to be unforeseeable; free, deliberate, and informed
* (c) Free, deliberate, and informed; a new act
* (D) Free, deliberate, and informed; so daft as to be unforeseeable

Answer 14

B

An act of the victim can break the chain of causation if the victim’s act is so daft as to be unforeseeable, and a third party can break the chain of causation if their act is free, deliberate, and informed.

Question 15

Question: What are the two most common types of mens rea in criminal law?

Answer 15

Answer: The two most common types of mens rea are intention and recklessness. Intention relates to the defendant’s aim or purpose at the time of committing an act, while recklessness involves the defendant taking an unjustified risk that they foresee.

Question 16

Question: How does direct intention differ from indirect intention in criminal law?

Answer 16

Answer: Direct intention is straightforward and aligns with the dictionary definition of intention, meaning it was the defendant’s aim or purpose to bring about a certain outcome, such as intending to cause harm. Indirect intention, or oblique intention, applies when the outcome was not the defendant’s direct aim but was a virtually certain result of their actions, and the defendant realized this. An example would be a terrorist intending to crash a plane to make a political statement, knowing that the pilot’s death is virtually certain, thereby indirectly intending harm.

Question 17

Question: What constitutes recklessness in criminal law, and how is it tested?
Answer: Recklessness involves the defendant foreseeing a risk associated with their actions and unjustifiably taking that risk. The test for recklessness has two components: first, the defendant must foresee the risk of their conduct, and second, it must be unreasonable to take that risk given the circumstances known to the defendant. An example is lighting a fire in a haystack to warm up, foreseeing but disregarding the risk of the haystack catching fire.

Answer 17

Answer: No, indirect intention and recklessness are mutually exclusive. Indirect intention only applies to specific intent offenses, where intention is the sole form of mens rea, such as murder. If an offense can be committed with recklessness, then the concept of indirect intention does not apply. This means offenses like criminal damage, where recklessness suffices, cannot use indirect intention as a basis for mens rea.

Question 17

Question: What is the significance of transferred malice in criminal law?

Answer 17

Answer: Transferred malice applies when a defendant’s mens rea, or intention to harm, is directed at one victim or object but inadvertently affects another. The mens rea is “transferred” to the actual outcome, holding the defendant accountable even if the harm occurred to a different victim than intended. However, this only applies when the actual offense is the same type as the one intended.

Question 18

Question: Can indirect intention apply to offenses that can also be committed recklessly?

Question 19

INDIRECT INTENTION

Answer 19

INDIRECT INTENTION
*
*
Outcome must be virtually certain consequence
Defendant must realise outcome is virtual certainty

Question 20

SPECIFIC V. BASIC INTENT

Answer 20

SPECIFIC V. BASIC INTENT
* Specific intent offences cannot be committed recklessly
* Basic intent offences can be committed recklessly

Question 20

importan!!!

Answer 20

INDIRECT INTENTION
Only applies when intention is only form of mens rea available

Question 21

True or False?
The test for indirect intention has an objective part and a subjective part.
* (A) True
* (B) False

Answer 21

For indirect intention to arise, the result of a defendant’s act must be a virtually certain consequence of their conduct and be realised by the defendant as being virtually certain. The first part of the test is objective, and the second is subjective.

Question 22

True or False?
Indirect intention is available for only basic intent offenses.
* (A) True
* (B) False

Answer 22

Indirect intention is available only for specific intent offences (where recklessness is not available as a form of mens rea). It never applies to basic intent offences.

Question 23

RECKLESSNESS

Answer 23

RECKLESSNESS
* Defendant foresees risk
* Under circumstances known to defendant, risk is unreasonable one to take

Question 24

What is the test for recklessness?

Answer 24

The test for recklessness is that the defendant foresees the risk of the conduct, and it is unreasonable in the circumstances known to the defendant to take the risk.

Question 25

What is the test for direct intention?

Answer 25

The test for direct intention is whether it was the defendant’s aim or purpose to bring about a particular outcome.

Question 26

What is the test for indirect intention?

Answer 26

The test for indirect intention is whether the outcome was a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s conduct and whether the defendant realized that the outcome was a virtual certainty.

Answer 27

TYPES MURDER
* Causing
* Death of human being
Unlawfully
* With intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm

Question 28

What is the mens rea for murder?
* (A) Intention to kill only
* (B) Intention to kill or cause actual bodily
harm
(c) Intention to kill or recklessness as to the risk of death
* (D) Intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm

Answer 28

D

Question 29

Q2: How is voluntary manslaughter different from murder, and what are its common partial defenses?

Answer 29

A2: Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the actus reus and mens rea of murder are present, but there are extenuating circumstances that amount to a partial defense, reducing the conviction from murder to manslaughter. The two most common partial defenses are diminished responsibility and loss of control.

Example for Diminished Responsibility: A defendant suffering from a recognized medical condition, like severe depression, that substantially impairs their ability to form a rational judgment, acts in a way that causes someone’s death. If a clear link between their abnormality and the act of killing can be established, the charge may be reduced to manslaughter.

Example for Loss of Control: A defendant, after enduring years of severe abuse, reacts violently in a moment where they genuinely fear further violence, resulting in the abuser’s death. If the loss of control can be linked to a qualifying trigger like fear of serious violence, it might lead to a manslaughter conviction instead of murder.

Question 30

Q1: What are the key elements required for someone to be guilty of murder?

Answer 30

A1: To be guilty of murder, the following elements must be satisfied: causation (as per factual and legal causation tests discussed in Module 2), the death of a human being, the act must be unlawful (without any legal excuse), and the mens rea of murder, which is the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.

Question 31

Q3: What is involuntary manslaughter, and what are its main types?

Answer 31

A3: Involuntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant causes someone’s death without the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, but their actions are still blameworthy. The main types are unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter.

Example for Unlawful Act Manslaughter: A defendant commits a dangerous act, like brandishing a knife to scare someone, which unintentionally results in someone’s death. If the act was deliberate, unlawful, dangerous, and causally linked to the death, it could lead to an unlawful act manslaughter conviction.

Example for Gross Negligence Manslaughter: A medical professional fails to notice obvious signs of a patient’s deteriorating condition, leading to the patient’s death. If there was a duty of care, a breach of this duty, causation, a serious risk of death, and the breach was grossly negligent, it could result in a conviction for gross negligence manslaughter.

Question 32

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY

Answer 32

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
* Abnormality of mental functioning
From recognised medical condition
* Substantially impairs defendant’s ability to
- Understand their conduct
- Form a rational judgment
or
- Exercise self-control
Abnormality explains the killing

Question 33

When a defendant asserts diminished responsibility, the defendant must demonstrate an abnormality of mental functioning. What must be the source of the abnormality?
* (A) Unfitness to plead
* (B) A recognised medical condition
* (c) Provocation
* (D) Legal insanity

Answer 33

B.

The source of the defendant’s abnormality of mental functioning must be a recognised medical condition.

Question 34

Who has the burden of proof for diminished responsibility, and what is the standard?
* (A) Prosecution; beyond a reasonable
doubt
* (B) Defendant; beyond a reasonable doubt
* (c) Prosecution; on the balance of probabilities
* (D) Defendant; on the balance of probabilities

Answer 34

D
The defendant has the burden of proof for diminished responsibility, and the defendant must prove each element to the civil standard – on the balance of probabilities.

Question 35

LOSS OF CONTROL

Answer 35

LOSS OF CONTROL
* Defendant is unable to restrain themselves
QUALIFYING TRIGGER
* Fear of serious violence

or
* Things said or done which constitute circumstances of extremely grave character giving defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Answer 36

BURDEN OF PROOF
* Loss of control must be disproved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt
* Diminished responsibility must be proved by defence on balance of probabilities

Answer 37

UNLAWFUL ACT MANSLAUGHTER
* Act that is
- Intentional
- Unlawful
- Dangerous
Causation

Answer 38

GROSS NEGLIGENCE
MANSLAUGHTER
* Duty of care
* Breach
* Causation
* Serious risk of death
* Gross negligence

Question 39

(1) Diminished responsibility requires an abnormality of mental functioning that arises from a medical condition, provides an explanation for the killing, and substantially impairs the defendant’s ability to do one of three things. What are those three things?

Answer 39

Diminished responsibility requires an abnormality of mental functioning that substantially impairs the defendant’s ability to:
1. Form a rational judgment
2. Understand the nature of their conduct
3. Exercise self-control

1. To form a rational judgment
2. To understand the nature of your conduct
3. To exercise self-control

Question 40

(2) Loss of control can have two qualifying triggers. What are they?

Answer 40

The two qualifying triggers for loss of control are:
1. Fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another identified person.
2. Things said or done which constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character, giving the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

1. Fear of serious violence
2. Things said or done that constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character that give the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Question 41

(3) What is the level of risk required for unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 41

For unlawful act manslaughter, the act must be dangerous, which means that there is a risk of some harm. For gross negligence manslaughter, there must be an obvious and serious risk of death.

Unlawful act manslaughter requires the act to be dangerous, which means there is the risk of some harm.
Gross negligence manslaughter requires there to be an obvious and serious risk of death.

Question 42

What is assault?

Answer 42

ASSAULT
* Intentionally or
* Recklessly
* Causing another person to apprehend
* Immediate unlawful violence

Question 43

1. What is the definition of assault in the context of offenses against the person?

Answer 43

Question: What constitutes an assault in legal terms?

Answer: Assault is defined as intentionally or recklessly causing another person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. For example, if someone raises their fist to another person, making that person believe they are about to be hit, this could constitute an assault even if no physical contact is made.

Question 44

2. What does the term “apprehension” imply in the context of assault?

Answer 44

Question: In an assault case, what does the victim need to experience for the act to be considered an assault?

Answer: In the context of assault, apprehension equates to the belief that immediate unlawful violence will occur, not necessarily fear. For instance, if a person believes they are about to be struck by someone raising their fist, it qualifies as assault regardless of whether the potential victim is scared.

Question 45

3. Can silence alone constitute an assault?

Answer 45

Question: Can a person commit an assault without saying anything?

Answer: Yes, silence alone can constitute an assault. An example of this could be making silent threatening phone calls, where the silence combined with the context can cause the victim to apprehend immediate violence.

Question 46

4. What is battery, and how is it different from assault?

Answer 46

Question: What is the legal definition of battery, and how does it differ from assault?

Answer: Battery is defined as the intentional or reckless application of unlawful personal force upon another person. Unlike assault, battery involves physical contact or force, however minimal. For instance, even a light push or a touch without consent could be considered battery.

Question 47

5. What constitutes Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) under Section 47 of the Offenses Against the Person Act 1861?

Answer 47

Question: What are the key elements needed to establish Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)?

Answer: To establish ABH, there must be an assault or battery that causes physical or psychiatric injury, which must be more than transient or trifling and interfere with the victim’s health or comfort. An example could be causing someone to suffer bruising or psychological distress significant enough to require medical diagnosis.

Question 48

6. How is the mens rea for ABH determined?

Answer 48

Question: What is required in terms of mens rea for a conviction of ABH?

Answer: The mens rea for ABH is the same as that for assault or battery, which is intention or recklessness regarding the application of force. The defendant does not need to have intended or been reckless about the resulting injury itself. For example, if someone intentionally pushes another person, causing them to fall and sustain an injury like a bruise or a cut, the pusher could be liable for ABH even if they didn’t intend for the injury to occur.

Answer 49

BATTERY
* Intentionally or
* Recklessly
* Applying unlawful force
* On another person

Question 50

What are the tests for intention and recklessness?

Answer 50

The tests for intention and recklessness are as follows:

Intention:
Intention is when the defendant’s aim or purpose is to bring about a specific result. It involves a conscious decision to achieve a particular outcome. An example of intention would be if someone plans and then deliberately hits another person with the aim of causing harm, their action is driven by the direct intention to injure.

Recklessness:
Recklessness occurs when the defendant foresees a risk associated with their actions but decides to proceed anyway, and it is deemed unreasonable to take such a risk in the circumstances known to the defendant. For instance, if someone throws a rock towards a crowded area knowing that there’s a risk of hitting someone but does it anyway, they are acting recklessly because they foresee the risk of harm and unreasonably choose to ignore it.

Intention = aim or purpose
Recklessness = the defendent foresees the risk, and in
the circumstances known to the defendant, it is an unreasonable risk to take

Question 51

ASSAULT OCCASIONING
ACTUAL BODILY HARM

Answer 51

ASSAULT OCCASIONING
ACTUAL BODILY HARM
* Assault or battery

• Causation
• Injury
• Calculated to interfere with health or comfort
• More than transient or trifling

Answer 52

ACTUS REUS FOR GBH OFFENCES
* Cause a wound or
* Cause grievous bodily harm

Answer 53

MENS REA OF S20 GBH
*
*
*
Intention or
Recklessness
Regarding some harm

Question 54

Which offence(s) have a mens rea of intention?
* (A) GBH sI8
O (B) GBH $20
* (c) Both
* (D) Neither

Answer 54

(C) is correct. Both offences have a mens rea of intention. GBH s18 requires intention to cause serious harm or resist arrest. GBH s20 requires intention or recklessness regarding some harm.

Question 54

Which offence(s) can be committed recklessly?
* (A) GBH $18
* (B) GBH $20
* (c) Both
* (D) Neither

Answer 54

GBH s20 can be committed recklessly. The required mens rea is intention or recklessness regarding some harm. GBH s18 requires intention to cause serious harm or resist arrest.

Answer 55

WHEN CONSENT IS DEFENCE TO INJURY
Surgery
* Body modification
* Religious practice
* Sporting activities

Question 56

Write out the key characteristics of ABH, GBH s20, and GBH s18.

Answer 56

ABH involves causing lesser injury with intent or recklessness, GBH under Section 20 involves more serious harm without needing to intend such serious harm, and GBH under Section 18 requires specific intent to cause grievous harm.

Answer 57

ABH
Underlying assault or battery
Causation
Actual bodily harm
No additional mens rea requirement for the injury
caused

GBH s20
Injury causing a wound or serious harm
Intention or recklessness regarding some harm (recklessness is enough - even without intention;
the defendant does not need to foresee the type of injury that results)

GBH s18
Injury causing a wound or serious harm
Intention to cause SERIOUS harm or resist arrest
Intention is the only form of mens rea, recklessness will not suffice

Question 58

THEFT

Answer 58

THEFT
Appropriation of
* Property
* Belonging to another
* Dishonesty
* Intention to permanently deprive

Question 59

How does the mens rea for Section 18 GBH differ from Section 20 GBH?

Answer 59

Example Answer: Section 18 GBH requires specific intention to cause serious harm or to resist lawful arrest, making it a more culpable offense than Section 20 GBH. Recklessness does not suffice for Section 18 GBH. An example would be intentionally stabbing someone with the intention of causing serious harm.

Question 60

What constitutes grievous bodily harm (GBH) under Section 20 and Section 18 of the Offenses Against the Person Act 1861?
Example Answer: GBH can be constituted by either causing a wound where both layers of the skin must be broken, such as scratching someone’s face to draw blood, or causing serious harm, such as broken bones or serious psychiatric injury. The act must be unlawful, meaning there is no legal defense like self-defense.

Question 60

Under what circumstances can a victim consent to injury?

Answer 60

Example Answer: Generally, a victim cannot consent to injury, with exceptions including surgery, body modification (like tattoos and piercings), religious practices (such as circumcision), sporting activities where there’s implied consent to the type of contact expected in the sport, horseplay among individuals, and possibly for sexual gratification under specific circumstances. Consent must be informed, especially in cases involving the risk of transmitting sexual diseases.

Question 61

What is the mens rea for Section 20 GBH?

Answer 61

Example Answer: The mens rea for Section 20 GBH is intention or recklessness regarding causing some harm, not necessarily serious harm. For instance, if someone throws a coin at another person intending to annoy them, but it results in serious harm like losing eyesight, it could lead to a conviction under Section 20 GBH due to the intention or recklessness of causing some form of harm.

Question 62

How does the law view consent in the context of transmitting sexual diseases?

Answer 62

Example Answer: The law allows for informed consent to the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease. If an individual discloses their HIV-positive status to a partner who then agrees to engage in unprotected sexual activity, there is a valid defense of consent. However, deliberately hiding a sexually transmitted disease from a partner, leading to infection, invalidates consent.

Question 63

What is the challenge set at the end of the module regarding ABH, Section 20 GBH, and Section 18 GBH?

Answer 63

Example Answer: The challenge involves writing out the key characteristics of ABH, Section 20 GBH, and Section 18 GBH, focusing on what makes each offense unique. For ABH, an underlying assault or battery with causation and actual bodily harm is required, with no additional mens rea for the injury. Section 20 GBH involves causation with a wound or serious harm, where recklessness regarding causing some harm suffices. Section 18 GBH also requires causation and serious harm or a wound, but the mens rea is specifically the intention to cause serious harm or to resist arrest, with no room for recklessness.

Question 64

Fill in the blank with one of the below options:
(A) All
(B) A majority
(C) At least one
To satisfy the appropriation element of theft, the defendant must assume fill in blank
rights of the owner.

Answer 64

To satisfy the appropriation element of theft, the defendant must assume (C) at least one rights of the owner.

Question 65

PRESUMPTION OF HONESTY
IF PERSON BELIEVES THEY

Answer 65

PRESUMPTION OF HONESTY
IF PERSON BELIEVES THEY
* Are entitled to property in
law,
Would have owner’s consent, or
* Could not find true owner by taking reasonable steps

Question 66

A person commits burglary when the person knowingly or recklessly enters a building as a trespasser with the intent to:
* (A) Commit theft, inflict grievous bodily harm,
or cause criminal damage.
* (B) Commit theft, inflict actual bodily harm, or cause criminal damage.
* (C) Commit battery, inflict grievous bodily harm, or cause criminal damage.
* (D) Commit theft, inflict grievous bodily harm, or cause an apprehension of force.

Answer 66

A

A person commits burglary when the person knowingly or recklessly enters a building as a trespasser with the intent to commit theft, inflict grievous bodily harm, or cause criminal damage. This is burglary under s9(1)(a).

Question 67

What elements must be present for the offence of theft to be made out?
(check all that apply)
* (A) Property belonging to another
* (B) False representation
* (C) Trespass
* (D) Intention to permanently deprive
* (E) Appropriation
* (F) Intention to make a gain for oneself
_ (G) Dishonesty
* (H) Asportation

Answer 67

A
D
E
G

Question 68

Match the letter of the below phrases with the associated text in the table.

A - Appropriation
B - Intention to permanently deprive
C - Belonging to another
D - Property

1. Treating the property as one’s own regardless of owner’s rights.
2. In another’s possession or control.
3. Money, tangibles, intangibles, real.
4. Assuming at least one of the rights of the owner.

Answer 68

B
C
D
A

Question 69

Which of the following statements about robbery’s force requirement is true?
* (A) The defendant must physically
harm the victim in some way.
* (B) The force must be used in order
to steal.
* (C) The victim must actually be in
fear of being subjected to force.
© (D) The force must be used at the time of the theft or afterwards.
O (E) The defendant must intend to commit battery on the victim.

Answer 69

B
The force must be used in order to steal. The force requirement can be satisfied by the infliction of force, causing an apprehension of force, or seeking to cause an apprehension of force. The defendant does not have to physically harm the victim or have the intent to commit a battery. Furthermore, the victim does not actually have to be in fear of being subjected to force. Finally, the force must be used before or at the time of theft.

Question 70

Are the following elements reqiurements of theft, robbery, or both? Type the corresponding letter next to each element.

A - Theft
B - Robbery
C - Both

1. Force
2. Appropriation
3. Property belonging to another
4. Putting victim in fear
5. Dishonesty
6. Intention to permanently deprive
7. Seeking to put victim in fear

Answer 70

1. Force - B
2. Appropriation - C
3. Property belonging to another - C
4. Putting victim in fear - B
5. Dishonesty - C
6. Intention to permanently deprive - C
7. Seeking to put victim in fear - B

Question 72

What is the actus reus common to both types of burglary under Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 72

Entry into a building or part of a building as a trespasser, where entry does not have to be substantial or effective and can be with any part of the body.

Question 73

What must the defendant know or be reckless about to be guilty of burglary?

Answer 73

The defendant must know or be reckless about being a trespasser when entering the building or part of the building.

Question 74

What is the additional requirement for burglary under Section 9(1)(a)?

Answer 74

The defendant must enter with the intention to commit theft, grievous bodily harm (GBH), or criminal damage.

Question 74

How does burglary under Section 9(1)(b) differ from 9(1)(a) in terms of the timing of the mens rea?

Answer 74

For 9(1)(b) burglary, the defendant must commit or attempt to commit theft or GBH after having entered the building, making the timing of the mens rea related to the point of committing the underlying offense rather than at the point of entry.
Give an example of a situation that could be charged as either Section 9(1)(a) or Section 9(1)(b) burglary.
A defendant smashes a jewelry shop window and leans in to take items from the display. This could be charged under 9(1)(a) if they had the intent to steal upon entry, or under 9(1)(b) if they attempted theft after entry.

Question 75

What constitutes aggravated burglary according to Section 10 of the Theft Act?

Answer 75

Aggravated burglary occurs when a defendant commits burglary and, at the time, has in their possession a firearm, imitation firearm, offensive weapon, or any explosive.

Question 76

In the context of burglary, what does it mean to enter as a trespasser?

Answer 76

To enter as a trespasser means the defendant enters a building or part of a building without permission or exceeds the permission granted (e.g., entering a restricted area of a building where they have general access).

Question 77

BURGLARY UNDER 9(A) (B)

Answer 77

BURGLARY
* UNDER 9(A) (B)
* After entering, defendant
- Commits or attempts theft or
- Commits or attempts bodily harm

Question 78

A person commits bulgary when the person knowingly or recklessly enters a building as a trespasser and then after entry:
* (A) Commits or attempts to commit criminal damage
or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm.
* (B) Commits or attempts to commit criminal damage
or commits or attempts to commit theft.
* (C) Commits or attempts to commit theft or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm.
* (D) Commits or attempts to commit theft, commits or attempts to commit criminal damage, or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm.

Answer 78

C

A person commits burglary when the person knowingly or recklessly enters a building as a trespasser and then after entry commits or attempts to commit theft or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm. This is burglary under s9(1)(b).

Question 79

AGGRAVATED BURGLARY

Answer 79

AGGRAVATED BURGLARY
* At time of burglary, defendant possesses
- Firearm or imitation firearm
Weapon of offence or
- Explosive

Question 80

The defendant smashes a jewellery shop window in the middle of the night. The defendant leans into the shop to take items from the window display, but their feet are still on the ground outside. The defendant picks up a necklace, the alarm goes off, and they hear police sirens approaching. The defendant drops the necklace and runs off without any items from the shop.
Is this burglary?
O (A) Yes
O (B) No

Answer 80

Yes

Question 81

A defendant goes to their friend’s house for afternoon tea. The friend shows the defendant a new dress for a prom they are both going to.
The defendant is secretly outraged, as it is the exact same dress they were going to buy, but says nothing. The friend then goes to the toilet.
The defendant grabs the opportunity and throws their coffee over the dress, permanently staining it. The defendant then runs out of the house.
Has the defendant committed burglary?
O (A) Yes
O (B) NO

Answer 81

No

Question 82

1. True or false? The defendant’s dishonesty is judged subjectively.

Answer 82

False - the defendant’s dishonesty is judged objectively. The test is whether the defendant’s actions were dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people.

Question 83

2. True or false?
   The defendant can be guilty of fraud by misrepresentation even if the gain they make is for another person.
   * (A) True
   O (B) False

Answer 83

True.
A defendant can be guilty of fraud by misrepresentation even if the gain they make is for another person and does not benefit themselves

Question 84

FRAUD BY FAILURE TO DISCLOSE

Answer 84

FRAUD BY FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
* Legal duty to disclose information
* Failure to disclose information
* Dishonesty
* Intention to make gain, cause loss, or risk loss

Question 85

FRAUD BY ABUSE OF
POSITION

Answer 85

FRAUD BY ABUSE OF
POSITION
* Position with duty to safeguard other’s interests
* Abuse of that position
*Dishonesty
*Intention to make gain, cause loss, or riskloss

Answer 86

For fraud by false representation:
1. Making a false representation about fact, law, or state of mind.
2. Doing so dishonestly.
3. Knowing the representation is or might be untrue or misleading.
4. Intending by the representation to make a gain for oneself or another or to cause or risk loss to another.

For fraud by failure to disclose:
1. Having a legal duty to disclose certain information.
2. Failing to disclose that information.
3. Acting dishonestly in failing to disclose.
4. Intending by the failure to make a gain for oneself or another or to cause or risk loss to another.

For fraud by abuse of position:
1. Occupying a position in which one is expected to safeguard, or not act against, the financial interests of another person.
2. Abusing that position.
3. Acting dishonestly in abusing the position.
4. Intending by the abuse to make a gain for oneself or another or to cause or risk loss to another.

Question 87

Fraud by false representation

Answer 87

Fraud by false representation
A person dishonestly makes a false representation, and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for themselves or another, or to cause a loss.

Question 87

Fraud by failure to disclose

Answer 87

Fraud by failure to disclose
A person dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and intends thereby to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause a loss.

Question 88

Q1: What constitutes basic criminal damage, and can you give an example?

A1: Basic criminal damage involves intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property belonging to another without lawful excuse. Example: If someone, in a fit of anger, kicks and breaks the door of a public library, they would be guilty of criminal damage because they intentionally harmed property that does not belong to them, impairing its usefulness and possibly incurring expenses for repairs.

Question 88

Fraud by abuse of position

Answer 88

Fraud by abuse of position
A person is in breach if he occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person, and he dishonestly abuses that position, and intends, by the abuse of that position, to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause a loss.

Question 89

Q3: What is considered ‘property’ under the criminal damage law, and can you provide an example that would not constitute criminal damage?

A3: ‘Property’ encompasses tangible items including real property (land and buildings), personal property, and money. Animals are considered property if tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity. Example: If someone picks wild flowers from a public park, this would not constitute criminal damage because wild plants are not considered ‘property’ under this definition.

Question 90

Q2: How is the term ‘damage’ defined in the context of criminal damage, and can you provide an example?

A2: ‘Damage’ includes not only physical harm but also temporary loss of use or incurring expense to restore the property to its former state. Example: If a tenant paints graffiti on the walls of a rented apartment, this constitutes damage as it impairs the property’s appearance and requires financial expenditure to repaint the walls.

Question 91

Q4: What is the significance of the property belonging to another in the context of criminal damage, and can you give an example?

A4: For an act to qualify as criminal damage, the property must belong to someone other than the perpetrator. Example: If a person deliberately damages a car they co-own with their spouse, it could be considered criminal damage because the spouse also has a proprietary interest in the car.

Question 91

Q5: What does ‘unlawful’ mean in the context of criminal damage, and can you give an example of a lawful excuse?

A5: ‘Unlawful’ means causing damage without a valid defense or lawful excuse. Example: If a firefighter breaks a window to enter a burning building and save lives, this is not considered criminal damage because the act is justified by the necessity of protecting lives, serving as a lawful excuse.

Question 92

Q6: What is the mens rea for basic criminal damage, and can you provide an example of recklessness?

A6: The mens rea requires intention or recklessness as to damaging property belonging to another. Example: If a person throws a rock at a signpost aiming to hit it for fun, but the rock bounces off and breaks a nearby car window, they could be deemed reckless as they foresaw the risk of property damage and proceeded anyway.

Question 93

Q7: What are the specific defenses to basic criminal damage, and can you provide an example where one of these defenses might apply?

A7: Two specific defenses are belief in the owner’s consent and belief that the property needed immediate protection. Example: If a neighbor breaks a window to extinguish a fire they mistakenly believe is raging inside a house, believing it necessary for protection, this mistaken belief could serve as a defense.

Question 94

Q8: How does aggravated criminal damage differ from basic criminal damage, and can you illustrate with an example?

A8: Aggravated criminal damage requires the same elements as basic criminal damage, with the additional requirement that the defendant must have intended or been reckless about endangering life by the damage caused. Example: If someone sets fire to a building knowing that people are inside, thus endangering their lives, this would constitute aggravated criminal damage even if no one is actually harmed.

Question 95

Q10: What is an important aspect to remember about the mens rea for aggravated criminal damage, and can you provide an example?

A10: The mens rea for aggravated criminal damage focuses on the defendant’s intention or recklessness regarding the endangerment of life due to the property damage. Example: If someone recklessly damages a gas pipeline, foreseeing but disregarding the significant risk of explosion that could endanger lives, this would meet the mens rea requirement for aggravated criminal damage, even if no one is actually endangered.

Question 95

A person stuffs a waterproof blanket into a toilet and then flushes the toilet repeatedly, flooding the person’s concrete cell.
Does that constitute damage?
O (A) Yes
* (B) No

Answer 95

yes

Question 95

Q9: What does arson entail, and can you give an example of an act that would not qualify as arson?

A9: Arson involves committing criminal damage by fire. Example: If a person sets a small controlled fire in a metal barrel that causes no damage to any property, this would not qualify as arson because the fire did not cause property damage.

Question 95

CRIMINAL DAMAGE

Answer 95

CRIMINAL DAMAGE
* Intentional or reckless

• Destruction or damage
• Of property belonging to another
• Without lawful excuse

Question 96

Can you remember the test for recklessness?

Answer 96

The test for recklessness, as described in the context of criminal damage, is that the defendant must be aware of a risk that property will be destroyed or damaged and, in the circumstances known to him, it is unreasonable to take that risk. This definition incorporates both an objective and a subjective element:

1. Subjective Element: The defendant must have actual awareness of the risk. This means the defendant must consciously recognize that there is some risk involved in their actions.
2. Objective Element: Once the subjective awareness is established, it must then be determined whether it was unreasonable to take that risk. This involves an objective assessment of the situation, considering what would have been reasonable under those particular circumstances.

An example to illustrate recklessness could be a person throwing a rock towards a window just to see if they can hit it, knowing that there is a chance the window could break but deciding to throw the rock anyway. In this scenario, the person is aware of the risk of damaging the window (subjective awareness) and it would be considered unreasonable by most standards to take that risk for no substantial reason (objective unreasonableness).

Answer 97

DEFENCES TO CRIMINAL
DAMAGE
* Honest belief owner would consent
* Honest belief property needs protection

Question 98

Which of the following is an element that is required for aggravated criminal damage but not criminal damage?
* (A) The defendant must damage the
property of a third party.
* (B) The defendant must intend or be reckless as to the endangerment of life.
* (C) The defendant must endanger the life of
a third party.
* (D) The defendant must intend or be reckless as to the damage to property.

Answer 98

B

For aggravated criminal damage, the defendant must intend or be reckless as to the endangerment of life. The defendant does not have to actually endanger a life. The property belonging to a third party is an element of criminal damage but not aggravated criminal damage. The defendant must intend or be reckless as to the damage to property for both offences.

Answer 98

AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL
DAMAGE
Basic criminal damage plus
* Intentional or reckless
* Endangerment to life
* By damage to property

Answer 99

AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL
DAMAGE
* No life needs to be endangered
* Can damage own property
* Special defences do not apply

Answer 100

ARSON
Criminal damage by fire

Question 101

A person intentionally spills a drink on another’s coat, and it has to be dry cleaned to be restored to normal.

Is this criminal damage? Why or why not?

Answer 101

Yes, this is criminal damage because the intentional act of spilling a drink on another’s coat, requiring dry cleaning to restore it, incurs an expense and thus fits the definition of causing damage to property belonging to another.

Question 102

A person is having an argument with their spouse about some text messages the spouse received. In a moment of fury, the person grabs a phone off the table and smashes it on the floor, breaking the screen. Unfortunately, it was the person’s own phone and not the spouse’s.
Is this criminal damage? Why or why not?

Answer 102

No, this is not criminal damage because for an act to qualify as criminal damage, the property must belong to someone other than the perpetrator, and in this scenario, the damaged phone belonged to the person who smashed it.

Question 103

A person goes to their ex-spouse’s house with a shotgun and shoots at the ex-spouse through a window. The shot misses the ex-spouse but does break the window. The person is charged with aggravated criminal damage.
Is the person quilty of this offence? Why or why not?

Answer 103

The person may not be guilty of aggravated criminal damage based solely on the information provided because while they did damage property (the window), the aggravated aspect of the offense requires the defendant to have intended or been reckless as to the endangerment of life by the damage caused. In this scenario, the intention seems to be to harm the ex-spouse directly, not through the damage caused to the property (the window). Therefore, the specific mens rea for aggravated criminal damage — intending or being reckless about endangering life through the property damage — may not be satisfied. However, other charges, such as attempted murder or basic criminal damage, might be more appropriate based on the intent to shoot at the ex-spouse and the resultant property damage.

Question 104

!

Answer 104

CHILDHOOD
Children under 10 incapable of committing crime

Question 105

1. Children under the age of _ _ are incapable of committing a crime.
   O (A7
   O (B) 10
   O (6) 14
   * (D) 15

Answer 105

B 10

Question 106

UNFITNESS TO PLEAD

Answer 106

UNFITNESS TO PLEAD
Defendant unable to:
* Comprehend court proceedings
* Challenge jurors
* Comprehend evidence

Question 107

2. For a defendant to be fit to plead, they must be of sufficient intellect: (1) _
   © (A) To rationally understand the law.
   * (B) To understand the nature and quality of their actions.
   © (C) To conform their conduct to the law.
   © () To comprehend the course of the proceedings.
   , (2) to challenge a juror, and (3) to comprehend the details of the evidence

Answer 107

(D) is correct. For a defendant to be fit to plead, they must be of sufficient intellect: (1) to comprehend the course of the proceedings in the trial as to make a proper defence, (2) to challenge a juror to whom they might wish to object, and (3) to comprehend the details of the evidence.

Answer 108

ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY
* Aiding
*Abetting
*Counselling
* Procuring

Question 109

Q1: At what age is a person criminally liable, and can you provide an example?

Answer 109

A1: A person is criminally liable from the age of 10 and above. Example: A 12-year-old shoplifting at a convenience store can be held criminally responsible for their actions, unlike an 8-year-old who would not be criminally liable.

Question 110

Q5: What is the role of an accessory in a crime, and can you provide an example involving ‘abetting’?

Answer 110

A5: An accessory aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of a crime. Example of abetting: Cheering on a friend to vandalize a public statue, providing encouragement at the scene of the crime.

Question 111

Q6: What constitutes an attempt to commit a crime, and can you give an example of an act that is ‘more than merely preparatory’?

Answer 111

A6: An attempt involves acts that go beyond mere preparation towards committing the crime, with the intent to complete it. Example: Breaking into a house with the intention to steal, even if the theft is not completed, is more than merely preparatory and constitutes an attempt.

Question 112

Q7: How does factual impossibility affect the liability for an attempted crime, and can you provide an example?

Answer 112

A7: Factual impossibility does not negate liability for an attempt. Example: Attempting to steal a painting from a museum, not knowing it has been moved, still constitutes attempted theft despite the factual impossibility of stealing that specific painting.

Question 113

Q8: What is legal impossibility in the context of attempted crimes, and can you provide an example?

Answer 113

A8: Legal impossibility occurs when the action attempted is not actually against the law, removing liability for an attempt. Example: Attempting to import snuff, mistakenly believing it to be an illegal substance, would not constitute an attempted crime since snuff is not illegal.

Question 114

Q4: What does it mean to be an ‘innocent agent’ in the commission of a crime, and can you provide an example?

Answer 114

A4: An ‘innocent agent’ is someone who unknowingly assists in the commission of a crime. Example: A person who drives a friend to a store, not knowing the friend intends to rob it, and waits outside unknowingly as the getaway driver.

Question 115

Q3: Who is considered the principal offender in a crime involving multiple parties, and can you give an example?

Answer 115

A3: The principal offender is the one who commits the actus reus of the crime with the requisite mens rea. Example: In a bank robbery, the individual who actually threatens the teller and takes the money is the principal offender.

Question 116

Q2: What does ‘unfit to plead’ mean, and can you give an example of a situation where this might apply?

Answer 116

A2: ‘Unfit to plead’ means a defendant lacks the capacity to understand the trial proceedings, make a proper defense, or comprehend the evidence. Example: An individual with severe cognitive impairments who cannot grasp the nature of the court proceedings might be deemed unfit to plead.

Question 117

Write down as many ways as you can think of being a party to an offence. What does each method of participation involve?

Answer 117

Being a party to an offense can involve aiding (providing help or assistance at the scene and time of the offense), abetting (offering encouragement or incitement at the scene and time), counseling (advising or encouraging the offense, usually beforehand), and procuring (producing the offense by endeavor or effort).

Question 118

!

Answer 118

ATTEMPT
*
*
Act more than merely preparatory toward commission of offence
Intention to commit full offence

The mens rea for attempt is to intend the completed actus reus of the offence.

Question 119

Write down in one sentence the definitions of attempt and conspiracy and the key points of each offence.a

Answer 119

An attempt involves engaging in actions that are more than merely preparatory toward committing a crime, with the clear intention to complete the crime, while conspiracy entails an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act, where the intent to achieve the agreed-upon illegal outcome is essential, regardless of whether any steps are taken towards its commission.

Question 120

WHEN INTOXICATION CAN
BE DEFENCE

Answer 120

WHEN INTOXICATION CAN
BE DEFENCE
* Involuntary intoxication

Question 121

Q1: Under what conditions can intoxication be considered a defense to negate mens rea, and can you provide an example?

Answer 121

A1: Intoxication can potentially negate mens rea if it is involuntary, caused by a non-dangerous substance, or if the offense is one of specific intent. Example: A person unknowingly drinks a beverage spiked with a drug and, as a result, commits an act they would not have done sober; they may argue involuntary intoxication to negate mens rea.

Question 122

Q3: What is the significance of distinguishing between dangerous and non-dangerous substances in the context of intoxication as a defense, and can you give an example?

Answer 122

A3: The law may allow intoxication as a defense when it results from a non-dangerous substance (like prescription medication) taken as directed, but not from dangerous substances (like illegal drugs or alcohol). Example: A person takes prescribed medication according to the instructions but experiences unexpected side effects leading to abnormal behavior; this could potentially negate mens rea due to intoxication.

Question 122

Q2: How does the law differentiate between voluntary and involuntary intoxication, and can you provide an example of each?

Answer 122

A2: Voluntary intoxication occurs when the individual knowingly consumes an intoxicating substance, while involuntary intoxication occurs without the individual’s knowledge or against their will. Example of voluntary intoxication: A person decides to consume several shots of whiskey and commits an assault. Example of involuntary intoxication: Someone’s drink is spiked with a drug without their knowledge, leading to unintended aggressive behavior.

Question 123

Q4: What is the difference between basic intent and specific intent offenses in the context of intoxication, and can you provide an example?

Answer 123

A4: Basic intent offenses can be committed recklessly, while specific intent offenses require intentional action. Intoxication can sometimes negate mens rea for specific intent offenses but not for basic intent offenses. Example: A person, intoxicated, decides to cause serious harm (a specific intent offense); if the intoxication was involuntary or due to a non-dangerous substance, it might negate mens rea.

Question 124

Q5: What constitutes self-defense, and can you provide an example of its application?

Answer 124

A5: Self-defense allows individuals to avoid liability if they honestly believe that the use of force was immediately necessary for protection (trigger) and the response was reasonable (amount of force used). Example: Believing an imminent attack, a person pushes an aggressor to prevent a physical assault; this could be justified as self-defense if the belief was honest and the force used was proportionate to the threat.

Question 125

WHEN INTOXICATION CAN
BE DEFENCE

Answer 125

WHEN INTOXICATION CAN
BE DEFENCE
* Involuntary intoxication
* Non-dangerous substance
* Specific intent offence

Question 125

Q6: How does the concept of “householder case” alter the acceptable level of force in self-defense, and can you provide an example?

Answer 125

A6: In householder cases (typically during a burglary at home), the law allows for a higher level of force in self-defense, as long as it is not “grossly disproportionate.” Example: During a home invasion, a resident uses a heavy ornament to strike an intruder, which might be deemed acceptable in this context, given the heightened state of fear and urgency.

Question 126

What are the three situations in which a defendant can potentially rely on intoxication to negate mens rea?

Answer 126

A defendant can potentially rely on intoxication to negate mens rea if the intoxication is involuntary, caused by a non-dangerous substance, or if the offense committed is one of specific intent.

The three situations in which a defendant can potentially rely on intoxication to negate mens rea are:
(1) involuntary intoxication,
(2) intoxication caused by a non-dangerous substance, and
(3) the offence committed is one of specific intent.

Question 127

SELF-DEFENCE TRIGGER
AND RESPONSE TEST

Answer 127

SELF-DEFENCE TRIGGER
AND RESPONSE TEST
* Did D honestly believe use of force was immediately required?
Was amount of force reasonable?

Question 128

Which of the following statements about self-defence is true?
* (A) The court must rule that, objectively, force was immediately required.
* (B) The amount of force the
defendant used must have been reasonable.
O (C) Self-defence is available only if the defendant was protecting themselves.
© (D) The amount of force used is
assessed subjectively.

Answer 128

B

For self-defence, the amount of force the defendant used must have been reasonable. This amount is assessed objectively, by the standards of a reasonable person. In contrast, the defendant must have a subjective belief that force was immediately required; this is not an objective test. Self-defence is available if the defendant acted to protect themselves, another, or property; acted to prevent a crime; or effected a lawful arrest.