Criminal Law 1 Flashcards

Question

What are conduct crimes

Answer 1

Criminal offenses that are defined by the actions of an individual, rather than by the consequences of those actions Must be voluntary to give rise to criminal liability Must be in control of their own body and mind

Answer 2

Theft Assault Drug possession

Answer 3

Focus on the outcome of a person's actions

Answer 4

Homicide Centers on the death of an individual, regardless of the perpetrator's intent

Answer 5

Requires a positive act, known as "actus reus," which refers to the physical act or conduct that constitutes a crime Requirement of positive action is also consistent with the idea of being responsible for doing something wrong

Answer 6

Criminal liability based upon prohibition is simple - Something is prohibited and a person will be liable if he acts in contravention of that prohibition Because inaction is infinite it makes an unsatisfactory basis for criminal liability But in some cases failure to act can lead to liability but only where there is a legal duty to act

Answer 7

A legal obligation to assist someone in peril, but it varies by jurisdiction In many places, there is no general duty to rescue, meaning individuals aren't legally required to help others in distress unless a special relationship exists (like between parent and child, or in certain professional contexts) English law does not compel people to do good deeds, only not to do bad things

Answer 8

An interference with individual liberty Wrongful action or wrongful inaction? Difficult to prove whether the original jeopardy or the failure to rescue cause death Are practical problems with inexpert rescuers

Answer 9

In English law, actus reus of an offence can only be satisfied by an omission if the defendant was under a duty to act

Answer 10

Imposed by statute Due to the existence of a contract Nature of relationship creates a duty Has been a voluntary assumption of care

Answer 11

Statute may impose an obligation to act in specific circumstances in which case a failure to act in the way required will satisfy the requirements of the offence

Answer 12

s6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 Creates a obligation for motorists to provide a specimen of breath if required to do so Failure to comply with this duty to act is an offence

Answer 13

What action the contract in question requires to be done A failure to perform a contractual duty can satisfy the actus reus of an offence

Answer 14

Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37  Defendant was responsible for the manual operation of a level crossing  Failed to close the gates one day and the victim was struck by a train and died

Answer 15

Accepted that parents have a duty to act in relation to minor children

Answer 16

Evan [2009] EWCA Crim 650 - Mother was liable for manslaughter for failing to summon help when her 16 yr old daughter collapsed after taking heroin - Her older sister was not liable of their relationship (but was liable as she supplied the drugs)

Answer 17

Law presumes that those who take on responsibility of care of others will not abandon it once it has been assumed

Answer 18

Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354 - CoA ruled that the defendants had assumed a duty towards the victim who was vulnerable and anorexic after she came to live in their home - They sporadically tried to get her medical assistance, brought her food and helped her to wash - Was held that their efforts to provide care gave rise to an ongoing duty which obliged the defendants to summon help of to care for the victim more effectively to safeguard her health - Their failure to do this led to their liability for manslaughter when the victim died

Answer 19

The link between a defendant's actions and the ultimate harm or consequence that results from those actions in a legal context

Answer 20

 Factual causation  Legal causation  Absence of a novus actus interveniens

Answer 21

An event or act that occurs after the defendant's conduct and contributes to the harm, potentially altering the defendant's liability Chain of causation between act and death must be unbroken

Answer 22

Defendant must be a ‘but for’ cause of the prohibited result ‘But for’ the defendant’s actions, would the victim have died in the same way at the same time? Establishes a preliminary link between the defendant’s act and the victim’s death Necessary but not sufficient Is not enough to solely establish actus reus

Answer 23

White [1910] 2 KB 124 (CA) - Defendant poisoned his mother’s drink intending to kill her but she died of a heart attack before the poison had time to work

Answer 24

‘But for’ event is not necessarily enough to be a legally effective cause

Answer 25

Hughes [2013] UKSC 56, [2013] 1 WLR 2461 If a woman who asked her neighbour to go to the station in his car to collect her husband would be held to have caused her husband’s death if he perished in a fatal road accident on the way home By the test of common sense, whilst the driving by Mr Hughes created the opportunity for his car to be run into by Mr Dickinson, what brought about the latter's death was his own dangerous driving under the influence of drugs Was a matter of the merest chance that what he hit when he veered onto the wrong side of the road for the last of several times was the oncoming vehicle which Mr Hughes was driving He might just as easily have gone off the road and hit a tree, in which case nobody would suggest that his death was caused by the planting of the tree, although that too would have been a sine qua non (without which, not)

Answer 26

Role is to isolate the culpable cause(s) of the prohibited result Needs not be the main cause of death of the most immediate cause of death but it must make a significant contribution to the victim’s death Is a policy-driven tool that is used to determine which of the factual causes is the one that is legally significant in causing the prohibited result

Answer 27

Wallace [2018] EWCA Crim 690 - Defendant threw acid at victim causing widespread life-altering injuries leaving him in constant pain - Died as a result of euthanasia in Belgium - Issue in case was whether defendant was legal cause of victim’s death - CoA held that the acts of the victim and the doctors ‘were not sensibly divisible’ and ‘that the doctors’ (unlawful) conduct in carrying out with their hands what he could not carry out with his own was but one link in the chain of events instigated by the defendant’

Answer 28

Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 - Solider stabbed with bayonet - Was dropped twice on the way to medical centre where he received incorrect medical treatment - If at time of death original wound is still an operating cause and a substantial cause, then death can properly be said to be result of the wound albeit that some other cause of death is also operating - Only if it can be said that the original wounding is merely the setting in which another cause operates can it be said that the death does not result from the wound - Only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make original wound merely part of the history can it be said that the death does not flow from the wound

Answer 29

"Take your victim as you find him" rule A legal principle in tort law that holds a defendant liable for the full extent of a plaintiff's injuries, even if those injuries are more severe than what might be expected due to a pre-existing condition So existence of a medical condition that makes the victim especially vulnerable to injury will not allow the defendant to avoid liability

Answer 30

Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 141 - Defendant stabbed victim necessitating hospital treatment - Her life would have been saved by a blood transfusion but was refused on religious grounds - Defendant argued this broke the chain of causation as original injuries were no longer an operating and substantial cause of death - Defendant should have taken victim as they found them - Stab wound caused her death - Fact the victim refused to stop this end coming did not break the causal connection between the act and death

Answer 31

Defendant will only be relieved of responsibility in extreme circumstances as his original act put the victim at risk of death A novus actus interveniens will only rarely take over the cause of death Is possible for both the original defendant and the person who causes the intervening act to be liable Will break chain of causation if it takes over as an independent cause of death

Answer 32

Poor quality of incorrect medical treatment will only very rarely break the chain of causation

Answer 33

Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 - Defendant shot the victim who needed hospital treatment including a tracheostomy - 2 months later complications from the tracheotomy led to the victim’s death - Was that medical treatment only breaks the chain of causation in ‘most extraordinary and unusual circumstances’ when the medical treatment is independent of the defendant’s acts and ‘so potent in causing death’ that the defendant’s contribution is insignificant - Question is not what was the dominant cause of death but whether the defendant’s act was a significant cause of death

Answer 34

Start with actus res Identify what prohibits it Assess if was defendant's purpose to engage in the prohibited conduct or to cause the prohibited consequence

Answer 35

Malice afterthought Covers both intention to kill and intention to cause serious harm

Answer 36

Express malice

Answer 37

Implied malice

Answer 38

Very difficult to know what someone is thinking Creates problems for the law in establishing mens rea as is based upon defendant’s thoughts and defendant can deny having the requisite thoughts at the time of the prohibited act But law would be ineffective if it allowed denial to allow a defendant to avoid liability

Answer 39

Court/Jury in determining whether person has committed offence -Shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended/foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions BUT -Shall decide whether he did intend/foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances

Answer 40

* Courts are clear that a person might intend to bring about a particular result whilst at the same time not desiring it to happen * If it is not the defendant’s stated intention to cause death/serious injury, such intention will only be found if the defendant was aware that the death/serious injury was a virtual certainty of his actions

Answer 41

How probable were the consequences?  The answer must be ‘virtual certain’ Did the defendant foresee that consequence?  If yes, they were intended

Answer 42

* The defendant acts with the purpose of causing death/grievous bodily harm, * Defendant does the prohibited conduct and causes prohibited consequences (victim’s death) * Easy to understand the blameworthiness of the defendant’s state of mind

Answer 43

* Defendant acts with some other purpose but is aware death of serious injury is inevitable * Defendant does something that causes the prohibited consequence (victim’s death) * May be harder to recognise the blameworthiness of the defendant’s state of mind

Answer 44

“But I meant to kill someone else…” What if the defendant did intend to kill person A but it is person B who dies? - Mens rea of murder doesn’t require that the defendant intends to kill a particular person, just a person, and so intention to kill or cause serious harm is a general one that is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim * Mens rea cannot transfer to an offence of a different kind

Answer 45

R V Saunders and Archer (1573) 2 Plowd 473 (HC)  First defendant wanted to kill his wife so that he could marry another woman  He baked an apple with arsenic and gave it to his wife  She ate a small piece and gave the rest to her three-year old daughter who died as a result Was held that the defendant had an intention to kill when he gave his wife the apple and the fact that the wrong person died was immaterial to his liability  It would have been different if he had set poison to kill rats around the house and it had been eaten by a person who died as a result as there would be no intention to kill that could transfer to a different victim

Answer 46

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245 (HL)  Considered whether mens rea could transfer from a pregnant women to an unborn child  The defendant stabbed his partner in the abdomen intending to cause her serious harm  If she had died, he would have had the mens rea for murder  She went into premature labour 17 days later  The child survived for 121 days  The defendant was acquitted of the child’s murder and the Attorney-General referred the case to the Court of Appeal under s36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 for clarification on the point of law  The House of Lords affirmed that an unborn child is not a person who can be capable of being killed for the purposes of murder as it is not capable of life independent of the mother  As such, the doctrine of transferred malice could not operate to give rise to liability for the death of an unborn child  Liability would require a ‘double transfer’ from the mother to the unborn child to the person that the unborn child would become if they were born alive

Answer 47

Recognition of a risk

Answer 48

Is consistent with the principle that criminal liability is based upon volitional wrongdoing Person who foresees the risk that a prohibited consequence might occur if he engages in a particular course of conduct can be said to be blameworthy because he knowingly takes the risk of causing the actus reus of an offence Difficulty is that it allows a person to avoid liability despite causing the actus reus of an offence if they are blind to the consequences of their actions

Answer 49

Stephenson [1979] QB 695 (CA)  Defendant sheltered in a haystack and started a small fire to keep warm  The risk of the haystack catching fire are obvious but the defendant had mental health problems that meant that he did not realise this and so he did not foresee the risk and could not be liable

Answer 50

- Failure to recognise an obvious risk - Considers not what risk defendant foresaw but what risk a reasonable person in his position would have foreseen

Answer 51

 Test based upon a failure to recognise a risk that would be obvious to a reasonable person will operate harshly on a defendant who does not have the reasonable capability or ability to recognise risks of a reasonable person

Answer 52

R v G [2003] UKHL 50,[2004] 1 AC 1034  Two boys aged 11 and 12 went camping overnight without permission  They set fire to some newspapers they found in a bin and the fire spread and damaged a nearby supermarket  The trial judge, in answering a question from the jury about why they had to look at the situation from the stance of a reasonable man, said ‘I said that some may feel it is a harsh test, and there are many who would be sympathetic to that view  But sympathy does not permit me to give you a direction on the law other than as it is

Answer 53

Failure to recognise an obvious risk was as blameworthy as taking a risk that was known and recognised Is clearly blameworthy to take an obvious and significant risk of causing injury to another But it is not clearly blameworthy to do something involving a risk of injury to another if (for reasons other than self-induced intoxication) one genuinely does not perceive the risk Such a person may fairly be accused of stupidity or lack of imagination, but neither of those failings should expose him to conviction of serious crime or the risk of punishment ~Lord Bingham

Answer 54

Rejected by HoL because - Would still offend against the fundamental principle that criminal liability ought to be based upon the state of mind of the particular defendant in order to ensure that he is culpable and deserving of punishment - Would not resolve the potential unfairness of the law in relation to other defendants who had a mental state that meant that the reasonable adult was not an appropriate comparator - Would open the door to endless appeals based upon arguments about what characteristics it would be appropriate to give to the reasonable man in order to create an appropriate comparator - Is nothing in the statute that justifies the courts in creating a separate rule of recklessness in relation to children

Answer 55

Aactus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Answer 56

The act does not make one guilty unless the mind is guilty AT THE TIME OF THE ACT Illustrates challenges for law when act which causes death does not coincide w required state of mind

Answer 57

Circumstances where the defendant satisfies both the mens rea and actus reus of murder but has a partial defence  Loss of self-control  Diminished responsibility  Suicide pact

Answer 58

 Constructive manslaughter  Gross negligence manslaughter  Reckless manslaughter  Corporate manslaughter

Answer 59

S3 Law recognises human weakness and fallibility: being provoked or losing control as an excuse Test by reasonable person for loss of self-control

Answer 60

 “The history of the partial defence of provocation has led to a commonly held belief that that defence can be abused by men who kill their wives out of sexual jealousy and revenge over infidelity. That erodes the confidence of the public in the fairness of the criminal justice system ... we want to make it clear that it is unacceptable for a defendant who has killed an unfaithful partner to seek to blame the victim for what occurred.” Hansard, 2009

Answer 61

* “Special” = only applicable to the charge of murder * “Partial” = where successful, the defendant will be guilty of manslaughter instead of murder * Burden of proof: defence raises the issue - Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not applicable

Answer 62

- Loss of self-control - Due to a qualifying trigger - Person of defendant’s sex and age with normal degree of tolerance might have acted similarly

Answer 63

CJA S54(2) = does not matter whether was sudden S54(4) = does apply if D acted in desire for revenge

Answer 64

- Applies if D’s loss of self-control was attributable to D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person - But (6) emphasises how fear of serious violence is disregarded if it used for purpose of providing an excuse to use violence * Law commission has clarified that this trigger for LOC will be used when - D’s act is unreasonable (D overreacts) - Contexts where “serious violence” is anticipated but not imminent (e.g. cases of domestic violence and abuse)

Answer 65

* S55 (4) - Applies if D’s loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which  Constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and  Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged - R v Zebedee [2012] - DPP v Camplin [1978] - Humphreys [1995] * S55 (6) adds exception to this trigger - (b) a sense of being seriously wronged by a thing or said is not justifiable if D incited the thing to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence

Answer 66

* S55 (6)(c) - Fact that a thing done or said constituted a sexual infidelity is to be disregarded * Ministry of Justice (2008) - “We want to make it absolutely clear that sexual infidelity on the part of the victim can never justify reducing a murder charge to manslaughter” * Claim of sexual infidelity is admissible in the context of evaluation but not as the sole qualifying trigger

Answer 67

D would react as he did in similar circumstances

Answer 68

A reasonable person would have reacted as D did

Answer 69

A person with some of D’s characteristics and normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted as D did

Answer 70

 Short temper  Jealousy  Irritability  Personality or mental disorders?

Answer 71

“if a mental disorder has a relevance to the defendant’s conduct other than a bearing on his general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint, it is not excluded by subsection (3), and the jury will be entitled to take it into account as one of the defendant’s circumstances under s.54(1)(c)

Answer 72

Asmelash [2013] = loss of control defence must be approached without reference to the defendant’s voluntary intoxication

Answer 73

* Situations where the defendant cannot be compared with the “person with normal degree of restraint” D commits the offence because of an “abnormality of mental functioning” - Does not completely override D’s ability to reason

Answer 74

- Applicable only to the charge of murder - Leads to a verdict of manslaughter

Answer 75

- Abnormality of mental functioning - Abnormality was caused by a recognised medical disease - Abnormality significantly impaired D’s understanding, rational judgement or exercise of self-control - Abnormality provides an explanation for D’s conduct

Answer 76

* Possible to plead guilty to a charge of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility * Prosecution must have clear evidence to accept the plea

Answer 77

Depression Paranoia Psychopathy Battered women syndrome Pre-menstrual tension Acute intoxication Alchoholism

Answer 78

- Young boy, thinking that his friend could have a second life, loses his temper and kills a friend who took his video game away. (couldn’t completely understand the nature of his act) - Boy who kills another because his older brother has said so (impaired rational judgement)

Answer 79

* “Yes , I’ve done it...” – plead guilty to the charge * “No, I did not do it...” – deny the accusation (and present counter-evidence) * Third possibility: “Yes, I did do it, but... “- it was self-defence...- I was forced to do it

Answer 80

Self-defence Duress Necessity

Answer 81

* D or somebody else were (or D believed that they were) facing a threat * D used a reasonable level of force against the threat (or the perceived threat) * Effect: If successful, it leads to an acquittal. (“complete defence”)

Answer 82

- Common Law - Criminal Law Act 1967, s3 - Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s76

Answer 83

 V must pose (or D must believe that V poses) a threat  The threat must be (or D must believe that it is) unjustified  D must use force and D must believe that theuse was reasonable  The amount of force used by D must be reasonable (in the circumstances as D believed them to be)  D must be acting to defend themselves, another, or property

Answer 84

- Imminent danger - No legal alternative - Proportionality - Reasonableness

Answer 85

- The application of necessity requires the court to weigh the competing interests at stake - The interests at stake were the lives of the parties - There is neither a clear way to compare the relevant interests nor a reason to suppose that the life of Parker was less worthy than the other

Answer 86

- Necessity defence might become “the legal cloak for unbridled passion and atrocious crime

Answer 87

- The act is needed to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil - No more should be done than is reasonably necessary for the pur-pose to be achieved - The evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil avoid

Answer 88

- D commits a crime because of threats of death or GBH - A reasonable person with D’s characteristics would have acted as D - D is acquitted

Answer 89

General defence but are common law exceptions  Murder  Attempted murder  Certain forms of serious treason

Answer 90

 The link is not “causal” (we do not use the tests of causation)  The threat must figure as one of the main reasons for committing the wrong  The belief in the threat must be reasonable  Credibility requirement: good grounds to believe that the threat can be carried - The (perceived) threat must be one of death or GBH directed to D or to anyone close to D

Answer 91

 "If you don’t pay your debts, there will be violence”, “If you don’t rob a bank to pay your debts, there will be violence”  Only 2nd would make duress available as a defence

Answer 92

 No expectation of heroism  Which characteristics of D can be taken into account?  For what purposes are characteristics relevant

Answer 93

Insanity Automatism Intoxication

Answer 94

Incapable of either forming mens rea or actus reus and is therefore not guilty of crime

Answer 95

Behaviour is involuntary (no actus reus) Behaviour is unconscious (no mens rea)

Answer 96

Defendant suffers from a malfunction in his body (internal or external) that leads to a loss of voluntariness (complete loss of control) or consciousness

Answer 97

Death penalty suspension Introduction of diminished responsibility partial defence (for murder)

Answer 98

Not guilty by reason of insanity

Answer 99

Hospital order (with or without time limit) Supervision order Absolute discharge

Answer 100

Laid out rules in relation to insanity To be regarded as insane, must be established that at time of offence  D had a defect of reason  DR was caused by a disease of the mind  D did not know what they were doing or if they did know, they did not know it was wrong

Answer 101

Defect of Reason Caused by a disease of the mind D did not know what they were doing or that it was wrong

Answer 102

 The insanity defence is open to those who are incapable of exercising their power of reasoning  But the defence is not open to those who are capable but simply fail to do so

Answer 103

 Internal factor  Legal test (not factual)  Not restricted to mental illnesses  Physical illnesses can satisfy the test as long as they produce the right effect

Answer 104

 D must be unaware of the nature and quality of the act  Refers to the act’s physical qualities  Does not refer to the act’s moral or legal qualities (whether it is right or wrong; legal or illegal)  D’s lack of knowledge of what he is doing must be fundamental  Concerns D’s ability to appreciate the wrongness of a particular act performed at a particular time

Answer 105

* Where D says he acted on an irresistible impulse but nonetheless understood that he has acted unlawfully - But disassociation is easy to fabricate, and there is a worrisome overlap between malingered symptoms and dissociative phenomena

Answer 106

* An act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion * Or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion

Answer 107

Total loss of voluntary control Caused by an external factor Must not be self-induced

Answer 108

 Offences that require proof that the defendant performed a criminal conduct, but do not require proof that the defendant had a specific mens rea

Answer 109

 A blow to head  Swarm of bees  Recurrent sneezing episode  Hypnotism  Effect of a drug  PTSD/Trauma (or trance after trauma)  Sleepwalking

Answer 110

 Defence is not available where the state of automatism is a result of D’s own action or omission.  Self-induced includes circumstances where D knew of his deteriorating condition but took no steps to avoid it

Answer 111

Automatism arising from bona fide compliance with medical prescription

Answer 112

Strictly not But instead a factor taken into account when considering whether mens rea is formed * D argues that he did not form the mens rea of the offence because quantity or combination of the drink/drugs meant he was incapable of intending or foreseeing the consequences of his actions

Answer 113

- If D is found not to have mens rea of an offence because he was too intoxicated to form it, should he be acquitted of the offence? - Is it simply a form of recklessness? - Distinction = voluntary vs involuntary intoxication - Where D has the required mens rea, there is no difference whether the intoxication is voluntary or involuntary; he will be guilty of the offence

Answer 114

 If intoxication is involuntary and D lacks mens rea, D will be acquitted  Intoxication is involuntary where D is unaware that he was taking an intoxicant  Includes circumstances where D becomes intoxicated by taking drugs voluntarily in bona fide (in good faith) pursuance of medical treatment or prescription

Answer 115

 If D did not form mens rea, D will remain liable if the charged offence is one of basic intent  Rule of inculpation = intoxication supplies the mens rea (where there was none)

Answer 116

Murder Wounding/Causing GBH with intent Theft Robbery Burglary Arson/Criminal damage

Answer 117

Manslaughter (in all forms) Rape Sexual assault Malicious wounding or infliction of GBH Assault occasioning ABH Common assault

Answer 118

Commonly known to create unpredictable, dangerous, or aggressive behaviour

Answer 119

Unpredictable, dangerous, or aggressive behaviour are not commonly known to be associated with the drug

Answer 120

Not knowing side effects if substance like side effects Hardie 1985

Answer 121

* Suppose D commits an offence whilst too intoxicated to form the mens rea Voluntary  Specific = Defence available, but D can still be guilty of the fallback offence  Basic = Dangerous (incl. alcohol) or non-dangerous drug?  Dangerous: convicted  Non-dangerous and defendant wasn’t aware of potential effects: acquitted because of Hardie [1985] Involuntary = acquitted

Answer 122

* Majewski equated voluntary drunkenness with (Caldwell) recklessness and therefore rendered any evidence in relation to the drinking as irrelevant

Answer 123

An offence is complete when D has the required mens rea and - Required result is caused - Required conduct is performed - Required circumstances occurs

Answer 124

Result crimes Conduct crimes Circumstance crimes

Answer 125

 Murder  Manslaughter  Criminal damage

Answer 126

 Theft  Perjury  Possession of drugs

Answer 127

 Being drunk in charge of a child  Being an illegal migrant

Answer 128

Liability for “unfinished business” – incomplete crimes 3 types -Attempts -Conspiracy -Encouraging and assisting

Answer 129

s. 1: “If, with intent to commit an offence..., a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence.”

Answer 130

Voluntary act going beyond mere preparation towards commission of the rime (on facts as D believes them to be)

Answer 131

 D must intend the underlying crime (i.e. the actus reus elements of result, conduct or circumstances)  D must intend to cause any results required for the principal offence [e.g. death for homicide offenses]  D must intend to complete the conduct required for the crime [e.g. theft]  D generally must intend or know* any circumstances required for the crime [e.g. that property is not your own for criminal damage]

Answer 132

 How close to the crime do your actions must be for attempt liability to kick in?  One Extreme—Last Act Test o Shooting and missing is an attempt, but little else  Other extreme—Any Act Test o Buying some explosives while planning to bomb a building some day is an attempt (even though it’s merely preparatory.)

Answer 133

You’re guilty of attempt only if you do the last act that is necessary to accomplish the crime

Answer 134

As long as you do anything that helps you prepare to do the crime, you’ve committed an attempt

Answer 135

Legal and factual

Answer 136

Impossibility always gets you off the hook, factual impossibility never does o D tries to do something D believes is or might be an offence, but which actually isn’t o Example: Adultery, which is not a crime in the UK o Result = not guilty of an attempt o Authority: R v Taaffe [1984]: T was caught importing cannabis to the UK, but he mistakenly believed that he was importing currency. Acquitted

Answer 137

o What if you change your mind after going beyond the mere preparation? o Can you avoid liability by “withdrawing” from or “abandoning” the attempt? o No! There is no defense of withdrawal to attempt in England o Rationale: You’ve already completed the crime of attempt (even if you regret it afterwards)

Answer 138

D tries to do something that would be a crime, but unbeknownst to D, the facts make it impossible for the crime to succeed

Answer 139

 Trying to kill someone with an insignificant amount of poison  Trying to kill someone by putting pins on a voodoo doll  Trying to shoot somebody with an unloaded gun  Trying to kill someone who is already dead  Trying to grow cannabis by planting seeds of chives

Answer 140

Guilty of an attempt

Answer 141

 We look at the facts as D believed them to be because we’re interested in his culpability, which is a function just of his subjective mental states  It doesn’t matter whether D got lucky by getting the facts wrong so that no harm ensued  D is still assumed to be just as culpable

Answer 142

 Mens rea for attempt: How does it work?  “More than mere preparation”: What does it mean?  Impossibility: What if it is impossible to succeed? Is it a defence?

Answer 143

Any offence, except o 1)Conspiracy o 2) Offences of aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of an offence o 3)“Summary only offences” (def: those tried in a magistrate’s court and usually regarded as less serious offences) o 4)Offences where there is a more serious offence with the same actus reus (e.g. manslaughter – we will come back to this

Answer 144

 A conspiracy is an agreement by two or more people to engage in a course of conduct which amounts to a criminal offence

Answer 145

 One can conspire to commit any criminal offence (including inchoate offences – Booth[1999])

Answer 146

 A voluntary agreement between D and at least one co-conspirator (CC)

Answer 147

 The agreement must involve a course of conduct that will necessarily amount to a crime (on the facts as D and CC believe them to be)

Answer 148

Required by both D and CC  The parties must intend the conduct and consequences required for the offence and must intend or know that the circumstances within the actus reus exist  Conspiracy requires a shared intention to do the crime  Conduct Element: D & CC must intend that any conduct required for the crime will be carried out by at least one of them  Result Element: D & CC must intend that any results required for the crime will be accomplished by at least one of them  Circumstantial Element: D & CC must intend or know any circumstances that are required for the crime. (CLA 1977 s. 1(2))  Direct, oblique and conditional intention can all suffice to establish the required intent for result and conduct elements  At least knowledge is required for the circumstance element

Answer 149

Like attempts, no

Answer 150

Wheel Chain

Answer 151

o A, at the hub, recruits B, C, D... o All parties are part of the common design and aware of that

Answer 152

o A agrees with B; B agrees with C o C agrees with D... o All parties are part of the common design and aware of that.

Answer 153

Factual and legal

Answer 154

Still a crime, E.g. conspiring to kill someone who is already dead

Answer 155

Not a crime, E.g. conspiring to commit adultery