Criminal Flashcards
A defendant, during a heated argument with a friend, reaches into their jacket and says, “I have something that will end this right now.” The friend, who knows the defendant often carries a firearm, sees the defendant’s hand move towards their jacket pocket. The defendant, however, does not actually have a firearm at that moment.
Has the defendant committed an assault under the requirements of apprehending immediate and unlawful personal violence?
Yes, because the friend believed that the defendant might inflict immediate unlawful violence.
A financial advisor works at an established financial consulting firm. A long-term client entrusts the advisor with the management of her investment portfolio worth £2 million. the advisor, aware that he can access some high-risk but high-reward investment opportunities through his brother’s unregulated investment firm, decides to transfer £500,000 of the client’s portfolio to this firm without her explicit consent, intending to take advantage of favourable commissions.
Has the advisor committed fraud by abusing his position under s 4 Fraud Act 2006?
Yes, because the advisor misused his authority to make financial decisions for the client without her consent, contrary to her best financial interests.
A person captures a wild deer from a public forest and plans to sell it to a private hunting estate. The deer had been roaming freely and was not part of any farmed population. The local wildlife authority is made aware of this and charges the individual with theft under the Theft Act 1968.
Does the individual’s action constitute theft under the Theft Act 1968?
No, because wild animals not ordinarily kept in captivity are not considered property under the statute.
A defendant, threateningly brandishing a knife, approached a cashier during a bank robbery and demanded money. The cashier did not feel fear but was aware that force could be used against them if they did not comply. The incident was caught on surveillance camera which showed the defendant’s aggressive demeanor.
Does the defendant’s action of brandishing the knife fulfill the requirement of putting the person in fear for the purpose of establishing robbery?
Yes, because the cashier apprehended that immediate force might be used against them.” This is correct because the requirement for “putting a person in fear” in the context of robbery is satisfied if the victim apprehends that immediate force might be used against them. It is not necessary for the victim to actually feel fear; the apprehension of force is sufficient.
A man entered a forest and set a trap to catch wild rabbits to bring home for his family’s dinner. He caught three wild rabbits which he took back to his home. Two months later, the gamekeeper discovered the trap and reported the incident to the local authorities. The man was then accused of theft under Section 4(4) of the Theft Act 1968.
41263
Do the rabbits constitute property for the purpose of theft under Section 4(4) of the Theft Act 1968?
Yes, because the wild rabbits were in the course of being reduced into possession by the man when he caught them in the trap.
This is because Section 4(4) of the Theft Act 1968 states that although wild animals not ordinarily kept in captivity cannot generally be stolen, they can be considered property capable of being stolen once they are in the course of being reduced into possession. The act of setting the trap and catching the rabbits makes them “reduced into possession.”
A defendant is on trial for grievous bodily harm after a bar fight. He admits to hitting the other person but claims it was in self-defence. During the trial, the prosecution presents evidence showing that the defendant initiated the altercation. The defence introduces evidence that the other person was threatening the defendant with a broken bottle just before the fight ensued.
What is the correct standard of proof that the jury must apply when determining the defendant’s guilt and the validity of the self-defence claim?
The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while the defendant must raise enough evidence to suggest self-defence applies, and then the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it does not.
This is because, in criminal law, the prosecution has the burden to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Once the defence raises the possibility of self-defence, the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt for the jury to convict the defendant.
In a criminal trial for murder, the defendant raises the defence of diminished responsibility. The defendant argues that due to a recognised mental health condition, they should not be held fully responsible for their actions. The prosecution contests this defence.
Who carries the burden of proving the defence of diminished responsibility, and to what standard?
The defendant, on the balance of probabilities.
This is because, in criminal law, when the defendant raises the defence of diminished responsibility, the burden of proof lies with the defendant. The standard of proof required in such a case is ‘on the balance of probabilities,’ which is a lower standard than ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’
A defendant, during a robbery, stabs a victim in the abdomen. The victim is taken to the hospital where doctors recommend surgery to repair internal damage and stop internal bleeding. The victim, citing religious reasons, refuses the surgery. Despite the doctors’ warnings that refusing surgery could be fatal, the victim insists. The victim dies two days later due to internal bleeding.
Can the defendant be held liable for the victim’s death?
Yes, because the defendant must take the victim as they find them, including their refusal of medical treatment.
A woman, wanting to frighten a rival, threw a lit firework into the rival’s garden. The firework exploded and caused minor burns to the rival’s hand. Panicked and in pain, the rival ran inside his house and knocked over a lit candle, causing a fire that resulted in significant property damage. The woman’s defence argues that the rival’s act of knocking over the candle was a free, deliberate, and informed act that breaks the chain of causation.
Is the woman likely to be held liable for the property damage caused by the fire?
Yes, because the rival’s act of knocking over the candle was not a free, deliberate, and informed response.
A defendant violently attacked a victim stabbing him in the course of a robbery. The victim was taken to the hospital and informed by doctors that a blood transfusion was necessary to save his life. However, the victim, due to his personal and religious beliefs, refused the treatment. The victim subsequently died from blood loss. The defendant is charged with murder and argues that the victim’s refusal of medical treatment breaks the chain of causation, absolving the defendant of liability.
Is the defendant’s argument that the refusal of medical treatment breaks the chain of causation likely to succeed?
No, the refusal of medical treatment does not break the chain of causation.
This is because, according to the precedent set in R v Blaue, a defendant must take their victim as they find them, including their personal beliefs. The refusal of medical treatment, even if it leads to death, does not break the chain of causation as the original wound inflicted by the defendant was still the operating and substantial cause of death.
