Criminal Law Flashcards

1
Q

All criminal offenses start in what court?

A

Magistrates court. More serious offenses then progress to the Crown Court.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Actus Reus

A

physical act

Ex:

The actus reus for murder is causing the death of another human being

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Mens Rea

A

Mental state

Ex:
The mens Rea for murder is intention to kill or cause great bodily harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

A criminal offense almost always requires…

A

Proof of a physical act (actus reas) and a mental state (mens rea) and that the act and mental state occurred at the same time (happen concurrently)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are the three elements of actus reas

A

Conduct
Physical acts or omissions by the defendant that make the defendant liable for the offense

Circumstances
Sacs that must exist for a defendant to be liable

Result
What must occur for the offense to be committed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are the three requirements for an omission to constitute as a crime

A
  • Law must state the omission is capable of being illegal conduct
  • there must be a duty owed by the defendant to act
  • defendant must have breached that duty by failing to act or acting in a way that does not fulfill the requirements of the duty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

You will need to act in a number of circumstances including

A
  • special relationship e.g. parent- child or doctor-patient
  • Defendant voluntarily assumed a duty of care for the victim
  • where duty is imposed by contract, such as passenger Railway guard
  • where the defendant created a dangerous situation and is aware of having done so
  • possession of a thing (weapon or drug)
  • placing oneself in a situation (eg being a member of a terrorist organization)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

For an omission to be a criminal act there must be a…

A

Duty to act

no good Samaritan law requiring people to help others in trouble. Therefore, Defendant not liable for the failure to help or rescue another person unless he has a duty to do so no matter how easy it would have been to provide help.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Certain circumstances must exist for an offense to be committed.

Ex. A defendant who damages a car commits the offense of criminal damage only if the car belongs to someone else

A

Do not jump to a conclusion just because a person burn down the house or damaged a car. Make sure the damage property belong to someone else. A person is free to damage his own property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Some criminal offenses require a result.

For all result crimes, such as murder, the defendant must have caused the result specified within the offense. To analyze this the court will look at both…

A

Factual causation
But for test. Did the results occur because of the defendants conduct? Ex: for murder, The victim would not have died but for the conduct of the defendant.

Acceleration of result
more than one cause or defendant’s action slightly accelerates the results, that is enough for causation. Ex: B is suffering from a disease. A poisons B’s food which causes B to die a day earlier than B would have died but for the poison. A would be guilty of murder as the poisoning accelerated B’d death.

Ex: both A and C each poison B’s food. B dies. The doctors do not know which poison accelerated B’a death. Both A and C guilty of murder.

Legal causation
This element is used to prevent the factual causation test from being too broad. It prevents a conviction where factual causation (but for) is met, but other facts, such as lack of foreseeability, would make such a conviction unfair.

Ex: A breaks window by throw football. B cuts hand on broken window, causes B to contract blood poisoning and dies. Not for seeable that kicking a football would cause B’s death. Although A is factually responsible for the death, the lack of foreseeability breaks the chain of causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

In order for the defendants action to be a legal cause, the action must be

A

Substantial and operative

Substantial: descendants acts/role must be more than minimal, slight or trifling

Operative: another person cannot intervene with the defendants act and the results

Ex: C joins in the fight drawing a knife and stabbing B in the heart resulting in B’s death. C’e actions were free, deliberate, and informed so will break the chain of causation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the egg shell school principal

A

Defendant causing more damage than would be expected because of the vulnerabilities of the victim does not negate causation the defendant will still be responsible.

Defendant will still be liable if a victim suffering greater harm because they refuse medical treatment on religious grounds. This will not break the chain of causation.

Defendant takes their victim as they find them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the difference between motive and intent?

A

Intent is the state of mind that exists at the time of the offense. This makes the D ‘guilty’

Motive will only provide evidence that d might have intent but motive in and out of itself is not an element of any offense in English law.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is specific intent

A

Offenses that cannot be committed recklessly and require intention at the time of commission.

Theft requires intent to permanently deprive = specific intent

These offenses cannot conclude the intent based only on the mere doing of the act. But the manner in which The crime was committed can be used as evidence of intent.

Ex placing the can of beans in jacket pocket versus in basket, seee friend outside the shop and runs to say hello and forgets to pay

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Adding “attempted” to a crime that can be committed either with intention or recklessly must still show

A

Specific intent

“Attempted” added to x crime requires showing specific intent.

The person being charged with any kind of “attempted” x crime, must have had intention at the time to be found guilty. Attempt” requires there to have actually been specific intent.

Ex:

Criminal damage can be committed with intention or just recklessly.

But the charge of “attempted” criminal damage requires to show specific intent. Need to show they intended it in order for the charge “attempted” criminal damage.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Oblique intent

A

Prosecution cannot prove the defendant intended to commit an act the court may imply such an intent if it would be virtually certain.

Rare and applies only in cases which recklessness is not available as a form of mens rea (mental) such as in murder.

For oblique intent to arise, the result of a descendant’s act must be:

  • virtually certain consequence of conduct
  • defendant realizes it as being virtually certain

-jury must find the realization amounts to an intention

Ex: firing bullet into a crowd to scare away people from an area. If someone is shot and killed in the process, The shooter could be virtually certain that death or serious injury would have occurred. Therefore they have oblique intention to kill or cause serious harm and would be guilty of murder.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is transferred malice

A

Defendant has intention to commit an offense against one victim, but inadvertently commits the offense against a different victim, the intent is then transferred to the new victim.

Ex: abby laces Bob’s tea with poison intending to kill him. Cathy drinks the tea instead and dies. Abby is still guilty of murder even though she did not intend to kill Cathy. Abby’s intent to kill Bob is transferred to Cathy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

True or false

A person guilty of a crime on the basis of transferred malice is usually guilty of two crimes

A

True

The contemplated crime against the actual victim and attempt against the intended victim. Therefore in the poison tea example Abby is guilty of murdering Kathy but also is guilty of attempting to murder Bob.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Malice can only be transferred where…

A

The intended offense is the same as the one committed.

Abby throws a rock at Bob, intending to hit Bob with the rock, Abby intended to commit assault. If the rock misses Bob and accidentally hits a window, the offense actually committed is criminal damage. Cannot use the result of the criminal Dans seas intent for assault. It is not possible to transfer the mens rea from the intended offense to the committed offense, as they are different types of offenses with different mens rea requirements.

Compare

A shoots at B intending to kill B, but misses and hits and kills C. Transferred malice can operate so that the mens rea of A (intention to kill B) can be transferred to the killing of C. Consequently A is liable for the murder of C, despite the fact that he did not actually intend to kill C.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

For recklessness a defendant must

A
  • foresee the risk (did THIS defendant foresee a risk?). Subjective.
  • unreasonable risk to take (would a reasonable person have run this risk?). Objective. In all circumstances known to the defend it it must be an unreasonable risk to take.

Note:
If the defendant sees any risk, the first part is satisfied. The extent of the risk is largely irrelevant.

Ex: abby and her 11-year-old son Billy decide to set fire to some newspaper. The fire spreads to a building causing it damage. Abby foresaw the risk from setting the fire, but took it anyway. A reasonable person would not have run such a risk. Abby would be guilty of arson. Billy being much younger did not foresee any risk so would not be guilty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What is required to prove negligence

A

The court will ask

  • did the defendant owe aduty of care and
  • did the defendant breach the standard of care expected?

Note, standard will be defined by statute and in others by common law. Always an objective standard, reasonable person.

Ex: while driving, Abby gets distracted while changing the radio. She smashes into the back of another car. Abby owes a duty of care to other road users and has fallen below the standard of the ‘competent and careful driver’, she will be guilty of careless driving.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is a strict liability offense

A

No mental state is required. No defenses to negate the state of mind such as mistake a fact are not available.

Ex

Driving car thinking they are insured by their spouse but they are not. Still guilty of offense of driving without insurance bc strict liability offense

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What intent is required for the crime of assault

A

Intention or recklessness in causing the apprehension of inflicting immediate and unlawful force

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What intent is required for a battery

A

Intention or recklessness regarding applying unlawful contact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What is the intent required for wounding or causing GBH

A

Intention or recklessness regarding causing some bodily harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What intent is required for a criminal damage

A

Intention or recklessness regarding whether a property belongs to another person and whether it is damaged or destroyed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What is a principal offender

A

Person who commits the act and has a mental state at the same time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What is a co-principal offender

A

Two defendants acting together for a common purpose in committing the act, they are both considered to be principal offenders

29
Q

What is an innocent agent

A

Where a defendant asked someone else to do something that is illegal or an offense, but that person is unaware. The first defendant is still the principal offender because the unaware person is just an instrument for the dissented to commit their crime

Ex

Abby asked Bob to deliver a parcel to Kathy. Abby puts a bomb in the parcel but Bob doesn’t know about that. The bomb explodes killing Cathy. Abby is guilty for killing Cathy, but Bob is not liable

30
Q

What is an accomplice

A

someone who aids, abets ( encourage/assist) counsels, or procures (persuade, cause to do) another offender. This person will be in accomplice and will also be guilty of the offense.

Ex

Aiding:

Andy drives the getaway car for Bonnie when Bonnie robs a bank. And he doesn’t physically take the money or use a gun. Andy is still considered as assisting in the commission of the offense and is therefore guilty of the offense of robbery.

Abetting/counseling:

Andy encourages Bonnie to rob a bank. Andy gets plans for the bank and the safe and he gives Bonnie advice on when the best time would be to break in and what gun to use. Here andy would be guilty of robbery.

Procuring:
Andy works at the bank and leaves the door open. He sends a copy of the blueprints to Bonnie who is a known Bank robber. Andy has procured the robbery by endeavor (trying) and is therefore guilty as an accomplice

31
Q

joint enterprise doctrine

A

Joint enterprise is a doctrine of criminal law which permits two or more defendants to be convicted of the same criminal offence in relation to the same incident, even where they had different types or levels of involvement in the incident.

Note, it is not enough merely to foresee that the principal offender might commit the crime; the participant must intend that the principal will do so.

For example, Abby and Bob agree to rob a bank and Bobby’s is a knife to stab and kill a teller during the robbery, Abby would not be guilty of murder merely because Abby knew that Bob always carries a knife. To be guilty of murder, Abby must have intended for Bob to kill or cause very serious harm during the robbery

32
Q

Incohoate offenses/ incomplete offenses

A

a crime of preparing for or seeking to commit another crime. The most common example of an inchoate offense is “attempt”

an offense, such as incitement or conspiracy, anticipating a further criminal act.

33
Q

What is encouragement and assistance for the physical act of an incomplete offense

A

A person is considered to have committed a criminal act if they engage in action that is capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offense.

Act needs to be:

  • capable of encouraging or assisting
  • but does not need to actually encourage or assist

Note: it falls short of abetting or counseling. Usually charged when there is no principle offender.

Ex
Abby suggests to Bob that he should kill her husband. Abby would be guilty of encouraging murder even though Bob did not commit the offense.

34
Q

For an incomplete offense in encouragement and assistance what is required for the mental state

A

Defendant must intend the act would be committed at the time of the act. This intention can be minimal.

Abagail gives Ben a knife hoping that he will use it to stab and kill Candace. Ben has no intention of stabbing Candace and does not know Abigail gave him the knife for that purpose. Abigail needs to do more to be guilty of assisting in the murder of Candace. Abigail would need to encourage Ben to do it.

35
Q

For an incomplete offense, a defendant is guilty of attempting to commit the offense if

A

they do something that is MORE than merely preparation towards its commission.

Ex

If Alice poisoned Bennett’s coffee in order to kill him, but Bennett doesn’t drink it and simply throws it away, Alice would be guilty of attempted murder.

But, if Alice only bought the poison but didn’t use it she would likely not be guilty of attempt. The act of obtaining the poison is merely preparatory.

36
Q

What mental state is required to be guilty of an attempted offense

A

Intention.

37
Q

Factual impossibility

If a defendant attempts to commit an offense that is physically impossible to complete will the defendant still be guilty of attempting the offense?

A

Yes, the defendant can still be guilty of attempt of the offense even if it is physically impossible to do

Ex
Andrew believes there is a diamond in Bobby’s bag. Andrew rummages around in the bag but cannot find the diamond. Andrew could never have committed to after the diamond because there was no diamond in the bag she even steal. However Andrew would be guilty of attempted theft of the diamond because he rummage through the bag with the intent to find and take a diamond.

Based on the facts here, it is impossible to complete the offense

38
Q

If someone believes an act they carried out was illegal but it’s not, will they still be found guilty?

A

No. It is legally impossible.

Ex

Giving alcohol to someone who is 19, thinking the legal drinking age is 21 but it’s really 18

39
Q

A defendant charged with a completed crime may be found guilty of

A

either that completed crime or attempting to commit it.

Charge—> completed crime = can be convicted of either completed crime or attempting

But this is only so long as the evidence presented supports that verdict.

If defendant charged only with attempt =
then they cannot be convicted of completing the crime.

40
Q

What is conspiracy

A

An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime/offense

41
Q

Act rehires to commit Statutory conspiracy

A

The making of an agreement between two or more parties to do something that is criminal. Parties need to do nothing but pursue it. Court does not need to identify the other party or parties.

Ex
Annie is heard on the phone agreeing with another party to burgle the house. The fact that there is an agreement to burgle is sufficient. And he can be found guilty of conspiracy regardless of whether the prosecution can identify the person on the other end of the phone

42
Q

What limitations are on Who can be a conspirator?

A

A party cannot conspire with someone who is in capable of agreeing to the conspiracy for example a child or someone who lacks mental capacity.

Spouses cannot conspire with one another if no other parties involved

I propose victim of an offense cannot be part of a conspiracy.

43
Q

Can there be conspiracy without an agreement?

A

No.

There can be conditional agreements in order for it to be conspiracy.
But discussing but no agreement is not.

Ex
If police arrive we will shoot and kill the cashier (conspiracy to commit murder)

vs

two robbers talking about weather would be a good idea to kill the cashier but no agreement.

44
Q

What are the two general ways to characterize multiple people involved in multiple conspiracies?

A
  1. Chain relationship—One large Conspiracy
    - if there are many sub agreements that can be regarded as part of a single large scheme. Sub agreements will be characterized as links in the overall chain relationship.

Ex wholesalers and drug smugglers = one conspiracy

  1. Hub-and-spoke— multiple conspiracies
    - hub and multiple spokes on a wheel but members of each spoke conspiracy have not conspired with members of other spoke conspiracies. Where spokes (the subagreements) do not conspire with one another but only with the hub

Ex fraudulent loan applications, Applications in one situation will have no interest in whether the other fraudulent applications are successful. Each module and application is counted as a conspiracy

45
Q

Would agreeing to commit an offense that would be impossible to commit still be considered conspiracy?

A

Yes

Just like in attempt, if parties agree to commit an act that is factually impossible they are still guilty of an offense.

Ex Annie and Bob agreed to murder Carl. They do not know at the time that Carl is already dead Annie and Bob would be guilty of conspiracy to murder.

46
Q

What is the mental element required to commit conspiracy

A

They must intend to form the agreement. They must intend or know that all parties at the criminal act will be completed by themselves for other parties to the agreement.

Not knowing the main offense is a crime is not an excuse

Intention to agree to do the act is enough

Ex agreeing to sell something worthless for a higher price would be a money laundering scheme. Even if the seller doesn’t know the proposed transaction constitutes an offense of illegal money laundering, The seller will still be found guilty of conspiracy to commit money laundering bc they agreed to do the act.

47
Q

What is the difference between conspiracy and enterprise

A

conspiracy, agreeing to commit a crime

joint enterprise all parties are convicted of the actual offence, for example: murder. E.g. P1 and P2 agree to commit a robbery.

48
Q

Joint enterprise

A

Joint enterprise permits two or more defendants to be convicted of the same criminal offence in relation to the same incident, even where they had different types or levels of involvement in the incident.

49
Q

Coincidence of the mental state between the conspirators

A

At the point the agreement to commit the offense is formed there must be at least two parties who intend to form it. Both parties must have at the time actually intended for the act to occur.

50
Q

If two parties to a conspiracy agree to commit an offense together but only a certain event occurs is their intention still made out?

A

Yes

Just because the agreement and the offense being carried out is based on a condition for certain events or circumstances to take place doesn’t mean the intent hasn’t been met.

As soon as the two conspirators agree that they will shoot the cashier if the police arrive, the coincidence of their criminal mental states is satisfied

51
Q

Intent to know every part of the act will be completed

A

In order for a person to be guilty of conspiracy, the defendant must have intended or known that all parts of the criminal act would be completed by themselves or other parties to that agreement

Exception

Case of Anderson, found that where a defendant supplied diamond wire for a prisoners escape, he could be part of the conspiracy to escape even though he believe it was doomed to fail I never intended that the prisoner escape.

court held that an agreement to commit the offense was enough and the intention that the act be carried out was irrelevant

52
Q

What is the common law conspiracy— conspiracy to defraud

A

Physical

Agreement of two or more people to dishonestly deprive or interfere with the property rights of another or to deceive a public official into acting contrary to duty

Mental

Defendant must know that they risk the property interests of another or deception of a public official (eg bank).

  • parties must intend that the course of conduct be completed and
  • the defendant must be dishonest
53
Q

Is capacity a defense or an excuse?

A

Excuse

Excuses the defend it from liability because they are unable to commit the alleged offense due to either age, mental state, or even outside sources

54
Q

Under what age is a child in capable of committing a crime

A

10

If a child is 10 or over the court will assess the child’s ability to form the intent to commit a crime or to be negligent as to whether an offense is committed based on their age

55
Q

For a defendant to be fit to plead, he must be

A

Of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings in the trial as to make a proper defense, to challenger to whom he might wish to object and comprehend the details of the evidence.

Must be able to plead and instruct his lawyer

If defendant is not fit, the court will not look at the mental element it will only look to the actress actus reus. Court will automatically find defendant is not legally responsible for his actions.

If found did commit act either:

  • Sent to hospital until better
  • supervision order,
  • or an absolute discharge

If murder, must go to hospital for indefinite period

56
Q

What are the elements for insanity

A

Defendant is entitled to an acquittal if the proof establishes that (M’Naghten Rule):

  • A disease of the mind
  • caused a defect of reason
  • such that the defendant lack the ability at the time of his actions to either:
    - no the wrongfulness of his actions or
      -understand the nature and quality of his       
        actions
57
Q

What is required to prove Disease of the Mind?

A

Legal not medical standard

Suspension of defendants capabilities of reason, memory, and understanding when the offense has been committed.

Ex:Epileptic fits, sleepwalking, arterial spasms

Ex:Man steals car as a consequence of diabetes after not taking insulin

Compare to man takes too much insulin, commit serious assault. Court cannot hold he is suffering from disease of mind because actions were caused by external factor (insulin) and not disease of mind.

58
Q

Defect of reason

A

When defendants disease of mind causes them to behave in an absent minded way but they have the ability to reason and choose not to concentrate.

Insanity is therefore NOT available

59
Q

Can a defendant claim loss or control due to mental illness?

A

No

loss of control because of mental illness on its own does not form a defense of insanity

60
Q

If defendant suffered from delusions it is necessary to determine whether…

A

His actions would have been criminal if the facts had been as he believed them to be

Because Andy has a mental illness, he believes Ben wants to kill him.

Andy would not be entitled to an acquittal under the M’Naghten rule. Because even if Andy’s delusions had been accurate, he would not have been legally entitled to kill been simply because Ben wanted to kill him.

61
Q

Is a D who believes his acts are morally right entitled to an acquittal?

A

No

Not unless he lost the capacity to recognize that his acts were regarded by society is wrong

62
Q

Automatism

A

Automatism refers to a set of brief unconscious behaviors

A defendant can claim automatism when are offender completely lacks voluntary control of their conduct at the time of the offense because of something external to them.

Ex: Woman driving on freeway when a stone falls and hits her on the head. She’s knocked unconscious. She then crashes into another car. She would not be guilty of driving offense because the accident was beyond her control

Driving down the freeway

63
Q

Incomplete crime

A

A crime that has not reached its conclusion. Falls short if the completed crime

64
Q

Legal impossibility

A

A person cannot be guilty of committing or attempting to or conspire to commit a crime that does not exist

Eg gambling in UK is not illegal

65
Q

Conspiracy

A

Agreement

An agreement between two or more people to commit an offense

66
Q

M’Naghten Rule

A

A disease of the mind caused a defect of reasoning such that the defendant lack the ability at the time of his actions to either:

  • The wrongfulness of his or her actions; or
  • understand the nature and quality of his or her actions
67
Q

True or false

A person can be insane in law even if they don’t actually have what a doctor would consider to a ‘disease of the mind’

A

True

A disease of the mind could be something in law such as

  • epilepsy: an epileptic person Who commits an offense while having a fit is legally if not medically insane
  • sleepwalking: while sleepwalking kills someone could be found not guilty by reason of insanity

Medically not insane but legally they are

68
Q

Difference between Automatism and insanity?

A

Same bc Something that acts ON the person.

The difference is that it’s an external force not internally like insanity.

Ex being diabetic and commit crime = ng by reason of insanity

If diabetic took too much insulin and commit alllll an offense = ng by reason of automatism. Bc they injected themselves with an outside substance, it’s not internal to that person therefore the noncapacity would be automatism.

Note
Automatism leads to complete acquittal. The thing was done automatically to the person