Criminal Flashcards
A female store clerk was robbed at gunpoint. Whilst giving the robber her purse, the clerk was hit over the head by the robber with his gun, causing the clerk exquisite pain. The clerk cried out, and the robber dropped his gun in panic and ran away. The clerk, overwhelmed with fury and unable to restrain herself, grabbed the gun and shot at the robber, intending to shoot him in the back. Unfortunately, the clerk missed the robber and hit an innocent bystander who immediately died.
Which of the following statements best reflects the charge that should be brought against the clerk?
The clerk should be charged with manslaughter because she suffered from a sufficient loss of control.
Feedback:
(B) The clerk should be charged with manslaughter because she suffered from a sufficient loss of control. Voluntary manslaughter is a killing that would be murder but for loss of control. Loss of control is sufficient to reduce a killing from murder to manslaughter if: (1) the defendant’s role in the killing resulted from a loss of self-control, (2) the defendant’s loss of self-control was caused by a qualifying trigger (here causing the woman to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged), and (3) a hypothetical person of defendant’s age and sex might have reacted in the same way. Here, the fact that the clerk was seriously assaulted and robbed could be a trigger to make a person lose control and act in that way. She acted very quickly and would not have time to cool down. She had the intent and loss of control for manslaughter. Under ‘transferred intent’, if a defendant intends to commit an offence against a person and in trying to carry out that intent commits the same offence against another, her intent is transferred. Therefore (A) is incorrect. (E) is also incorrect for the same reason. (C) is wrong because it ignores the partial defence of loss of control. (D) is also wrong because the fact that the clerk was not in danger is not required for a loss of control defence.
A student approached a reputed drug dealer to purchase cannabis, although the student knew it was a crime to possess or smoke cannabis. The student bought a ‘cannabis cigarette’, which was in fact only an ordinary tobacco cigarette, from the drug dealer. As the student left the drug dealer’s presence, he lit the cigarette, whereupon he was immediately arrested by a police officer who was keeping an eye on the dealer.
If the student is charged with attempt to possess cannabis, what should be the outcome?
The student should be found guilty, because he did acts that were more than preparatory in order to obtain an illegal drug.
Feedback:
(D) The student can be convicted of an attempt to be in possession of cannabis. A person commits attempt when he does something more than merely preparatory toward the commission of an underlying crime. Here, possession of cannabis is illegal, and the student did something more than preparatory; he actually purchased what he thought was a cannabis cigarette. (A) is incorrect. Factual impossibility—that it was physically impossible to complete the crime intended under the factual circumstances—is not a defence to attempt. Legal impossibility (that doing everything intended is not a crime) is a defence. Here, had the circumstances been as the student believed them to be—that is, had the cigarette contained cannabis—the student would be guilty of the substantive offence. Thus, impossibility is not a defence in this case. (B) is incorrect because all attempt crimes are specific intent crimes, not strict liability crimes. Thus, whether the underlying drug offence in question here was a strict liability crime is irrelevant. (C) is incorrect because for attempt what matters is what the defendant intended to do, not what he actually achieved. (E) is incorrect. It is not necessary for there to be more than one officer or piece of evidence for a conviction. No corroboration is required.
Whilst walking through a park, a man was confronted by a homeless person who began shouting at the man and following him. The man continued walking, but the homeless person followed and continued shouting at the man. As the man turned down a new pathway, the homeless person blocked the man’s way. The man then shoved the homeless person. In retaliation, the homeless person punched the man in the face. A police officer saw the homeless person punch the man and arrested him. The homeless person was charged with simple assault and raised self-defence.
Which of the following best describes the burden and standard of proof on this defence?
It is for the defence to raise self-defence, the legal burden lies with the prosecution, and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Feedback:
Hide question 3 feedback
(C) The legal burden falls on the party who must prove the elements. The standard of proof is the level to which that party must discharge the burden. It is for the defence to raise self-defence. However, once the defendant has raised the defence, it is for the prosecution to disprove the defence, so the prosecution has the legal burden. Whenever the prosecution must prove (or disprove) an element of a case, the standard is always beyond a reasonable doubt.
For the past two years, a small town was besieged by a wave of crimes. Investigations all pointed to the same suspect. When the authorities had gathered enough evidence, they arrested the suspect. The Crown Prosecution Service would like to prosecute the suspect for each crime, but they would like an easy victory to start with. To that end, they would like to begin with a crime which does not require proof of intent.
Which of the following offences does not require proof of intent?
Criminal damage
Feedback:
(C) Criminal damage is unlawful damage to another person’s property caused intentionally or recklessly. A defendant can be guilty of criminal damage by being reckless. Theft requires intent to deprive another of property permanently, so (A) is incorrect. (B) and (E) are therefore also wrong, as they require the same intention. Attempt requires an intention to commit the full offence, and so (D) is incorrect.
A man decided to apply for a job at a children’s home. There was a section on the application form asking for details of criminal convictions. The man left the section blank. The man did in fact have one conviction for criminal damage five years previously. However, he was not offered the job.
What offence, if any, has the man committed?
Fraud by failure to disclose, because he did not disclose his conviction, which he had a legal duty to do, in order to make a gain for himself.
Feedback:
(D) The man is guilty of fraud by failure to disclose. A defendant is guilty of fraud by failing to disclose information if he dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and intends, by failing to disclose the information, (1) to make a gain for himself or another or (2) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. Here, there was a legal duty to disclose past convictions, and the man did not do so with the intention to make a gain for himself. (A) and (B) are incorrect because the question of relevance or whether the conviction is spent is not relevant to whether the man failed to disclose. The man could argue that he should not be obliged to answer this question. However, where he fails to fill the section in and he is required to do so, he commits an offence if he does so for gain (or loss to another). (C) is incorrect because there is no requirement that the person succeed in the goal of the false representation. (E) is incorrect because by not writing anything in the section, it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove that the man made an actual misrepresentation, because he did not write “I have no convictions”.
A man’s neighbour constantly complains that the man does not keep his garden in good condition. To aggravate the neighbour, the man takes an axe to the fence that separates the man’s garden from that of his neighbour. The fence belonged to the man, but the neighbour had helped the man build it the previous year to keep the gardens better separated. The neighbour calls the police and complains that the man chopped down the fence with an axe.
Can the man be held guilty of criminal damage to property?
No, because the actus reus requirement cannot be satisfied under the circumstances.
Feedback:
(B) The man cannot be prosecuted because the actus reus—or physical act—needed to be guilty of criminal damage is not present. The crime arises when a person destroys or damages property belonging to another, either intentionally or recklessly. Here, the fence belonged to the man. (A) is incorrect because the fact the neighbour helped build the fence does nothing to change the fact that it was the man’s fence. (C), (D), and (E) are incorrect because the man’s intent, the cause of the man’s actions, and the method the man used to destroy the fence are irrelevant.
A woman happened to have the same name as a famous local celebrity. Coincidentally, they also shared the same birthday. The woman went to an electronics shop to buy a new smartphone. She decided to buy it on credit because she had little money. The woman truthfully filled out the store’s credit application. The woman was mistaken for the celebrity and knew that when she purchased the smartphone. As a result, she was approved for credit beyond her means. She knew that she might not be able to make payments for the phone when due, but she intended to pay them. After several months of nonpayments, the shop realised that they had made a mistake and reported the woman to the police.
What charge is likely to be brought against the woman?
The woman should be charged with theft, because when she obtained the item she was being dishonest under an objective standard.
Feedback:
(A) The woman should be charged with theft. A person is guilty of theft if she dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. A person acts dishonestly if a reasonable and honest person would deem the behaviour dishonest. Here, the woman was dishonest because she knew of the mistake when she took the smartphone. A reasonable and honest person would not have accepted credit beyond their means knowing of the mistake. And although the woman intended to pay for the smartphone, she did intend on keeping it. Thus, (E) is incorrect. The woman is not guilty of fraud by misrepresentation (B), because this crime requires a misrepresentation. Here, the woman did not make any misrepresentations; she gave her correct name and date of birth. The woman is not guilty of fraud by failing to disclose information (C) because that crime requires the nondisclosure of information the defendant was under a duty to disclose, and here there is no evidence that the woman had a legal duty to disclose the fact she was not the celebrity. Normally, there must be a fiduciary relationship between the two parties, and there was no such relationship here. (D) is incorrect because the crime of fraud by abuse of position involves the defendant abusing their position in which they are expected to safeguard another’s financial interests, which was not the situation here. (E) is incorrect as theft is made out here.
A gastric surgeon discovers that his wife is having an affair. Although he is distraught, he decides to perform a scheduled surgery on a patient with colon cancer, thinking that any delay would decrease the chances of a good outcome for his patient. During the operation, the surgeon’s mind wanders and he accidentally severs a major artery in the patient. No competent surgeon would have made the error; the surgeon’s actions were extremely negligent. Since the patient was already in a weakened state from the cancer, he dies as a result of the doctor’s negligence.
Can the surgeon be held criminally liable for the patient’s death?
Yes, because the surgeon’s actions were extremely negligent.
Feedback:
(D) The surgeon could be held liable for gross negligence manslaughter because his actions were grossly negligent. Gross negligence manslaughter covers cases where a person does not commit a criminal offence or knowingly take a risk, or intend to kill, but acts in such an extremely negligent way that he should be punished. The offence requires that there is (1) a duty of care, (2) a breach of the duty of care, (3) a causal link between the breach and the victim’s death, (4) a risk of death, and (5) that the defendant’s action or inaction is so bad as to amount to an offence. The surgeon owes his patient a duty of care, he breached the standard of care expected of a reasonable surgeon, factual and legal causation are satisfied, there is an obvious risk of death, and it appears the action is so negligent it merits criminal sanction. (A) is incorrect. Intent to kill is required for murder, and it is true the surgeon lacked this intent. But the surgeon’s actions were sufficient for gross negligence manslaughter, a type of involuntary manslaughter. (B) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. It is true that sexual infidelity alone is not a sufficient trigger for the defence of loss of control, which would reduce a conviction from murder to voluntary manslaughter. However, as stated above, the surgeon lacks the necessary mens rea for murder in any event, so the defence of loss of control is not relevant. (C) is incorrect because it does not matter that the surgeon’s actions were not unlawful. A person can commit involuntary manslaughter if the person undertakes an unlawful act and death results, but that is not the only type of involuntary manslaughter. As explained above, the surgeon’s actions here amount to gross negligence manslaughter. (E) is incorrect because it does not matter that the victim was in a weakened state. Criminals take their victims as they find them. It does not break the chain of causation.
A woman and a man got into an argument in a pub over who was the best football player of all time. The woman lost control of her temper and threw her pint glass at the man. The glass hit the man on the forearm, causing a deep gash. The woman called for an ambulance, and the man was taken to hospital. It was determined that the man needed surgery. Unfortunately, the anaesthetist on the case had been drinking heavily. As a result, the anaesthetist was extremely negligent and gave the man five times the appropriate amount of anaesthetic. The man died as a result.
If the woman is prosecuted on a charge of involuntary manslaughter, will she likely be convicted?
The woman will not likely be convicted of involuntary manslaughter because the anaesthetist’s actions broke the chain of causation.
Feedback:
(C) The woman will not likely be convicted of involuntary manslaughter because the anaesthetist’s actions broke the chain of causation. Involuntary manslaughter is committed when a person kills another without the intent to kill but rather during the commission of a criminal act that carries an objective risk to the victim and the victim dies, or where the defendant owes the victim a duty of care and they breach that duty. Arguably, throwing a pint glass at a person carries an objective risk. However, causation is still required. Here, the anaesthetist was extremely negligent. Whilst ordinary medical negligence will not likely be held to break the chain of causation, extreme negligence (gross negligence) can. Poor medical treatment will break the chain of causation where it is so independent of the original harm and so potent that it renders the original harm insignificant. That is arguably the case here, as the cut contributed nothing to the victim’s death, save for bringing the victim to hospital in the first place. (A) is incorrect because intent to kill is not required for involuntary manslaughter; that is an element of murder. So, it does not matter that the woman did not intend to kill her friend. (B) is incorrect because it, too, is related to the wrong crime. Loss of control is related to voluntary manslaughter, which is a partial defence to murder and not relevant here. (D) is incorrect. The doctrine of indirect intent allows intent to be found from a person’s actions. Again, we do not need intent to kill for involuntary manslaughter, and so the doctrine is not relevant here. (E) is incorrect. The woman had sufficient mens rea here. She intentionally threw the pint glass at her friend, which is a sufficient unlawful act on which to base an involuntary manslaughter conviction.
A girlfriend tells her boyfriend that she is leaving him for another man. Overwhelmed with anger, the boyfriend grabs his girlfriend by the hair and drags her to the floor and then releases her. The girlfriend is afraid but unharmed. The boyfriend then grabs his jacket and leaves, ashamed of what he has done.
Can the boyfriend be charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
No, because there was no injury.
Feedback:
(E) The boyfriend cannot be charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (‘ABH’) because there was no injury. ABH requires there to be an assault or battery which results in harm which is more than minimal. Here, the boyfriend committed a battery—an application of unlawful force—by grabbing his girlfriend by the hair and dragging her to the floor. However, we are told that the girlfriend was unharmed. (A) and (D) are incorrect as they are defences which are available only to charges of murder. (B) is incorrect as it is a defence that no longer exists, as it has been replaced with loss of control. (C) is incorrect as fear is not enough to amount to ABH. If the girlfriend suffered psychiatric harm, that would be sufficient.
A husband and wife decided to rob a local shop. The husband came into the store carrying a knife and threatened the shopkeeper to get him to open the till. Whilst the husband was taking money from the till and holding the knife to the shopkeeper’s throat, he told his wife to go into the back of the shop to see if there was anything else there they could take. The wife did so, walking through a door marked ‘Private’, but she found nothing worth taking and returned to her husband’s side.
For what offences could the wife be found guilty?
Robbery and burglary only.
Feedback:
(C) The wife could be found guilty of robbery and burglary only. Robbery is the taking of another person’s property through use of force or by putting the victim in fear. The husband and wife are co-principals in this crime. A principal is one who commits the act and has the required mental state at the time. Here, both the husband and the wife intended that the husband use force to obtain money from the shopkeeper. The fact that the wife did not actually hold the knife is irrelevant. The couple were acting together. Likewise, both are guilty of burglary. A burglary can arise from knowingly or recklessly entering a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intent to steal, inflict great bodily harm, or cause criminal damage. At the least, the wife became a trespasser when she went through a door marked ‘Private’ after the husband had asked her to do so. At that time, she was looking for items to steal. Thus, the burglary was completed at the time of the trespass; it does not matter that the wife did not find anything worth stealing. (A) and (D) are incorrect because spouses cannot conspire together as a matter of law. (B) is incorrect because aggravated burglary requires the burglar to have a weapon with her at the time of the burglary, and the wife had no weapon with her. (E) is incorrect because the wife also committed burglary.
An actor attends a plastic surgeon in order to have their lips injected with fillers, to give them a fuller appearance. The plastic surgeon carries out the procedure in accordance with their agreement. Once the procedure is completed, the actor is distraught at their appearance. The actor says their career is over as they will never be able to get any work with their lips looking how they do.
What offence, if any, is the plastic surgeon guilty of?
None.
(E) The surgeon is guilty of no crime. Whilst the surgeon has caused an ‘injury’ in that they have altered the actor’s appearance, this was done in accordance with their instruction and so with their consent. Whilst it is not ordinarily possible to consent to injury, surgery (including cosmetic surgery) is an exception to this rule. Consequently, whilst the actor may be unhappy, there is no criminal liability.
A woman is in a café with her friend drinking coffee. A stranger comes over and tries to join in their conversation. When he is ignored, the stranger starts nudging the friend’s arm with increasing determination. He then pushes the friend forcefully and she falls over. The woman punches the stranger hard in the face.
Which of the following best describes whether the woman can rely on self-defence for punching the stranger in the face?
She can rely on self-defence if she believed force was necessary, and the amount of force was reasonable in the circumstances as she believed them to be.
Feedback:
(B) The woman can rely on self-defence if she believed force was necessary, and the amount of force was reasonable in the circumstances as she believed them to be. There are two limbs to the defence of self-defence. The first is the trigger: Did the defendant believe the use of force was necessary? This is a subjective test. For this reason, (D) and (E) are incorrect, as they list the trigger test as being objective. 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. For this reason, (A) is incorrect, as it lists the response as being subjective. (C) is incorrect as self-defence can be used in protection of oneself, another, or property.
A husband is having an affair. The wife discovers the affair and leaves the husband, taking their three children. The husband is furious. He agrees with his lover that they will attack the wife with a hammer and break her legs, to punish her for abandoning the marriage. The husband and lover go to the wife’s house and await her return home. When she arrives, the lover hits the wife repeatedly with the hammer, whilst the husband shouts encouragement. The wife dies from the injuries she sustains.
Which of the following best describes the husband and lover’s liability?
The husband and lover will both be liable for murder as co-principals.
Feedback:
(A) The husband and lover will both be liable for murder as co-principals. Under the joint enterprise doctrine, a secondary participant in a crime can be criminally liable as a co-principal if they assisted or encouraged the commission of the crime and intended to assist or encourage the commission of the crime committed by the principal. Here, the husband assisted or encouraged the commission of serious bodily harm, intending the lover to commit serious bodily harm. As the mens rea for murder is satisfied by an intention to commit grievous bodily harm, both the husband and the lover have satisfied the mens rea, and both will be held liable as co-principals under the concept of joint enterprise. (B) and (C) are incorrect, as here the husband can be held liable for murder as a co-principal. (D) is incorrect, as there is no suggestion of loss of control or diminished responsibility here. (E) is incorrect, as both have the mens rea for murder.
A car owner asked a mechanic to change the tyres on his car. They agreed to a price of £200 to be paid when the car was picked up. The mechanic changed the tyres and telephoned the owner to come pick up the car and pay for the tyres. Not wanting to pay for the tyres, the car owner told his friend that the car was ready, but that he could not go get it. He explained the tyres were already paid for, gave the friend a key, and asked the friend to pick up the car. The friend duly did so.
Will the car owner likely be found guilty of theft?
Yes, because the friend took the car without the mechanic’s permission.
(D) The car owner would likely be found guilty of theft. Theft is the appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to deprive that person of it permanently. It is possible to steal your own property if someone – for example, a mechanic – has superior right to possession at that time. Therefore (A) is wrong. (B) is wrong because even if the car owner had not made a promise to pay for the tyres, he incurred the obligation by having the work done. (C) is wrong because the mechanic has superior title to the car at that time, not just the tyres. (E) is also wrong because a person can use an innocent agent, in this case the car owner’s friend, to commit a crime.
