CR 9 Sept Flashcards
Four friends decided to steal some phones and money. Soon a man and a woman approached, each holding a new looking phone. The leader of the friends demanded that the couple give up their phones and money. The man refused and tried to punch the leader. The leader retaliated with a punch of his own, but he missed and hit the woman instead, breaking her nose. A nearby police officer had heard the commotion and arrested the leader as the other friends quickly ran away. Feeling remorseful over the woman’s broken nose, the leader explained what happened to the police officer. The police officer responded, “A clear case of transferred malice”.
Which of the following best explains ‘transferred malice’?
It is when the mens rea towards one victim is transferred to another one.
(C) Transferred malice is when a defendant, in trying to cause one type of offence (for example, hitting someone), unintentionally causes the same or similar offence to another (that is, he hits someone else). It is inferred to prevent a defendant from arguing that his intention was such that they should not be responsible for an injury that occurred to an unintended victim. (A) is incorrect because this is the definition of encouraging a crime. (B) is wrong because it is too broad-transferred malice goes to the required mens rea. (D) does not define transferred intent. It could be considered a definition of excessive self-defence where a victim, in trying to save himself, goes too far-for example, when a man stabs another man who has just slapped him around the face. (E) is incorrect. It is similar to the definition of the old doctrine of joint enterprise that was overturned.Q
A chemical company dumps some toxic waste in a river, causing damage to the local wildlife and countryside. The Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’), the local authority (‘LA’), the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (‘RSPB’), and a local resident are all considering bringing a prosecution against the chemical company.
Which of the following correctly states which parties may potentially bring a prosecution?
The CPS, LA, RSPB, and the local resident.
E) The CPS, LA, RSPB, and the local resident may all potentially bring a prosecution. The CPS is not the only body that can bring a criminal case against someone. Local authorities, such as county councils and cities, can also bring certain cases. Parliament has also given certain government agencies, such as The Environment Agency, the power to prosecute certain crimes, such as polluting rivers. Additionally, private citizens, organisations, and even charities (for example, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) can also prosecute crimes.Q
A man, driving with due care and attention, accidentally drives onto a police officer’s foot whilst parking at a busy public event. The police officer shouts at the man to move the car off his foot. Once the man realises what he has done, he refuses to move the car, as he does not like the way the officer shouted at him. After a few minutes, other police officers roll the car off the officer’s foot.
Is the man guilty of battery?
Yes, because the actus reus was an ongoing act and the man formed the necessary mens rea when he refused to move the car.
(A) The man is guilty of battery. A person commits battery when they intentionally or recklessly apply unlawful personal force upon another person. At the time the man drives the car onto the officer’s foot, there is no battery as whilst he satisfies the actus reus, he has not yet formed the necessary mens rea. However, his refusal to move the car from the foot means that he continues to commit the actus reus as an ongoing act. When the man forms the necessary intent (at the point when he refuses to move the car), actus reus and mens rea coincide. (B) is incorrect as battery can be committed by omission. (C) is incorrect as there is coincidence once the man forms the necessary mens rea. (D) is incorrect as battery can be committed indirectly. (E) is incorrect as we are told the man drove with due care and attention, so there was no recklessness in driving onto the foot. When he refused to move, the mens rea was satisfied through intention rather than recklessness.QUESTION ID: CRL107
A boy asked his mother to buy him a bar of chocolate when they were shopping for groceries. The boy’s mother told him he could not have any chocolate because he had been naughty. When the boy’s mother turned to continue her shopping, the boy took a chocolate bar and stuffed it into his pocket. As the boy and his mother were leaving the till with their groceries, a shop assistant stopped them and demanded the boy turn out his pockets. The boy did as the shop assistant asked, and the chocolate was discovered.
Which of the following is the minimum age at which the boy could be held criminally responsible for his action in England and Wales?
(B) The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10. It is the age at the time of the offence that is relevant for determination.
A woman is walking home from work late at night. She is in a quiet area when she sees a man coming towards her. The woman crosses over the road to avoid him. The man also crosses over the road. The woman starts running away, and the man starts running after her. The woman looks over her shoulder to see where the man is and runs into a lamppost, causing a bruise on her cheekbone. In fact, the man was the woman’s friend. He was chasing her to catch up and walk with her, though he knew his actions might cause the woman further alarm.
Is the man guilty of causing actual bodily harm (‘ABH’)?
Yes, because the man foresaw the risk that the woman would apprehend immediate unlawful violence, and in the circumstances known to the man, it was not a reasonable risk to take.
A teenager’s neighbour kept his expensive sports car in his garage. The teenager manufactured a device that could open the garage and used it one night to get into the garage to admire the car. The teenager found the car’s keys on its front seat and decided to take the car for a ride and return it before it was missed in the early morning. After driving the car carefully for a while, the teenager stopped on a cliff and got out to admire the sunrise. He parked on a slope, which he knew was risky so close to the edge, but he decided to get out briefly anyway. The car rolled off the cliff and was completely destroyed.
Of which of the following crimes is the teenager certainly guilty?
D) The teenager is guilty of causing criminal damage. A defendant who intentionally or recklessly destroys property belonging to another without lawful excuse is guilty of criminal damage. Here, the teenager was reckless in parking on a slope close to the edge of a cliff, and that led to the destruction of the car. Since the teenager caused criminal damage, (E) is incorrect. (A) is incorrect because theft requires a taking with intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Here, when the teenager took the car he intended on returning it. Whilst dealing with property in a way likely to result in its loss can be enough to prove intention to permanently deprive, here the teenager was driving the car carefully and so this does not seem to be made out. (B) is incorrect because it requires the trespass to be with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, commit theft, or commit criminal damage. Here, although the teenager did take the car and cause criminal damage, he had no intention to do so when he entered the garage; he just wanted to admire the car. (C) is incorrect because it requires a trespasser to commit theft, attempt theft, commit grievous bodily harm, or attempt to commit grievous bodily harm following the trespass. Here, the teenager did not commit any of these offences. QUESTION ID: CRL054
An Arsenal supporter is arguing with a Tottenham supporter about which football team is the best, just before the game is due to start. The argument becomes more heated. The Arsenal supporter says, “If it wasn’t nearly kick off time, I’d beat you up”.
Is the Arsenal supporter guilty of common assault?
ResponsesPress Enter or Space to submit the answer
No, because the statement indicates he will not beat up the Tottenham supporter.
C) The Arsenal supporter is not guilty of common assault. Assault occurs when a defendant either intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate, unlawful personal violence. Words can negate an assault if it stops the victim from believing that they will be immediately assaulted. That is the situation here. The threat made is qualified; the Arsenal supporter indicates that he will not beat up the Tottenham supporter, as the football match is about to start. (A) is incorrect as assault does not require unlawful force; battery does. (B) is incorrect as the threat is qualified to indicate he will not beat up the Tottenham supporter. (D) is incorrect as assault can be committed by words alone. (E) is incorrect as assault can be committed if the defendant has either intention or recklessness regarding causing the apprehension of immediate, unlawful violence.Q
A thief asks his friend if he could borrow the friend’s scooter to drive to a nearby dark street to rob someone and make a quick escape. The friend responds by handing his keys to the thief, saying, “Here you go. I don’t want any part of this”. The thief drives away. He returns an hour later, having successfully robbed someone. He returns the scooter and the keys to the friend.
Can the friend be held criminally liable for the robbery?
The friend can be held liable for the robbery as an accomplice because he aided in the commission of the crime.
(A) A person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures another offender is an accomplice and will also be guilty of the crime committed. Here, the friend aided the thief by allowing the thief to borrow the scooter so that he could get to a good place to commit a robbery and make his escape. (B) is incorrect because it is irrelevant; the fact that the friend said he did not want to be involved does not negate his action of allowing the thief to use his scooter to commit the crime. (C) is incorrect because a co-principal is one who acts together with another to commit the prohibited act, and here the friend did not act with the thief in committing the act of robbery. (D) is incorrect because one does not need to share in the proceeds of a crime to be guilty of aiding, abetting, procuring, or counselling. (E) is incorrect because it misstates what an innocent agent is. An innocent agent is not guilty of a crime. An innocent agent is one who unknowingly aids in an offence. For example, if the thief had asked his friend to deliver a package to a woman and the friend did so thinking the package contained candy rather than the illegal drugs it did contain, the innocent agent in that case is not criminally liable. Here, the friend knew his scooter was to be used in the commission of a crime and so was not an innocent agent.
A skip is on the side of the road. It contains kitchen and bathroom fittings, which have been removed from a house which is being renovated. A DIY enthusiast spots some nice taps in the skip and takes them, intending to take them to his house and fit them in his own kitchen.
Has the DIY enthusiast committed the actus reus of theft?
es, because the taps belong to another.(B) The DIY enthusiast has committed the actus reus of theft. Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Even though they have been thrown away, the taps are not considered abandoned. Rubbish that has been thrown away continues to belong to the original owner until it is collected by the rubbish collection company, at which point it belongs to the rubbish collection company. Therefore, the taps were ‘property belonging to another’ when the DIY enthusiast took them. For these reasons, (A) and (E) are incorrect. (C) and (D) are incorrect, as they relate to the mens rea of theft, not the actus reus as asked
A woman is pet sitting for a friend while the friend is on holiday. When the woman arrives at the friend’s home to check on the friend’s cat, the woman sees smoke coming from the back of the home. The woman frantically searches her purse for the keys to her friend’s home, but the woman cannot find the keys. Instead, the woman grabs a rock to break one of the home’s windows to get her friend’s cat to safety. Once inside the friend’s home, the woman realises the smoke she saw was coming from the neighbor’s back garden barbeque, and there was no fire in the friend’s home.
The woman is charged with criminal damage for breaking the friend’s window. Is the woman likely to have a valid defence?
Yes, if the woman honestly believed the friend would consent to the broken window.
(A) Yes, if the woman honestly believed the friend would consent to the broken window. A defendant will have a defence to criminal damage if they believe that the owner did or would have consented to the damage or that the property is in immediate need of protection, and that the means of protection adopted are reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, regardless of whether the friend would actually have consented or whether the belief is reasonably held. If the woman honestly believed her friend would consent to the broken window to save her cat, this is sufficient to have a valid defence to criminal damage. Thus, (B) is incorrect because a valid defence to criminal damage does not need to be based on a reasonably held belief so long as the belief is honest. (C) is incorrect because an owner’s explicit consent is not required in order to have a valid defence to criminal damage. (D) is incorrect because a defence to criminal damage does not require an emergency. (E) is also incorrect because it is immaterial to the woman’s defence. As long as the woman honestly believed the friend would consent to the broken window, the woman will have a valid defence.
A student is having an affair with a lecturer. The faculty staffroom is available for lecturers to use daily from 8am until 6pm. One night after hours, the student goes with the lecturer to the faculty staffroom to enjoy some privacy together. The lecturer lets both of them into the staffroom with his key card. Whilst the lecturer is on the toilet, the student finds a copy of an exam paper she will be sitting the following week. She quickly photographs the exam paper and puts it back where she found it. When the lecturer returns, they find some wine in the staff fridge that belongs to the lecturer’s colleague and drink it together.
Have the student and the lecturer committed burglary?
Both the student and the lecturer did, as they entered as trespassers, knowing or being reckless as to whether they were trespassing, and then went on to commit theft.(D) Both the student and the lecturer will be guilty of burglary here. Whilst they did not intend to commit theft, grievous bodily harm, or criminal damage at the point of entry, they did satisfy the requirements for a burglary under s9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968. They entered a building or a part of a building as trespassers, knowing or being reckless as to whether they were trespassers, and once inside they committed theft by taking the wine that belonged to the colleague. (A) is incorrect, as burglary at the point of commission of the underlying offence is still fulfilled. (B) and (E) are incorrect, because the lecturer is also trespassing as he is entering the staffroom out of hours when he is not permitted to use it. (C) is incorrect, because the photographing of an exam paper does not constitute theft, as information does not amount to property (the paper itself is never taken, only the information
Question
A 12-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl are playing a game. The game involves cutting the other’s arm with a blade, until the other cannot take it any more and says to stop. The boy has the knife and he carefully cuts the girl’s arm. The arm bleeds a little. The girl then tells him to stop, which he immediately does. The pair then stick a plaster on the girl’s arm and start playing another game. The arm does not require any medical attention.
What is the most serious charge that could be brought against the boy on the basis of these events?
Section 20 grievous bodily harm (‘s20 GBH’).(B) The most serious charge that could be brought against the boy is s20 GBH. The actus reus of s20 GBH is to wound or cause serious harm. Here, there is no serious harm-the girl does not require any medical attention-but there is a wound. A wound requires that both layers of the skin are broken; here, this is satisfied because there was blood. The mens rea of s20 is intention or recklessness regarding causing some harm. Here, it was the boy’s intention to cut the girl’s arm, so he has intention to cause some harm. (A) is incorrect. Section 18 GBH has the same actus reus as s20, but the mens rea requires an intention to cause serious harm, which is not made out on these facts. (C) and (D) are incorrect because they are less serious charges than s20 GBH. (E) is wrong, as s20 GBH is made out. It is worth noting that consent would not be a defence here. It is not possible to consent to injury unless an exception such as surgery, body modification, or sport applies, but none of them do here.
A man was late for an appointment with his doctor. Therefore, he drove at speed across town. As he went through a red light, he hit a pedestrian crossing the road. The pedestrian was very seriously injured and was rushed to hospital but recovered. The man was charged with attempted murder.
Which of the following is the most likely result of the charge?
The man will likely be acquitted, because he did not intend to hit anyone with his car.(A) The man will likely be acquitted because he did not intend to hit anyone. Attempt is a specific intent crime; to be guilty of attempt, one must intend to cause the underlying crime. The mens rea for attempted murder is intention to kill. Here, the man had no intent to kill anyone; he was just in a hurry. (B) is incorrect because whilst attempt requires an act beyond what was merely preparatory to the underlying offence, it also requires intent. (C) is incorrect because had the man actually intended to kill, the act of speeding through the red light probably would be beyond a preparatory act. (D) is wrong because the death of a person would not be the natural and probable consequence of what the man did. (E) is wrong because the man must intend to kill for attempt, not just cause grievous bodily harm. On the facts, it would be impossible to say that the man intended that level of harm in any event
A spy wanted to steal some papers from a competitor’s office, and so the spy arranged a meeting with the competitor. During the meeting, the spy secretly put a knock-out drug in the competitor’s coffee. The spy’s supplier said the drug would merely cause a brief sleep. After drinking the drugged coffee, the competitor lost consciousness. The spy then rummaged through the competitor’s drawers, found the papers he wanted, took them, and left. Unfortunately, the spy miscalculated the dosage, and the competitor died from a drug overdose.
What is the most serious offence of which the spy can be convicted?
ResponsesPress Enter or Space to submit the answer
(C) The most serious crime of which the spy may be convicted is unlawful act manslaughter. Unlawful act manslaughter is a form of involuntary manslaughter that arises when (1) the defendant’s act is unlawful, (2) the unlawful act is deliberate, (3) there is a risk of harm, and (4) the unlawful act causes the death of the victim. Here, the spy did not intend to kill the competitor or cause her grievous bodily harm, but the spy committed robbery by drugging the competitor and taking the papers from her, the spy’s acts were deliberate, drugging someone has an obvious risk of causing harm, and the act caused the death of the victim. (A) is incorrect because murder requires an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, and the spy had no such intent here. (B) is incorrect because voluntary manslaughter arises when the defendant has a partial defence to murder (for example, diminished responsibility), but the actus reus and the mens rea of murder are made out. As just established, the spy did not have the intent for murder. (D) is incorrect because gross negligence manslaughter arises where a defendant acts in an extremely negligent manner and that action causes a death. The spy’s actions went beyond extreme negligence. The spy’s action of putting drugs into the competitor’s coffee was criminal in and of itself. (E) is incorrect because although putting the drops in the competitor’s coffee would be a battery-an intentional infliction of personal violence upon the competitor-it is far less serious than manslaughter.
A boy decided to play football against his neighbour’s house and kicked the ball into his neighbour’s window, smashing the glass. His neighbour became very upset, ran out of his house, and chased the boy around the estate with a cricket bat. Fearing for his safety and trying to get away, the boy threw a tennis ball that he had in his pocket at the neighbour. Unfortunately, the ball connected with the neighbour’s nose and broke it.
With what offences should the boy be charged?
(B) The boy can be charged with criminal damage because he was arguably reckless when he was kicking his football against his neighbour’s wall. Criminal damage is unlawful damage to another person’s property caused intentionally or recklessly. The boy is not guilty of any form of assault, as he was acting in self-defence when his neighbour chased him with a cricket bat. An offence of common assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery. An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another. Self-defence is where a defendant uses reasonable force to prevent themselves from being injured. To throw a tennis ball at someone who is threatening to cause injury with a weapon such as a bat is very unlikely to be seen as excessive and would be reasonable. The neighbour was not acting in self-defence when he grabbed the cricket bat and would be guilty of assault himself. That is a question not asked here. Therefore, although a broken nose could be considered grievous or actual bodily harm, the boy should not be found guilty of either offence. Therefore (A), (C), and (D) are incorrect. (E) is wrong because the boy would be guilty of criminal damage
Two law students are in a bar, arguing about what constitutes a basic intent crime.
Which of the following offences is not an offence of basic intent?
(E) Murder is not a basic intent crime. A basic intent crime is one that can be committed not only if the defendant intended to undertake the prohibited act, but also if the defendant was merely reckless in acting. Murder requires an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Intent is not required in any of the other offences. They can be committed by recklessness
Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act states that: “The elements of rape are: (A) intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person (B) with his penis; (B) does not consent to the penetration, and (A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents. . . . Rape is a crime of basic intent”. A man was tried for the rape of a woman. His defence was that the woman had consented to have intercourse with him. The trial judge charged the jury that while the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man had sexual intercourse with the woman, the man had the burden of proving his defence on the balance of probabilities.
Were the judge’s instructions correct?
No, because nothing in the statute requires a reversal of the burden.
(D) The judge’s instructions were incorrect because nothing in section 1 requires a reversal of the burden. Therefore, each element of a crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as with all criminal matters, unless the law specifically states that this is not so. We are told that rape is a crime of basic intent, so the defendant must intend to have sex with the victim without her consent or be reckless as to whether that consent was given. Lack of consent is an element of the offence, and the state must prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. (B) is incorrect because lack of consent is part of the entire case that the state must prove where the charge is rape. To say that the prosecution must prove ‘the entire case’ is really to say that the state must prove each element of the offence. It is impermissible for a judge to segregate one element of the offence from other elements, and to impose on the defendant the burden of proving that element, unless the statute specifically does so. Similarly, (A) is incorrect as the statute states nothing about the burden being on the defendant. (C) is incorrect because the judge does not decide where a burden should lie in a statutory offence. (E) is incorrect because a statute may impose on a criminal defendant the burden of proof regarding certain issues; for example, an affirmative defence such as diminished capacity
A store clerk was working behind the counter at a corner shop when a young girl came up with a bottle of wine to purchase. The clerk thought the girl looked too young to buy wine, so he asked her for her driver’s licence. The girl reached into her purse as if to get her licence. As the clerk reached under the counter to get a bag, the girl grabbed the bottle of wine, threw £10 on the counter, and ran out of the shop. The girl was 16, and it is a strict liability offence to sell alcohol to persons under 18.
Is the clerk liable for prosecution for selling the girl alcohol?
ResponsesPress Enter or Space to submit the answer
No, because the clerk did not sell the girl the wine.(C) As this offence is one of strict liability, the clerk’s best defence is that he did not sell the girl the wine; she threw money at him and ran out. (A) is not a valid defence, because under a strict liability statute, it is illegal to sell to a minor even if she presented a false identification. Thus, if the clerk had actually made a sale to the girl, he would have violated the statute even if he had asked for her driver’s licence. Similarly, (B) is wrong because under a strict liability statute it is illegal to sell to a minor even if the defendant did not know that the purchaser was a minor. (B) would only be a defence if the statute required knowledge of age. (D) ignores the stated facts that the seller of the alcohol is the guilty party, not the seller’s employer. (E) is incorrect in that there are defences to strict liability crimes, specifically, as here, negating the facts required for the crime (that is, if there was no sale, there was no crime).
In a rugby match, a flanker wanted to prevent a fly-half from catching the ball and scoring a try. Therefore, the flanker grabbed the fly-half’s legs and tackled him to the ground before the fly-half had a chance to catch the ball. The rules of rugby do not allow a player to tackle another unless the other player is holding the ball. The fly-half received a black eye as a result.
Of what criminal offence, if any, is the flanker guilty?
(E) The flanker committed no crime. Whilst the flanker’s actions were outside the rules of the game, by playing rugby, the fly-half consented not only to any injury incurred within the rules of the game, but also any unintentional injury occurring just outside the rules of the game. (A) is incorrect because there is no evidence that the flanker intended to cause the fly-half any injury. (B) is also incorrect as the fly-half received only a black eye. Wounding or causing grievous bodily injury requires something akin to a stab wound or a broken bone. (C) is incorrect because whilst bruising-and so a black eye-is a sufficient injury for a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the consent mentioned above negates the crime. (D) is incorrect for the same reason
A woman did not tell the government that her husband had died and continued to collect his pension. Her rationale was that she was entitled to other benefits which she would not claim and that these were greater than her husband’s pension. She believed that the government would be happy with her decision.
Is the woman guilty of fraud by failure to disclose information?
ResponsesPress Enter or Space to submit the answer
Yes, because the woman’s behaviour is dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest individuals.(D) To be guilty of fraud by failure to disclose, the defendant must be acting dishonestly by the standards of reasonable and honest individuals. The woman was acting dishonestly under this standard. The test for dishonesty is objective, and therefore (C) and (E) are incorrect. (A) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. The fact that the woman was recently widowed is not a factor in deciding whether she was dishonest. (B) is incorrect because dishonesty is required for this crime; it is not a strict liability offence.
Question
After breaking up with his girlfriend, a 14-year-old boy decided to break into her house to recover a ring he had given her as a present. He took a screwdriver with him to force open the back door. Once inside, he walked through the kitchen but was confronted by the girl’s father. In a panic, the boy dropped the screwdriver and ran out of the house.
If the boy is prosecuted for aggravated burglary, which of the following would be his best defence?
The boy had no intention of using the screwdriver as a weapon when he entered the house.
A dentist with a newborn baby comes to work after a few sleepless nights. In order to complete a root canal procedure, the dentist goes to inject some anaesthetic into a patient’s gums. Unfortunately, the dentist picks up the wrong bottle in error and injects disinfectant instead of anaesthetic. The patient dies.
Which of the following correctly sets out the test for the dentist to be found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter?
There must be a breach of a duty of care that caused the victim’s death, with the breach carrying a serious and obvious risk of death and being so bad as to be criminally culpable.C) The test for gross negligence manslaughter has five requirements: (1) a duty of care, (2) a breach of the duty, (3) a causal link from the breach to the victim’s death, (4) an obvious and serious risk of death, and (5) the breach is so bad it should be criminally culpable. (A), (B), (D), and (E) are all incorrect because they either miss off one of these requirements or include dangerousness, which is a part of the unlawful act manslaughter test rather than the gross negligence manslaughter tes
A robber held up a corner shop with a gun. The shopkeeper handed over all the money in the till, but as the robber was stuffing the money into a bag, he dropped his gun. The robber turned to leave, but the shopkeeper lunged for the gun, pointed it at the robber and shouted, “Stop or I’ll shoot!”. The robber ducked behind the end of an aisle. Unable to control herself, the shopkeeper fired the gun three times in the robber’s direction but missed. However, one of the bullets bounced off a pillar and struck the only other customer in the store, who was crouched behind a counter, killing him instantly.
Which of the following is the most culpable crime for which the shopkeeper is likely to be convicted?
ResponsesPress Enter or Space to submit the answer
Voluntary manslaughter.(B) The most serious crime for which the shopkeeper would likely be convicted is voluntary manslaughter. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Through the doctrine of transferred malice, an intent to kill or injure one person will be transferred to the intent to kill or injure another person if the intended act fails and it is committed against a different victim. Here, when the shopkeeper fired the gun, we can assume she intended to cause the robber at least grievous bodily harm. However, it is unlikely that the shopkeeper will be found guilty of murder (A) because she can raise the partial defence of loss of control. A defendant can have a murder charge reduced to voluntary manslaughter if she can show the murder arose from a loss of self-control caused by a qualifying event such as fear of serious violence or an event that caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged, and a hypothetical person of similar age and sex might have acted in the same way. Here, although the shopkeeper was shooting at the robber and, therefore, intended to cause the robber really serious harm at a minimum, she was clearly acting under a loss of self-control due to the robbery, which would reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter. It is clear that she would not have shot the gun but for the robbery (indeed, she would not even have had the gun but for the robbery). Although the shopkeeper actually killed the bystander rather than a robber, the partial defence of loss of control would still be open to her. (C) and (D) are incorrect because involuntary manslaughter (including gross negligence manslaughter) is less culpable than voluntary manslaughter. (E) is incorrect because the shopkeeper is not a corporation and does not represent one.
A woman has separated from her partner. The partner has kept their shared cat after the break-up. The woman attends her ex-partner’s house and bangs on the door, intending to ask him to give her the cat. There is no answer. At that moment, the cat comes wandering out through the cat-flap. The woman picks up the cat and takes it home with her.
What offence has the woman committed, if any?
(C) The woman has likely committed theft. Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it. A person taking property belonging to another can include a co-owner stealing from the other co-owner. Here, the woman has appropriated property belonging to another because the fact that the cat was a shared cat does not prevent it from belonging to another. The standard for dishonesty is objective, and here she was dishonest by the standards of honest, reasonable people by taking the cat without consultation with her ex-partner. (A) is incorrect because burglary requires entering a building or part of it as a trespasser, and the woman did not enter the house. (B) is incorrect because the woman did not do an act that was more than merely preparatory to enter as a trespasser. (D) is incorrect because the woman committed the completed offence of theft by taking the cat. (E) is incorrect as the woman committed theft.
A reveller at a festival drinks a lot of beer. Unbeknownst to the reveller, the beer they are drinking is a super brew containing a higher proportion of alcohol than they expected. As a result, the reveller becomes extremely intoxicated. In their intoxicated state, the reveller gets into a fight with several other festivalgoers. The reveller assaults several people and is charged with actual bodily harm (‘ABH’), section 20 grievous bodily harm (‘s20 GBH’), and section 18 grievous bodily harm (‘s18 GBH’), with each offence being on a different victim.
(B) Intoxication can negate mens rea for s18 GBH only. Voluntary intoxication can negate mens rea for specific intent offences. Section 18 GBH is a specific intent offence, but both s20 GBH and ABH are basic intent offences, which means they can be committed recklessly. Therefore, voluntary intoxication cannot negate the mens rea of s20 GBH and ABH but can negate mens rea for s18 GBH. Note, however, that drunken intent is still intent, so if the reveller formed the intention in their drunken state, they will still be liable. The fact that the drink was stronger than they expected is irrelevant. (A), (C), and (D) are incorrect as they all list basic intent offences. (E) is incorrect as intoxication can negate mens rea for specific intent offences.
A husband discovers that his wife is having an affair with her lover. Incensed, the husband decides to attack both the wife and her lover. He arms himself with a baseball bat and goes to the lover’s house when he knows his wife will be there. The husband knocks on the door. When the lover opens the door, he pushes inside and finds his wife there. The husband attacks both the wife and the lover, hitting them both repeatedly on the body with the baseball bat. The husband intends to cause them both serious harm but does not intend to kill either of them. After the attack, the wife dies from her injuries. The lover sustains serious injury but recovers.
Assuming there are no defences available to the husband, what are the most serious charges he is guilty of?
Murder of the wife and section 18 grievous bodily harm (‘s18 GBH’) on the lover.(B) The most serious charges the husband is guilty of are murder of the wife and section 18 grievous bodily harm (‘s18 GBH’) on the lover. The definition of murder is causing the death of another human being, with intent to kill or cause GBH. Here, the husband intended to cause GBH and he caused the death of his wife, so the offence of murder is made out. We are told there are no defences available to the husband. This means that the charge of murder will not be reduced to manslaughter, and so (D) and (E) are wrong. A person commits s18 GBH when they cause a wound or serious bodily harm with the intent to cause serious harm. Here, the husband caused the lover serious harm with the baseball bat, and he intended to cause serious harm; this means the actus reus and mens rea of s18 GBH are satisfied. (A) is incorrect because the mens rea for attempted murder is an intention to kill. Here the husband did not intend to kill; he only intended to cause serious harm. (C) is incorrect because the mens rea for s20 GBH mens rea only requires intention or recklessness regarding causing some harm. Whilst this is also present, it is not the most serious charge.
