Crim law Flashcards
What are the elements of a loss of control?
The test for loss of control is that the defendant must
lose control,
there must be a qualifying trigger (serious fear of violence or justifiable sense of being seriously wrong),
a person who shares the defendant’s characteristics would react in the same way
BoP shifts back to pros
Where does the BoP lie for self defence?
The evidential burden falls on the party who must raise the elements, whether elements of the offence or defence.
The legal burden falls on the party who must prove those elements.
If a defendant wants to claim that they acted in self-defence, they must raise the defence, so the evidential burden lies there. However, once the defence has raised self-defence, it is for the prosecution to disprove the defence. Whenever the prosecution must prove (or disprove) an element of a case, the standard of proof is always beyond a reasonable doubt.
When will an intervening act break the chain of causation for murder?
third party intervention will only break the chain of causation if the act is free, deliberate, and informed
What is the difference b/w S-18 and S-20 GBH?
S-18: intention to cause SERIOUS harm or resist arrest
S-20: intention or recklessness to cause SOME harm
What are the difference elements of different types of burglary?
Under 9(1)(a): at the point of entry; intention or recklessness to commit theft, criminal damage or GBH
Under 9(1)(b): intention or recklessness to attempt or committing theft or GBH
What is the mens rea for accessorial liability?
Intention to assist or encourage the principal’s commission of crime
What are the elements of diminished responsibility?
- Abnormality of mental function that arose from recognised medical condition
- Abnormality substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to:
understand the nature of the conduct, form a rational judgement or exercise self control
BoP on def
Who has the BoP of diminished responsibility?
Defence (reversal)
What are the tets for self defence?
The first is the trigger: Did the defendant believe the use of force was necessary? This is a subjective test.
The second limb of the test is the response: Was the amount of force used reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be? This part of the test is objective
What is indirect intention?
The outcome is a virtual certainty, and the defendant foresees that the outcome is a virtual certainty (only avail for specific intent offences)
What kind of crimes are specific intent crimes?
Attempt
Encouragement and assistance
Murder
Wounding or causing GBH with intent (s18)
Theft
Robbery
Burglary
Fraud by false misrep
What kind of intent is required for attempt?
Specific intent (event if the crime attempted is not)
Specific intent crimes can ONLY be committed with intent and NOT recklessness
What is the intention required for theft?
Dishonesty +
Intention to permanently deprive
Whether the defendant’s behaviour is dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people (Objective standard)
What is the intent required to be liable under joint enterprise?
the participant must intend that the principal will commit the offence
What is the mens rea for attempted murder?
Intention to kill (NOT cause GBH as this is an attempt)
What kind of impossibility is a defence to an attempt?
Legal impossibility
(NOT factual impossibility)
What are the elements of unlawful act manslaughter?
intentional,
unlawful,
dangerous, and
caused the death
What are the elements of fraud by false misrep?
Dishonest and false representation
Intend to make a gain for themselves or loss to another
What are the elements of fraud by false misrep?
Dishonest misrer’false representation
Intend to make a gain for themselves or loss to another
A man approached the cashier at a local petrol station and offered to exchange a pair of sunglasses for some petrol. The cashier refused. The man then pulled a knife out of his pocket and told the cashier he wanted to fill up. The cashier, who was quite a bit older than the man, gave him some ‘fatherly advice’ that crime does not pay. In response to the advice, the man put the knife away. Feeling sorry for the man, the cashier then agreed to give the man some petrol for the sunglasses. The man then left. The cashier then discovered the man had taken the sunglasses from a display case in the store and clipped the tag off before offering them to the cashier. The man was arrested shortly thereafter.
With which offences should the prosecution charge the man?
The man should be charged with fraud by false representation and attempted robbery. Fraud by false representation requires that the defendant dishonestly make a false representation intending to make a gain for himself or a loss for another. Here the man dishonestly represented that the glasses were his, intending to make a gain for himself (the petrol). The man can also be convicted of attempted robbery because he attempted a taking of the property of another in the presence of the victim by force and with the intent to permanently deprive the victim of it. The fact that the man was persuaded not to carry out the robbery does not affect his liability for attempt; that crime was completed as soon as he pulled out a knife and demanded the petrol. He did an act that was more than merely preparatory. However, he did not actually obtain the petrol by use of force. Therefore, he did not commit robbery. theft occurs when the man intends to deprive the cashier of the glasses permanently.
Here, the man just wanted to use the glasses as a way to convince the cashier to give him petrol. It is arguable that the man’s actions were analogous to acting as the owner by clipping off the tag.
However, fraud by misrepresentation is more clearly made out and, therefore, a far more preferable charge to theft. As discussed above, the crime of attempted robbery was completed as soon as the man pulled the knife out of his pocket and demanded petrol
A defendant is charged with theft of a case of wine worth £100 from a grocery store. The defendant plans to plead not guilty.
Where will the case be heard?
The case can be heard in the Magistrates’ Court or Crown Court, depending on where the defendant elects trial. Whilst theft is ordinarily an either way offence, theft under the value of £200 is treated as summary only in that the Magistrates’ Court cannot decline jurisdiction. However, the defendant is able to elect Crown Court trial.
A defendant is standing trial for burglary. He is jointly charged with his nephew. The nephew pleads guilty before the start of the trial. Both the prosecution and the defendant want the nephew to give evidence. The nephew is tired of dealing with the criminal justice system and does not want to give evidence.
Which of the following best describes whether the defendant’s nephew will have to give evidence?
The nephew is competent and compellable for both the prosecution and defence. Co-defendants are not competent or compellable for the prosecution, but they are competent but not compellable for the defence. However, if a co-defendant pleads guilty or the case is dropped, the co-defendant becomes an ordinary witness. Ordinary witnesses are competent and compellable for both parties. Here, after pleading guilty, the nephew became an ordinary witness and is both competent and compellable for the prosecution and the defence. This means either side can force him to give evidence
A father takes his 9-year-old son to a deserted house. The father knocks on the door, and when there is no answer, he lifts his son up and pushes him through a small open window. On his father’s instructions, the son picks up several items of jewellery. Then he goes to the front door and opens it to let his father in. Before the father can enter, the police arrive.
Of which offence(s) could the father be convicted, if any?
The father could be convicted of both types of burglary. Here, the father can be liable for all offences as principal because he used an innocent agent; his son is beneath the age of criminal responsibility (10) and so cannot be criminally liable. A person commits burglary by trespass with intent when they knowingly or recklessly enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm, or cause criminal damage. Here, the boy entered the property as a trespasser with intent to commit theft. A person commits burglary by offence committed following trespass when, after having entered the building as a trespasser, they commit or attempt to commit theft or inflict or attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm. Here, once the boy was inside the property, he committed theft by taking the jewellery. The father can be liable for both of these offences as principal.
A man is sitting on a park bench, contemplating the silence. A jogger comes past and disturbs the stillness. Irritated, the man picks up a rock and throws it at the jogger, intending to hit the jogger with it. The rock misses the jogger and accidentally hits a church window. The man foresaw the risk that he might hit the window.
Which offences, if any, could the man be charged with?
The man could be charged with criminal damage and attempted battery.
The offence of criminal damage requires intentional or reckless damage or destruction of property belonging to another. Here, the man has damaged property belonging to a church. He foresaw the risk and, in the circumstances known to the man, it was an unreasonable risk to take, so he was reckless.
Battery is the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force upon another person. The man is not guilty of battery as there was no application of force onto the jogger.
Nevertheless, he took a step that was more than merely preparatory and he intended to commit the full offence, so he is guilty of attempted battery
what constitutes the requirements for a qualifying trigger for the purposes of the defence of loss of control?
Fear of serious violence or things said or done constituting circumstances of an extremely grave character which gave the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
Which kind of manslaughter does not require MR?
Involuntary manslaughter arises where the defendant commits the actus reus of killing but does not have the mens rea for murder.
There are four main categories of involuntary manslaughter: (i) Unlawful act manslaughter, also known as constructive manslaughter, where the offence is ‘constructed’ from another different crime, often called the base offence. The defendant must have committed an unlawful act that is dangerous and caused the victim’s death.
(ii) Manslaughter by gross negligence, which requires proof that the defendant owed the victim a duty of care, breached that duty in a grossly negligent way, and caused the victim’s death.
(iii) Corporate manslaughter, where an organisation’s activities are managed or organised in a way that causes a person’s death due to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care.
(iv) Subjective recklessness manslaughter, which is rarely invoked by the prosecution and thus not discussed in detail.
What would be sufficient to satisfy the actus reus requirements to make out a prima facie case for fraud by false representation?
Dishonestly making a false representation as to a fact.
Dishonestly making a false representation as to state of mind (for example, “I promise I intend to. . . “).
Dishonestly making a false representation as to law.
True or false? A person may be guilty of the separate crime of attempt if they merely plan to undertake action with the intent to complete an offence.
False, as attempt requires an act that is something more than merely preparatory, and planning is merely preparatory.
Can a person who completes an attempted offence be held criminally liable for both the attempt and the completed offence?
No
Which choice best completes the following sentence? For the defence of self-defence to be made out, a defendant must be acting:
To protect themselves, another, or property, or to prevent crime, or to effect a lawful arrest.
What is the mens rea for aggravated arson?
The mens rea for aggravated arson requires that the defendant intended to endanger the life of another or was subjectively reckless as to whether life would be endangered by the fire.
This is in addition to the requirement that the defendant intended to damage or destroy property or was reckless as to the damage or destruction of property.
