Criminal Law

Question 1

Impossibility and inchoate offences?

Answer 1

Impossibility in fact is not a defence to attempt (e.g. guy who was carrying a suitcase and thought that it contained illegal drugs was convicted of attempting to knowingly be concerned in dealing with a prohibited drug).

But impossibility through inadequacy and impossibility through non-existent crime can’t be convicted as attempted crimes.

Question 2

Innocent agent

Answer 2

A woman giving a child a dose of poison, where the child then gives it to the victim, is a principal offender even through she didn’t perform the AR and the child is an innocent agent.

Question 3

Reckless criminal damage

Answer 3

Accused was subjectively aware of a risk and in the circumstances known to the accused it was objectively unreasonable for them to take that risk.

Question 4

Lawful excuses for CD

Answer 4

1. Honestly believe the owner would have consented.
2. D acts to protect property. They honestly believe that the property needs immediate protection and that their method of protection is reasonable. Objectively, the damage needs to be capable of protecting the property.

These do not apply for aggravated CD.

Question 5

ACTUS REUS…

Aiding

Abetting

Procuring

Counselling

Joint enterprise

Answer 5

Aiding = Actually helping the commission of the crime, knowing that you are helping some type of crime -e.g. supplying materials, information. Needn’t be causation

Abetting = To incite, encourage or instigate. The principal must know they are being abetted. Can also be e.g. husband watching wife drown kids and not doing anything to stop it. Pub landlord watching customers drinking after hours is aiding and abetting.

Procuring = Produce by endeavour. There need not be consensus. Doesnt matter if procuring is relied upon but there must be some casual link.

Counselling = Giving encouragement, does not need to have a casual link, but needs to be some contact between parties and offence.

JE = Two or more people committing a crime together. At the time of committing the accessorial offence, accomplice was committing another offence with the principal

Question 5

Self defence - householder v non householder.

Answer 5

(element one - D honestly believed the use of force was necessary). Doesnt matter if belief was honestly reasonable or not, but if it was due to intoxication, this will not work for a defence.

(element 2 - level of force was objectively reasonable in the circumstances known to D at the time. Householder - anything not grossly disproportionate may be reasonable. second question is was it reasonable. Non-Householder - disproportionate force is not reasonable).