Criminal L/P: EXTRA Flashcards
Can the prosecution prove a case to answer with just circumstantial evidence
Yes if the evidence is capable of supporting a conviction.
Theft: do you intend to permanently deprive if you steal money intending to pay it back?
YES because you cant return the same notes if you spend them
Is a psychiatric condition relevant when deciding if someone used reasonable force in self defence?
No
When will you be involuntarily intoxicated?
- No knowledge you were taking drug/drink
- Taking a non-dangerous or prescribed drug which has an unusual side effect
Elements of defence of intoxication
Voluntary intoxication
(a) Offences of basic intent: NO defence
(b) Offences of specific intent: Defence if lack MR
Involuntary Intoxication
Defence if lacked MR
Householder and self defence: does it apply if the person is in your garden/drive?
No, must be in or partially in the dwelling?
Attempts: what is not sufficient for the MR of attempted murder
MUST have an intention to kill, an intention to cause GBH is not sufficient
AR and MR of accomplice liability
AR: Aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of the offence
MR: Intend to do act/say words AND knowledge of relevant circumstances
1. Full knowledge
2. Type of crime
3. Limited range of crime
What is aiding?
- Physically helping, assisting or supporting the principal
- BEFORE or DURING (Eg. look out/holding v down)
- No mental/causal link required
What is Abetting?
Encourage principal DURIN
Mental link need
What is counselling?
Instigating, soliciting, encouraging or threatening the principal to commit the offence BEFORE
Mental link needed
What is procuring?
- ‘to produce by endeavour’
=the accused sets out to achieve a particular state of affairs and takes appropriate steps to bring about that offence. - BEFORE
No mental link but YES Causal link required
For the AR of accomplice liability, when is a mental or causal link required?
Niether: aiding
Mental: Abetting and counselling
Causal: Procuring
If a client pleads guilty, can you put forward facts in mitigation that would constitute a defence eg. a guilty plea based on self defence as mitigation
No
Elements of causation for AR
- FACTUAL CAUSATION: But for Ds conduct would the result have occurred as and when it did?
- LEGAL CAUSATION : substantial and operating cause, need not be the sole cause, attributable to a culpable act or omission, more than a minimal cause of the consequence
- NEW INTERVENING ACTS
How to establish dishonesty (eg. for theft)
- Clear dishonesty?
- Partial definitions:
*belief legal right
*belief in owners consent
*belief owner cant be found - Ivey v Genting Casinos test:
*ascertain Ds subjective knowledge
*was conduct dishonest by standard of ordinary decent people
Burglary: what must ‘entry’ be?
Effective and substantial
AR/MR fraud by false representation
AR: Making a representation and that representation is false
MR: Dishonesty AND intend to make a gain for themselves or another, to cause loss to another, or to expose another to a risk of loss
AR/MR fraud by failing to disclose information
AR: Fail to disclose to another person information which they are under a legal duty to disclose.
MR: Dishonesty AND intend to make a gain for themselves or another, to cause loss to another, or to expose another to a risk of loss
AR/MR fraud by abuse of position
AR: Occupy a position in which they are expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person AND Abuse of that position by act or omission
MR: Dishonesty AND intend to make a gain for themselves or another, to cause loss to another, or to expose another to a risk of loss
Fraud by failing to disclose: does ‘legal duty’ include written contracts?
Yes
AR/MR simple criminal damage
AR: damage or destruction of property belonging to another without lawful excuse
MR:
(a) intend or be reckless as to damage or destruction of property
(b) know or be reckless as to whether the property belongs to another.
AR/MR aggravated criminal damage
AR: Damage or destruction of property belonging to SELFor another
MR:
(b) intend or be reckless as to whether any property is damaged or destroyed.
(c ) intend by the destruction of damage to endanger the life of another or be reckless as to whether another’s life may be endangered by that damage or destruction.
Crim damage: 2 types of lawful excuse
- Honest belief in the owner’s consent
- Protection of property
Crim dam, lawful excuse: elements of protection of property
1. Was D’s (real) purpose the protection of property?
(a) honestly believed action capable of protecting property (subjective)
(b) does this purpose amount to the purpose of protecting property (objective)
2. Immediate need of protection?
(a) did D honestly believe property was in immediate need of protection (subjective)
(b) did D honestly believe the means adopted were reasonable in the circumstances (subjective)
Can you rely on lawful excuse if intoxicated?
lawful excuse is available for a genuine but drunken mistake
Elements of self defence/defence of another?
- Did D believe it was necessary to use such force (subjective)
- Was the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be?
Self defence: can you rely on a mistaken belief?
D judges on facts as they honestly believe them to be even if mistaken
Applies even if belief unreasonable
BUT if mistake an unreasonable one to make, jury may conclude that it was not honestly held
If asking the court to take into account additional offences, when will they take these into account?
If of a similar nature to or less serious than the current offence
When can a custody officer remand a suspect in custody
a) CO has reasonable grounds for believing that detaining the suspect without charge is necessary to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence for which they are under arrest; or
(b) it is necessary to obtain such evidence by questioning
