Criminal Law - ALL Flashcards

Question

How might the exam test the circumstances element of actus reus?

Answer 1

* A **person damaging their own property**. They are free to do this. * Don't jump to the conclusion that they have committed criminal damage if they smash a car window - it will **only be criminal damage if it belongs to someone else (or is co-owned with someone else)**

Answer 2

Crimes that **require a certain outcome** for the offence to be committed e.g. ABH/GBH require bodily harm, murder requires deathResult crimes require **causation*** **Factual causation**: 'but for' test (including acceleration of result)* **Legal causation**: substantial and operative cause

Answer 3

* When the crime requires a certain **result** to be committed. * The prosecution must **build a link from the defendant's conduct to the outcome** and satisfy the tests for causation.* There is a **two-stage test of factual and legal causation** and the tests are **cumulative** so both must be satisfied to establish a link

Answer 4

The '**but for**' test. * Court asks whether the **result occurred 'but for' the defendant's conduct** e.g. in the case of murder, the victim would not have died but for the conduct of the defendant. * Note, If there is **more than one** cause or even if the defendant's **action slightly accelerates the result**, there is sufficient causation in criminal law. Example: D poisons V's food. V dies from a heart attack unrelated to the poisoning. D is not guilty of murdering V because the poisoning was not the cause of V's death. D may well be guilty of other offences (e.g. attempted murder and administering a poison), but these would not be result offences.

Answer 5

**Yes**, if there is **more than one cause** or even if the defendant's **action slightly accelerates the result**, there is sufficient causation in criminal law. Example: * V is suffering from a neurodegenerative disease. D poisons V's food. D's poisoning of V caused V to **die a day earlier** than V would have died but for the poisoning. D would be guilty of murder, as the poisoning accelerated V's death. * Both D and C are poisoning V's food without each other's knowledge. The doctors **do not know which poison accelerated V's death**. Both **D and C could be guilty** of murder.

Answer 6

Legal causation prevents a conviction where **factual causation (but for) is met**, but **other factors, such as lack of foreseeability, would make such a conviction unfair**. * The defendant's action must be the **substantial** (i.e. more than minimal) and **operative** (i.e. no break in chain) cause* Note, the **thin skill rule** appliesExample: D breaks V's window by kicking a football into it. V cuts their hand on the glass. The cut causes V to contract blood poisoning. V dies. It is not foreseeable that D's kicking the football would cause V's death. D is factually responsible for V's death, as V would not have died but for D breaking the window. However, the lack of foreseeability breaks the chain of causation.

Answer 7

The action must be substantial i.e. the defendant's role must be **more than minimal, slight, or 'trifling'**. It **does not have to be the only cause**Example: if a group of people are beating up a victim, they all are equally responsible for the wounds that result. How ever, if the defendant was not part of the group and simply brushed the victim before the group attacked that would not be sufficient.

Answer 8

The defendant's action must be **operative** i.e. no break in causation. If the **actions of someone or something else intervenes** between the defendant's act and the result, the defendant will not be liable.The chain is broken by an intervention by:* the **defendant** if there is a **new act** e.g. an infection* a **natural event** if the defendant and a reasonable person would not have foreseen the natural event* the **victim** if their actions are 'so daft as to be unforeseeable' (note, **thin skull rule applies**)* a **third party** if their actions are free, deliberate and informed.Example: D is having a fistfight with V. C sees them fighting and joins in, drawing a knife and stabbing V in the heart, resulting in V's death. C's actions were **free, deliberate, and informed** and so will break the chain of causation between D's act and V's death.

Answer 9

* That the defendant causes more damage than one would expect because of the **vulnerabilities of the victim does not negate causation** - the defendant will still be responsible. * Likewise, a victim suffering greater harm because they have a **pre-existing medical condition** or **refuse medical treatment on religious grounds** will not break the chain of causation.* A defendant **takes their victim as they find them**

Answer 10

**Yes**, if the **intervention is a new act**. Example: A stabs B. A then inadvertently infects B with a disease. B dies from the disease and not from the stab wound. The infection breaks the chain of causation.

Answer 11

**Yes**, if **defendant and a reasonable person would not have foreseen** the natural event. Example: A punches B and leaves him unconscious in a wood. There is a freak storm and B is struck by lightning and killed. A would be liable for the assault, but not the death. The unforeseen storm breaks the chain of causation.

Answer 12

**Unlikely**. She was confronted with unexpected and terrifying conduct. Most victims don't respond rationally in those situations. To break the chain it would need to be **so daft as to be unforseeable**

Answer 13

**Yes**, if:* **defendant and a reasonable person would not have foreseen** the victim's act and * the victim's **act is voluntary**. * the victim's actions must usually be '**so daft as to be unforeseeable**'. Examples: * A shouts 'Boo!' at B. B runs out of the house and across a three-carriage motorway, and B is killed by an automobile. B's act breaks the chain of causation.* A gives B an apple, telling B it is poisoned. B eats it anyway and dies. B's act breaks the chain. Note, the **thin skull principle** still applies. If A stabs B, a Jehovah's Witness, and B dies because she will not accept a blood transfusion, A is responsible for B's death. B's refusal does not break the chain of causation because such a refusal is foreseeable.

Answer 14

**Yes**, if the third party's (e.g. a bystander) intervention is **free, deliberate, and informed**. Example: A commits a robbery. Police officers arrive at the scene. A holds up B as a human shield and B is shot by a police officer. The police officer's act does not break the chain of causation.

Answer 15

**Yes**, the robber's act is **free deliberate and informed**. He's not compelled to take her hostage, he acts intentionally and he knows what he is doing. This would break the chain of causation from the boyfriend's act of pushing the girlfriend to her eventual death.

Answer 16

The third party's intervention **does not break the chain** of causation here as it is not free, deliberate and informed. They are acting from a sense of obligation to protect the victim, so the defendant could still be liable for the cut to the head.

Answer 17

**Medical treatment is very unlikely to break the chain** of causation. * It will only do so if it is **so independent and potent as to make the original wound the background**. * Ordinary malpractice is not enough, it must be **gross malpractice** to break the chainExample: A gets into a fight with B and B is hospitalised as a result. Whilst treating B for his injuries, a doctor gives B an experimental, unlicensed drug, and B dies as a result. The doctor's actions break the chain of causation.

Answer 18

The **mental element** of an offence. It is the **state of mind** the defendant must have **at the time** of the actus reus in order to be guilty of the offence. * Note, **motive is not the mens rea**.* The most common form is **intention** (may be direct or indirect). Some offences require specific intention * Other forms are **recklessness** and **negligence*** No mens rea is required for **strict liability** offences* Corporate liability uses the **identification doctrine** to establish mens rea* Mens rea can be **transferred**

Answer 19

Motive is the **reason** that a defendant commits an offence. It may provide evidence that a defendant might have the necessary mens rea, but motive in and of itself is **not an element of any offence** in English law.

Answer 20

* A **common form** of mens rea. It can be satisfied in two ways: **direct** intention and **indirect** (or oblique) intention. * Specific intent offences **specify intention as the only form of mens rea** (e.g. murder)

Answer 21

* Direct intention means '**aim or purpose**'. The defendant will satisfy the mens rea if the **act, circumstance, or outcome** specified in the offence is their aim or purpose. * Direct intention is the **most common form** of intention.Example: D is charged with battery for hitting V. The mens rea of battery is intentionally or recklessly applying force onto another. If it was D's aim or purpose to hit V, they had direct intention and thereby satisfy the mens rea of the offence.

Answer 22

For indirect intention to arise, the result of a defendant's act must be: * A **virtually certain consequence** of their conduct (objective); and * **Realised by the defendant** as being virtually certain (subjective). Indirect intention is available **only for specific intent** offences (where recklessness is not available e.g. murder s18 GBH) and direct intention can not be established. It **never applies to basic intent** offences. Example: D fires a bullet into a crowd, intending to scare the people away from the area. The bullet strikes a member of the crowd, killing them. Although D did not intend to kill or injure anyone, by firing the bullet into a crowd, it was a virtual certainty that death or serious injury would occur. As long as D realised it was a virtual certainty, they have indirect intention to kill or cause serious harm and therefore satisfy the mens rea for murder.

Answer 23

* An offence that **specifies intention as the only form of mens rea** (e.g. murder or s18 GBH or any inchoate offence) * These offences **can be committed only intentionally**, unlike others which can be committed either with intention or recklessly (e.g. battery). Example: D is in a shop and puts an item in their basket intending on paying for it. D sees an old friend outside the shop and runs to see them, forgetting to pay for the item. D is not guilty of theft, as they had no intention of permanently depriving the shop of the item without paying for it.

Answer 24

Offences which can be committed **either intentionally or recklessly** are known as basic intent offences.

Answer 25

* Attempt * Encouragement and assistance* Murder* Wounding or causing GBH with intent (s18)* Theft* Robbery* Burglary (s9(1)(a))* Fraud by False Misrepresentatino

Answer 26

**Specific intent**: to complete the crime attempted

Answer 27

**Specific intent**: that the crime encouraged or assisted would be committed

Answer 28

**Specific intent**: to kill or cause GBH

Answer 29

**Specific intent**: to wound or cause GBH or to resist apprehension or detention

Answer 30

**Specific intent**: to permanently deprive another of their property

Answer 31

**Specific intent**: to permanently deprive another of their property (but with intent or recklessness sufficient as to force)

Answer 32

**Specific intent**: to enter building and commit theft/cause GBH/commit criminal damage therein

Answer 33

**Specific intent**: knowledge that statement is/might be false and intention to make gain or cause loss or risk of loss

Answer 34

If a defendant has the **intention** to commit an offence against one victim, but **inadvertently commits the offence against a different victim**, the **intent is 'transferred' to the new victim** and the mens rea requirement of the offence is satisfied. * If the doctrine applies, they will usually be found guilty of **2 crimes**, the completed crime and the attempted crime* Transferred malice only applies where the offence **intended** is the same as the one **committed** e.g. intending to commit assault by throwing a rock but accidentally committing criminal damage - mens rea will not transfer as the different offences have different mens rea requirements.

Answer 35

D is still guilty of murder even though they did not intend to kill V. D's 'intent' to kill B is 'transferred' to V.

Answer 36

Recklessness requires that: * The **defendant foresees the risk** from the act and continues regardless (subjective). Note, the **extent of the risk is largely irrelevant**. If the defendant sees any risk this is satisfied; and * In **all circumstances known to the defendant**, it must be an **unreasonable risk** to take (largely objective). Crimes of recklessness require a **lower level of culpability**Example: D and their 11-year-old child C decide to set fire to some newspaper under a bin. The fire then spreads to a building, causing it damage. D foresaw risk from setting the fire but took it anyway. A reasonable person would not have run such a risk. D would be guilty of arson. C, being much younger, did not foresee any risk, so would not be guilty.

Answer 37

Indirect intention.

Answer 38

He did foresee the risk of harm occurring but was willing to risk it in order to warm up. The utility is warming up, but the risk of harm is much greater. It's not reasonable to light a fire in a haystack in order to warm up so, he did have the mens red of arson.

Answer 39

* Assault* Battery* Wounding or causing GBH (s20)* Criminal damage

Answer 40

**Intention** or **recklessness** as to causing the apprehension of inflicting immediate and unlawful force

Answer 41

**Intention** or **recklessness** as to applying unlawful force

Answer 42

**Intention** or **recklessness** as to causing some bodily harm

Answer 43

**Intention** or **recklessness** as to whether property belongs to another person and whether it is damaged or destroyed

Answer 44

Even **lower culpability than recklessness**. Test: * Did the defendant owe a **duty of care**; and * Did the defendant **breach the standard of care** expected? In certain cases, the standard will be defined by statute, in others, by the common law. It is **always an objective standard**. Example: Whilst driving their car, D is momentarily distracted by changing the station on their radio. Consequently, D smash es into the back of another vehicle. As D owes a duty of care to other road users and has fallen below the standard of the 'competent and careful driver', they will be guilty of careless driving.

Answer 45

**None**.* There is **no requirement for awareness** of all of the factors constituting the crime i.e., the defendant can be found guilty from the mere fact that they committed the act. * Defences that negate state of mind, such as mistake of fact, are not available.

Answer 46

* Under the '**identification doctrine**', the prosecution must find a '**controlling mind**'-a person whose actions and mental state can be said to be that of the corporation as a whole. This is **often very difficult**, so this doctrine is seldom used. * To make prosecution of companies easier, Parliament have introduced **offences that target corporations and do not require mens rea** e.g. regarding health and safety standards, and **offences for failure to prevent certain offences**

Answer 47

The CPS and Serious Fraud Office can defer **prosecutions on corporations** to allow them to 'fix' problems, such as health and safety breaches, upon agreement with them. Such a deferral is **not available to physical persons**.

Answer 48

**Murder** **Manslaughter*** Voluntary (i.e. diminished responsibility or loss of control applies)* Involuntary (unlawful act or gross negligence

Answer 49

Defendant commits murder when they:* **Cause** (applying the tests of factual and legal causation discussed previously) * The **death** (including brain death) of another human being (Note: killing an animal is never murder)* **Unlawfully** i.e. no legal excuse (e.g. killing a soldier in a legally sanctioned war/self-defence would not be murder) * With the **intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm**. Murder carries a **mandatory life sentence** and the judge has **no discretion** but to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment.

Answer 50

**Yes**, if the defendant **causes the death** of a human being and has a **duty of care** towards themExample: A parent does not feed their seven-year-old child, resulting in the child starving to death. The parent had a duty to care for the child as their parent, and the parent's inaction was the cause of the child's death. The parent can be found guilty of murder.

Answer 51

* **No**, a foetus is not a human being for the purposes of murder. * In English law, a person must be "**fully expelled from the womb**" and **alive**. * There are **separate offences** of child destruction and procuring a miscarriage that cover situations of wrongful destruction of a foetus.

Answer 52

Either the intention to:* **kill** another human being or * **cause grievous bodily harm** to another human being (i.e. can murder without wanting the person to die). Example: A boss of a criminal gang wishes to teach a member of the gang a lesson by breaking their arm. When the boss does so, the member of the gang goes into shock, has a heart attack, and dies. The boss is guilty of murder because they wanted to cause the member grievous bodily harm. The fact that the boss did not want to kill the member is irrelevant.

Answer 53

Voluntary manslaughter occurs where:* the **actus reus and mens rea of murder are made out** (so when a defendant causes the death of another person and intends to kill or cause grievous bodily harm), * but there are **partial defences** that can **reduce the offence** from murder to manslaughter. The two most common partial defences are **diminished responsibility** and l**oss of control**.

Answer 54

For a defendant to assert the **partial defence** of diminished responsibility: * The defendant must demonstrate an **abnormality of mental functioning**; * The abnormality must have **arisen from a recognised medical condition** (note that this is broad and could include depression, Alcohol Dependency Syndrome, or even premenstrual stress - look for diagnosis in question); * The abnormality must have **substantially impaired** the defendant's ability to either:1. **Understand the nature** of their conduct; 2. **Form a rational judgment**; or 3. **Exercise self-control**; and* The abnormality must provide an **explanation of the killing**.Burden of proof: the defendant must prove **each element on the balance of probabilities**.

Answer 55

D may be able to use the defence of **diminished responsibility** as:* their behaviour demonstrates an abnormality of mental functioning* which must have arisen from their mental illness* and it substantially impaired their ability to understand the nature of their conduct* which provides an explanation for the killingD will have the burden of proving each element on the balance of probabilities.

Answer 56

D may be able to use the partial defence of **diminished responsibility** as:* their behaviour demonstrates an abnormality of mental functioning* which must have arisen from their mental illness* and it substantially impaired their ability to exercise self-control* which provides an explanation for the killingD will have the burden of proving each element on the balance of probabilities.

Answer 57

Unable to understand their conduct

Answer 58

Unable to form a rational judgment

Answer 59

Unable to control themselves

Answer 60

The prosecution cannot realistically obtain the medical evidence needed, only the defence can.

Answer 61

Loss of control is a **partial defence** for which the defendant must show: * Their **role in the killing resulted from a loss of self-control** (i.e. the defendant must be unable to restrain themselves but this doesn't have to be sudden)* The loss of self-control was caused by a **qualifying trigger**, namely: 1. A **fear of serious violence** from the victim against the defendant or another identified person; or 2. A **thing or things done or said** which constituted **circumstances of an extremely grave character** and caused the defendant to have a **justifiable sense of being seriously wronged**; and * A hypothetical person of the defendant's **age** and **sex** might have **reacted in the same way**. The burden is on the **defence to raise the issue** and on the prosecution to **disprove beyond a reasonable doubt**.

Answer 62

* **No**, e.g. in domestic violence cases there sometimes seen a **slow-burn effect** where the buildup of years and years of abuse can result in the requisite inability to restrain themselves. Example: the wife who has been beaten and abused for years and years who one day can't take it anymore and douses her husband in petrol while he sleeps and sets him on fire could potentially claim loss of control even though the inability to control themselves was not sudden and came as the husband slept.

Answer 63

The **definition of 'trigger' is not clear**. * Statute gives the example of: A parent returns home to **find their child being raped** and kills the assailant. * revenge is not a sufficient trigger* sexual infidelity alone is not a sufficient trigger.Example:* D's partner, V, taunts them about having an affair and their previous attempts to commit suicide. In their anger, D stabs V. The matter of loss of control should be a matter for the jury to decide (in the actual case, it was found to be a trigger because the infidelity was **not the sole reason for the defendant's loss of control**)

Answer 64

**No**. Note, it may be a reason for a trigger but infidelity alone is insufficient.

Answer 65

* The **actus reus of murder was committed** by the defendant but the **mens rea of murder is not made out** (so the defendant does not intend to cause death or serious harm), the defendant may still be liable for involuntary manslaughter.* Examples include **unlawful act manslaughter/constructive manslaughter** and **gross negligence manslaughter**

Answer 66

The defendant commits a **criminal offence** that carries an **objective risk to the victim** and they **die as a result**. The act must be:* **Intentional** (i.e. there must be a deliberate positive act, it cannot be an omission)* **Unlawful** (i.e. there must be an underlying criminal offence, such as battery or criminal damage - can be a minor offence and doesn't have to be directed at the victim)* **Dangerous** (i.e. a reasonable person would recognise that the act exposes others at least to the risk of some harm); and * The **cause of death** (applying the tests of factual and legal causation).

Answer 67

D is not guilty of murder, because they did not have the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily injury. However, D is guilty of **unlawful act manslaughter**, as they intentionally committed an unlawful act (speeding or dangerous driving) that was the factual and legal cause of V's death.

Answer 68

**Yes**, this is murder and not unlawful act homicide because D had the intent to kill and under the transferred malice doctrine, D's intent to kill P will be transferred to an intent to kill V.

Answer 69

**No**, a positive act is required.

Answer 70

**No**. Although D has committed an unlawful act (criminal damage), which is both intentional and dangerous, the chain of causation appears to be broken by V's actions. The victim's behaviour in trying to catch the lumps of concrete appears '**so daft as to be unforeseeable**' and will therefore break the chain of causation, relieving D of liability for V's death.

Answer 71

* The defendant owes the victim a **duty of care**; * The defendant **breached** the duty of care (note, this can be by omission); * The breach **caused the victim's death**; * There was a **serious and obvious risk of death** (i.e. risk of harm isn't enough) and* The **breach amounted to gross negligence**. Gross negligence manslaughter covers cases in which a **defendant does not commit an offence** or **knowingly take a risk** but, rather, acts in such an extremely negligent way that they are criminally culpable e.g. a doctor failing to check a patient's blood type before transfusion.

Answer 72

The anaesthetist's conduct falls so far below the standards of care owed to their patient that they are grossly negligent, and the anaesthetist **can be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter**.

Answer 73

In order to establish a breach of duty, the defendant's acts are compared to the **standards of a reasonable person under that duty of care with the applicable expertise** e.g. reasonable doctor, a reasonable car mechanic, or a reasonable nurse

Answer 74

**Common law*** Assault* Battery**Offences Against the Person Act 1861*** Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (s47)* Wounding or Inflicting Grevious Bodily Harm (s20)* Wounding or Inflicting Grevious Bodily Harm (s18)

Answer 75

A charge of either/both **assault** and **battery**Example: If someone hits another person who is facing them, the victim will be assaulted (as they are about to be hit and apprehend unlawful violence) and battered (as they have unlawful force applied to them).

Answer 76

Assault occurs when a defendant:* either **intentionally** or **recklessly** * causes **another person to apprehend** (believe that they will receive, fear is not required - victim's **awareness** is crucial) * **immediate unlawful personal violence**. **Words** themselves can both give rise to assault and negate assault depending on the circumstances.

Answer 77

* **No**, the defendant's conduct must make the victim **believe that the defendant will apply unlawful force upon them imminently**.* Apprehension equates to belief; the victim **need not experience fear**. Example: D makes a motion towards V to strike them but falls short of actually touching V. If V believes that D was about to hit them, assault will be made out. V does not have to feel fear of the anticipated blow; they just have to have believed that it was going to happen.

Answer 78

**No**, B did not see this so there is no apprehension of immediate unlawful violence.

Answer 79

The apprehension must be that the victim will be subjected to personal violence at **some time and place not excluding the here and now**. * Could be here and now, but **might be elsewhere and later, the victim just doesn't know** e.g. harassment like writing hate mail or silent telephone calls could constitute assault. The victim, on receipt, doesn't know where the defendant is, so they could apprehend violence at some point, not excluding the here and now.

Answer 80

* **Yes** so long as the **circumstances are such that the victim believes that violence is imminent** e.g. D walks up to V and says, "I am going to punch you now". If V apprehends the application of unlawful violence, this will amount to an assault.* Note, words can also **negate an assault** if it stops the victim from beliveing that they will be immediately assaulted e.g. D walks up to V with their fists raised and says, "I would punch you if it were not illegal". By their words, V knows that D would not punch them so assault is not made out.

Answer 81

**Yes**, if the threat is conditional, but **might happen**, that would be sufficient for assault.Example: D walks up to V flipping a coin saying, "If this coin lands on heads, I will thump you". Even if the coin lands on tails, ' has already had the fear of thinking that D might hit them. This is sufficient for assault.

Answer 82

Assault can be caused **intentionally** or **recklessly**. The defendant must either:* **intend** the victim to apprehend the application of unlawful violence, or * **foresee** that their actions could make the victim apprehend the application of unlawful violence, and it must be an **unreasonable risk** to take. Example: D runs down a train carriage flailing their arms. V moves out of the way to prevent themselves from being hit by D. D is likely to have foreseen that doing this action would cause people in the carriage to apprehend that they might be hit, and it is an unreasonable risk to take, as there is no utility in the action. D has recklessly committed assault.

Answer 83

**Yes** e.g. silent phonecalls

Answer 84

Battery occurs when a defendant:* either **intentionally** or **recklessly** * **applies unlawful personal force** upon another person. Contact may be **direct, indirect, delayed or by omission** and violence is not required

Answer 85

The defendant must **make contact with the victim's body**, and the contact must be **unlawful**. * Application of force is **defined very widely**. Any unwelcome contact with the victim's body is sufficient. * There is **no requirement that contact is violent**.* Contact may be **direct** (hitting someone), **indirect** (setting a dog on someone), **delayed** (digs a hole someone falls in later) or by **omission** (refusing to drive off someone's foot)Example: V tells D not to touch V's nose. D touches V's nose. This is sufficient for a battery.

Answer 86

* When D **accidentally drove onto the foot**, there is **no battery**, as the defendant lacks mens rea.* When D **refused to move**, D has the necessary mens rea, and they are applying unlawful force upon the victim by omission, so the **offence is made out**.

Answer 87

Battery can be caused **intentionally** or **recklessly** i.e. the defendant must foresee the risk that their actions could cause them to apply unlawful force upon the victim, and this must be an unreasonable risk to take. Example: D runs down a train carriage flailing their arms. While doing that, D hits V on the nose. D must have foreseen that doing this action might cause people to be hit. D's mental state is sufficient for battery.

Answer 88

**Yes**, consent is a defence to assault and battery if it is: * **Expressed** or **implied** (e.g. contact during everyday life) to the defendant; and * Given by someone with sufficient **capacity, freedom, and information to make a choice**.

Answer 89

Assault Occasioning **Actual Bodily Harm** under s47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861* The actus reus and mens rea of **assault and/or battery**,* in addition to **causing actual bodily harm** (applying the tests of factual and legal causation). **Usually, ABH will result from a battery**, but an **assault can also lead to a defendant being charged with ABH** e.g. V flees from D, as they believe D is about to hit them. While fleeing, V falls and bruises their arm. The offence falls within section 47, as V apprehends the application of force and this apprehension causes injury.

Answer 90

ABH means:* **any hurt or injury** calculated to **interfere with the health or comfort** of the victim* That is **more than transient merely trifling**. Sufficient injuries include: * Scratches, grazes, and abrasions; * Bruising and swelling; * Temporary loss of consciousness; and * Diagnosed psychiatric injury, but not fear.

Answer 91

**Intention** or **recklessness** as to whether a victim will:* **apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful violence** (assault) or * the **application of unlawful force** (battery). A defendant does **not need to intend or foresee ABH injuries**.Example: D runs down a train carriage flailing their arms. While doing that, D hits V on the nose. V's nose is seriously bruised. D must have foreseen that doing this action might cause people to be hit. D **does not need to foresee that this action would cause ABH-level injuries**. D's mental state is sufficient whether the charge is common assault (assault and battery) or ABH.

Answer 92

**Yes**, this is **assault ABH**. Diagnosed psychiatric injury is enough to satisfy the ABH requirement. There is no application of force. Instead there is causing apprehension of unlawful personal violence.

Answer 93

This is **battery ABH**. Cutting off hair without consent is enough to satisfy the ABH requirement. The cutting of hair as well as the pinning to the bed is a clear application of force. The cut hair amounts to injury for the purposes of ABH.

Answer 94

**No**. Whilst there is an injury that is of the right level for a charge of ABH, there is neither an underlying assault nor a battery here. * There is no assault because the victim doesn’t apprehend the application of force. They believe that there are no darts in the gun and they're laughing as the defendant takes aim. * There's no battery as well as there is an application of indirect force through the Nerf dart, the defendant lacks the mens rea. There is no intention here as it was not the defendant's aim or purpose. Recklessness requires the defendant to foresee the risk of the application of force, which is not the case here either as the defendant believes that there is no dart left in the gun.

Answer 95

**Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm under s20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861****Actus reus** is causing (applying the test for factual and legal causation) either:* a **wound** (i.e. both layers of skin are broken) or * **grievous bodily harm** (i.e. serious harm)**Mens rea** requirement will be satisfied if the defendant:* **intends** to cause some harm, or * if they **foresee the risk that some harm** may be caused and it is **unreasonable in the circumstances** known to the defendant to take that risk.Note: there is **no need to foresee the level or type of injury** caused.**Self-defence may be available** as a defence.

Answer 96

Any injury where **both layers of the skin are broken** e.g. a stab wound. Need to see **blood**. Bruising (breaking only one layer) is not enough.

Answer 97

GBH injuries are defined as '**serious harm**'. * These injuries are **more serious than ABH injuries**.* Long periods of unconsciousness* Broken bones* Serious psychiatric injuries

Answer 98

The **mens rea*** **s20**: intention or recklessness regarding **some harm*** **s18**: intention to cause **serious harm**; or forsee the risk of some harm and intend to resist lawful apprehensionThey have **different levels of seriousness** and **different sentences** are likely on conviction.

Answer 99

Here is a clear example where the defendant did not intend or foresee the serious harm they caused. However, as they intend or foresee the risk of **some harm**, this is enough for a conviction under **Section 20 GBH**.

Answer 100

**Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent under s18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861****Actus reus** is causing (applying the test for factual and legal causation) either:* a **wound** (i.e. both layers of skin are broken) or * **grievous bodily harm** (i.e. serious harm)**Mens rea**: a defendant must * (i) **intend** to cause **serious harm** (e.g. stabbing) or * (ii) **foresee the risk of some harm** and **intend to resist lawful apprehension**. Note, **recklessness is not available** as a mens rea for s18 e.g. a HIV positive person having sex with people without telling them is likely reckless so s20 would be more appropriate.

Answer 101

Here, the prosecution might struggle to show that the defendant intended to cause serious harm with a single punch. A **charge of s20 will be much easier to prove** since it will be easier to demonstrate an intention or recklessness regarding causing some harm.

Answer 102

**Generally, no**, subject to 5 exceptions (surgery, body modification, religious practices, sports, horseplay, limited sexual gratification). If within an exception, the consent: * Must be **expressed** or **implied** to the defendant in a **legally recognised manner**; * Must be **effective** and the victim must have the **capacity, freedom, and information to make a choice**; and * Must come **within a legally recognised category**.

Answer 103

* **Surgery** * **Body Modification** (e.g. tattoos and piercings of persons over 18)* **Religious Practices** (circumcision and religious flagellation) * **Sports** (implied consent to the contact that accompanies the sport even where one player causes another injury when their actions are slightly outside the rules of the game but does not extend to intentional injuries except for in boxing/martial arts).* **Horseplay** (where a group of boisterous youths get together and play, accidents will happen and there is implied consent to the resulting injuries) * **Sexual gratification** (can consent to risk of infections if fully informed, sadomasochism in matrimonal relations. Note, certain sadomasochistic practices involving serious violence have been prosecuted)

Answer 104

**No**, this is within the zone of appreciable risk of the game.

Answer 105

The **type of sport** and the **context of the match** will determine the level of behaviour covered by implied consent. Example: 11-year-olds playing football would not have given implied consent to the type of conduct that we see on TV from professional football players.

Answer 106

**No**, implied consent to the 'horseplay' was found.

Answer 107

* **Theft** (s1)* **Robbery** (s8)* **Burglary** (s9)* **Aggravated Burglary** (s10)

Answer 108

Under s1 of the Theft Act of 1968, theft involves:* **Dishonest*** **Appropriation** (i.e. assuming at least one right of the owner)* Of **property** (money and all other property including intangible, real and personal property)* **Belonging to another** (including co-owned)* With the **intention of permanently depriving** the other of it.

Answer 109

**Any assumption of the rights of the owner**; the defendant need not assume all the rights of the owner to satisfy this requirement. * It can be an **ongoing or repeated** action; it can be important to establish later appropriation in order to establish the **coincidence of all the elements** of the offence at the same time. Examples: * D **switches labels** on goods in a shop so that expensive goods have labels of cheaper items on them. They then go to the checkout to pay for the goods at a lower price. This is appropriation because **only the shop had the right to change the price** on the items. * D **finds a bracelet** in the street and picks it up. At this stage, D lacks dishonest intent, so the offence is not made out. **Later, D decides to keep the bracelet**. Here there is a **later appropriation**, at which point all the elements of actus reus and mens rea coincide.

Answer 110

Check for **coincidence of actus reus and mens rea** in any theft question; the **mens rea may often be missing** e.g. appropriation in a shop occurs as soon as the item is picked up; this occurs whenever a shopper puts items in their trolley in the supermarket. What distinguishes the innocent shopping from theft is the lack of dishonest intention.

Answer 111

* Property includes **money and all other property**, including **intangible** property (such as copyrights and electronic transfers), **real** property (relating to land), and **personal** property.* **Illegal** property is property under the Theft Act 1968 e.g. if D steals a drug dealer's supply of cannabis they would be guilty of theft* Note, **information is not property*** Property **does not include corpses** but does include body parts

Answer 112

**No**, this is not theft because information falls outside the definition of property.

Answer 113

There has been a theft because the **fan took the value of the ticket** and returned a worthless piece of paper.

Answer 114

Property will **rarely be considered to be abandoned**, even after it has been lost or thrown away.Example: rubbish left out for collection or a bag of items left outside a charity shop. The original owner won't want these items anymore in either case, but they will **not be deemed to have been abandoned by them until it has been adopted** by the intended recipient i.e. until the council collects the rubbish or until the charity shop takes the bag in.

Answer 115

There is a **hierarchy of possible claimants** to consider before the finder can say it does not belong to another. * Consider the **true owner**. **Reasonable steps** must be taken to try and trace them like handing the item in where is being found or taking it to a police station. * If the true owner cannot be found, then it might belong to the finder or to the landowner depending on whether it's **on or attached to the land**. If it's on the land, so it's not attached but just **lying freely, then the finder is entitled** to keep it and it will not belong to another. If it is in some way attached to the land e.g. **buried in the Earth, then it will belong to the landowner** and the finder will not be allowed to keep it.

Answer 116

This means **another has possession or control over it**Taking property belonging to another might include:* a partner stealing from co partners* a director stealing from their company, and * an owner taking an item that was left 'on trust' with another for services rendered* a person taking property they co-own with someone.Property will **rarely be considered to be abandoned**, even after it has been lost or thrown away. Example: A person takes their car back from a garage without the garage's permission and without paying for the repairs. This can be theft by taking from someone with possession or control.

Answer 117

A defendant must:* be **dishonest** and * **intend to permanently deprive** the victim of the property (i.e. they treat the property as their own regardless of the true owner's rights).If the defendant intends only to **borrow** the item and then return it, they will not be guilty of theft

Answer 118

Borrowing only amounts to intention to permanently deprive if it is **for so long or so extensive that it is equivalent** to an outright taking or disposal. All **goodness, virtue and practical value has to be taken** from the goods.

Answer 119

D is **not guilty** of theft. (For this reason, the law has a separate offence of taking a vehicle without the consent of the owner).

Answer 120

It is the defendant's intention **at the time they take the item** that is important. * Therefore, if someone **takes an item intending to keep it but then changes their mind**, that is sufficient for theft. * Furthermore, if the defendant **gambles** with the victim's property or **removes value** from the property, that will be sufficient for theft e.g. taking a season ticket intending to return at the end of the season is theft as the value will be gone.

Answer 121

Court must ascertain the **defendant's knowledge as to the facts** and ask itself whether the defendant's behaviour was **dishonest by the objective standards of reasonable and honest people**. A defendant will **not be dishonest** if the defendant **believes**:* they have a **right in law** (i.e. an entitlement) to the property * they would have the **owner's consent*** the **owner could not be discovered** by taking reasonable steps

Answer 122

**Yes**, D would still be guilty because their behaviour is **dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people** and they do not have entitlement or owner's consent and it is not the case that the owner is not found.

Answer 123

**No**, they believe that they are entitled to the property in law

Answer 124

**No**, they believe they would have the owner's consent.

Answer 125

A defendant is guilty of robbery if they:* commit **theft** and,* **immediately before or at the same time**, they **use force** or **put the victim in fear of then-and-there being subjected to force*** **in order to steal**. Note: **do not assume** that there is robbery where there is violence and appropriation.

Answer 126

There must be:* **appropriation** of **property** **belonging to another** **and*** **Force** (infliction, apprehension or seeking to cause apprehension)* **Before or at the time of the offence*** **In order to steal**

Answer 127

The force element can be satisfied through:* **infliction** of force, * **causing an apprehension** of force or * **seeking to cause an apprehension** of force. Example: D uses a fake gun to threaten V and takes V's property. Even if V knows that the gun is fake, D is guilty of robbery because D has sought to cause V to apprehend force.

Answer 128

Force must be used or threatened **before or at the time** of the offence and must be used **in order to steal**. It cannot be used afterwards. Example: D takes V's wallet without their knowledge. V realises their wallet is missing a few seconds later. V then confronts D, who punches V in the face. This is not robbery because the force came too late.

Answer 129

A defendant must:* be **dishonest** and * **intend to permanently deprive** the victim of the property (i.e. they treat the property as their own regardless of the true owner's rights).There is **no additional mens rea** requirement in relation to the force used.

Answer 130

There is **no theft** on these facts because one of the essential elements is missing, there is **no dishonesty**. One of the scenarios in which the defendant is accepted to be acting without dishonesty is when the **defendant believes they are entitled by law to the item**. Here the defendant believes the money is his and so believes he is entitled to take it regardless of whether he's right. And as such he has not committed theft and that means there can't be a robbery.

Answer 131

The defendant has **sought to put the victim in fear**. They have not succeeded as the passenger was deaf and blind and oblivious to what was going on. But nevertheless, all that is needed is that the defendant sought to cause the apprehension of force, which the defendant's words would certainly satisfy here.

Answer 132

**Yes**, theft is an ongoing act from the moment of tying the victim up to getting away, during this time force is used in order to steal and so this satisfies the requirements of robbery.

Answer 133

**Yes**. There is the use of force immediately before or at the time of stealing and in order to steal. Rouching the bag, holding it, trying to remove it is enough to be appropriation.

Answer 134

* Burglary **by trespass with intent** under s9(1)(**a**) and* Burglary **by offences committed following a trespassory entry** under s9(1)(**b**)

Answer 135

The defendant must have:* **knowingly** or **recklessly** * entered a **building** or a **part** of a building * as a **trespasser** * with **any part of their body** * with **intent** to 1. **steal** anything in the building, 2. **inflict GBH** on anyone in the building, **or** 3. cause **criminal damage** to the building or anything inside the buildingIt **does not matter** whether the defendant actually stole, inflicted GBH or caused criminal damage; the crime is committed ifthere is **intention to do so at the time of entry**.

Answer 136

The defendant must have* **knowingly** or **recklessly** * entered a **building** or a **part** of a building * as a **trespasser** * with **any part of their body** and* **after entering**, they **actually or attempted** to:1. **steal** or 2. **inflict GBH**Burglary is committed at the **time of the underlying offence** (i.e. stealing/GBH/attempt)

Answer 137

* A building or part of a building requires a **structure with some degree of permanence**. * This includes **inhabited vessels and vehicles** e.g. houseboats or campervans* The trespass can arise from a** temporary restriction** or a **restriction that applies to only a part** of a building. Example: V tells D, a guest in their home, not to go upstairs. While V is in the kitchen, D goes upstairs into V's bedroom to look for something to steal. D became a trespasser as soon as they went upstairs, because they had no permission to be there.

Answer 138

**Timing of mens rea*** (a) - point of entry* (b) - time of underlying offence**Underlying offences*** (a) theft/GBH/criminal damage* (b) theft/attempted theft/GBH/attempted GBH

Answer 139

Even though D had no intention of stabbing anyone when they entered the house, they would be guilty of burglary under **s9(1)(b)** by offences.

Answer 140

**No**, it could be e.g. putting a hand through a window without permission.

Answer 141

The legal issue was whether the defendant knew or was reckless about whether he was a trespasser. As neither could remember the point at which he put his hand through the window, he could not be convicted safely as there was **no evidence that he knew or was reckless about being a trespasser** at or after the time of entry.

Answer 142

A defendant can be convicted of aggravated burglary if, **while committing a burglary**, they have with them: * A **firearm** or **imitation** firearm (including an airgun); * A **weapon of offence** (any article made or adapted to cause injury or intended by the defendant to be used as such e.g. bat, screwdriver etc.); or* An **explosive** (any article manufactured to create an explosion or intended by the defendant to explode). **Timing*** **s9(1)(a)** - the defendant needs to have the weapon **at the time of entry*** **s9(1)(b)** - the defendant needs to have the weapon **at the time of committing the underlying offence**No mens rea is attached to the weapon so the **prosecution do not need to establish intent to use it**, just that they had it with them.

Answer 143

**Yes**, the defendant can be charged under 9(1)(b) as they have the weapon with them at the time of the theft. It does not matter that they did not have it with them at the time of entry for 9(1)(b).

Answer 144

**No**. Both burglary offences require entry as a trespasser into a building or part of a building knowing or reckless that they are a trespasser. This is probably satisfied here as when they throw the coffee over the dress, they are going beyond their license to be there, and so become a trespasser at that point. For 9(1)(a), you need intent to commit theft, GBH, or criminal damage at the point of entry. Here there is no intention to commit theft, GBH, or criminal damage at the point of entry, so there is no 9(1)(a) burglary. For 9(1) (b), you need the defendant to commit theft, attempted theft, GBH, or attempted GBH. Here, there's criminal damage, which is not one of the underlying offences for 9(1) (b), and that means there isn't a 9(1) (b) burglary either, so it isn't burglary at all.

Answer 145

* Fraud by **false representation*** Fraud by **failure to disclose information*** Fraud by **abuse of posititon**

Answer 146

A defendant commits fraud by false representation if:* they **knowingly and dishonestly** make a **false/misleading representation** (of fact, of law, of state of mind or by conduct) and * **intend**, in doing so: 1. To make a **gain for themselves or another**; or 2. To **cause or risk** a **loss to another**. Note, the representation **can be made via an agent**.

Answer 147

* A representation may be as to **fact** (e.g. "My mam gave me permission to sell it"), **law**, or **state of mind** (e.g. "I intend to pay you back when I get paid") and it can be made **by conduct** (e.g. nodding at a gym receptionist implying you are a paying member). * A representation **can be made to a machine** e.g. using a bank card in an ATM while purporting to be the owner of the card. * The representation can also be made **via an agent**. Example: D pays A to pretend to be D to take and pass their driving test. D would be guilty of fraud by false representation by using A as their agent to make a gain for themselves, that is, passing the driving test.

Answer 148

**No**, a false representation can be untrue or simply **misleading**. Example: D owns an art gallery and hangs a fake Picasso painting among real ones and advertises it at a price comparable to the others. A court could find this to be a false representation.

Answer 149

* Test: dishonest according to the **ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people**.* Subjective point of view of the defendant is irrelevant.Example: D argues they were defrauding a bank to distribute gains among poor people. This would stil be dishonest on the onjective test and D would be guilty of fraud.

Answer 150

A defendant must: * **Know** the representation is or **might be false or misleading** (i.e. recklessness is not enough); * Act **dishonestly**; and * Intend to **make a gain for themselves or another**, or **cause or risk loss to another** (note a gain need not actually be realised). Example: D makes false representations about their financial position to obtain an overdraft from a bank. D knows that what they have told the bank is untrue or misleading, and D intends to make a gain for themselves (the use of the overdraft). Therefore, D is guilty of fraud by misrepresentation.

Answer 151

**Yes**, they intended to make the gain for their sister. It does not matter that the gain was not realised.

Answer 152

A defendant commits fraud by failing to disclose information if:* they **dishonestly fail to disclose** information * that they are **under a duty to disclose** and * **intend**, in failing to do so: 1. To **make a gain for themselves or another** or 2. To **cause or risk a loss to another**Example: D leaves a box blank when asked to disclose their criminal convictions on a job application. They have failed to disclose information. They would also be guilty if they mentioned only some of their criminal convictions.

Answer 153

A defendant must: * **Know** the failure to disclose is or **might be false or misleading** (i.e. recklessness is not enough); * Act **dishonestly**; and * Intend to **make a gain for themselves or another**, or **cause or risk loss to another** (note a gain need not actually be realised).Example: freelance worker has several contracts simultaneously requiring them to notify their clients if they enter any work with a competitor. A failure to do so could potentially amount to fraud by failure to disclose.

Answer 154

The existance of a **legal duty to disclose** and a **failure** to do so.* contractual duty* statutory duty (e.g. company prospectuses)* customs of particular trades* fiduciary relationships* professionals and clients * claiming benefits etc.

Answer 155

A defendant commits fraud by abuse of position if:* they **dishonestly abuse their position** (of trust or loyalty - note, they do not need to know they occupy this position)* in which they are **expected to safeguard the financial interests of another*** and intend to **make a gain for themselves or another**, or **cause or risk loss to another** (note a gain need not actually be realised).This can be by **act or omission** Abuse is a **question of fact** to be decided by the jury.Examples: * D makes unwarranted deductions from V, their employee. Such a relationship falls within the definition of a position of trust.* Overbilling a very trusting client* Stealing from a demented granny

Answer 156

* A defendant must have intended to **use their position to make a gain or cause or risk a loss** * A defendant **does not need to know that they occupy a position in which they are expected to safeguard** the financial interests of another. * **Dishonesty** is still required.

Answer 157

* The defendant **occupies a position** with an **expectation to safeguard or not to act against the financial interests of another** and * they then **abuse that position**. Examples:* trustee and a beneficiary* director and a company. * professional person (e.g. lawyer) and a client* employee and their employer* two partners * situations within families * within the context of voluntary work.

Answer 158

**Possibly**, A's conduct might satisfy the requirement for active abuse under the offence of fraud by abuse of position.

Answer 159

**Possibly**, C's conduct might qualify as abuse by **omission** for the offence of fraud by abuse of position

Answer 160

A defendant commits criminal damage if:* they, **without lawful excuse**, * **destroy** or **damage** (impair usefulness or value, or involve effort/expense to repair - may be slight damage)* **physical property** (excluding wild plants and fungi)* **belonging to another** (can be co-owned) * **intending** to do so or being **reckless** as to whether that property is destroyed or damaged * and **know or believe the item belongs to another**Defences apply if the defendant believes:* That the owner **did or would have consented** to the damage; or * That the property is in **immediate need of protection**, and that the means of protection adopted are **reasonable** having regard to all the circumstances.

Answer 161

Damage should be given its **normal meaning**. * It can include situations where damage is **slight** or can be **repaired easily**.* Usually, the damage will **impair the usefulness (including temporarily) or value** of the item or will **involve effort or expense to repair**. Example: D paints the pavement with water-soluble paints, which easily washes away in the rain. The council decide to clean it. This would still amount to criminal damage.

Answer 162

**Yes**. Neither the blanket nor the cell could be used until they had been dried, and so it impaired their usefulness.

Answer 163

**Yes**, there is expense in restoring the item.

Answer 164

* Damage can be caused only to **tangible property**. Damage to intangible property such as copyrights and bank accounts are not included in this crime. * **Tamed or animals ordinarily kept in captivity** are also considered to be property* **Wild plants and fungi are specifically excluded** * A person cannot be guilty of criminal damage of their own property. However, **if property is owned by the defendant and another together**, the defendant can commit the offence of criminal damage. Example: * D and A co-own a car. D hits the co-owned car with a golf club. D can be guilty of criminal damage.* D cut back a bush with wild berries. This is not criminal damage* D destroys a crop of genetically-modified food, this will be criminal damage as it is cultivated, not wild.

Answer 165

The defendant must:* **intend** to **destroy or damage** the property or be **reckless** as to whether the item will be damaged* **know or believe that the item belongs to another**. Example: D removes wire from a building, believing that the wire is theirs because they installed it. In fact, the wire now belongs to their landlord. D would not be quilty of the criminal damage as they did not know or believe that the wire belonged to the landlord and not to them.

Answer 166

A defendant will have a defence to criminal damage if **they believe**: * That the **owner did or would have consented** to the damage; or * That the property is in **immediate need of protection**, and that the means of protection adopted are **reasonable** having regard to all the circumstances.Example: D breaks a window in their friend's house to get in when they have forgotten their key. If D honestly believes that their friend would consent to the broken window, they will not be guilty of criminal damage, regardless of whether the friend would actually have consented.

Answer 167

**Yes**, the defendant foresees the risk of the damage occurring. It is unreasonable to take the risk as there is no benefit to their action. There is no utility.

Answer 168

**No**, the defendant foresees the risk of the harm occurring. There is a benefit to his action, a utility that is served by the damage. It is therefore not unreasonable to take the risk.

Answer 169

**No**, they believed they had consent, even though this belief was incorrect, it is still a defence to the charge of criminal damage.

Answer 170

Aggravated criminal damage **mirrors the basic offence**, subject to **three key differences**: * The property damaged **can belong to the defendant** or to someone else; * There is an **additional mens rea requirement** that the defendant must **intend** or be **reckless** as to the **endangerment of life** **by the damage** caused to the property; and * The **defences of belief in consent/protecting property do not apply**.Note that **life need not actually be endangered**.

Answer 171

Arson is **criminal damage by fire*** All the **elements of criminal damage** must be satisfied, and* the **fire must cause the damage**. If property is simply **damaged by smoke** and not fire, the offence will be one of **criminal damage and not arson**

Answer 172

Aggravated arson is **aggravated criminal damage by fire.** * All the elements of **aggravated damage** must be satisfied, and* the **fire must cause the damage**. If property is simply **damaged by smoke** and not fire, the offence will be one of **criminal damage and not arson**

Answer 173

**Aggravated criminal damage**. D has been reckless about the endangerment of life, foreseeing a risk and taking it anyway. Even if there is no one inside the caravan and no life is actually endangered, it makes no difference. This applies even if D owns the caravan themselves.

Answer 174

**Aggravated criminal damage**. D has been reckless about the endangerment of life, foreseeing a risk and taking it anyway. Even if there is no one inside the caravan and no life is actually endangered, it makes no difference. This applies even if D owns the caravan themselves.

Answer 175

**No**. The person intended to endanger life undoubtedly as the person shot at their ex-spouse, but the **person needed to have intended to have endangered life by the damage caused**, by the broken window. That's almost undoubtedly not satisfied here. Another charge, like attempted murder, might have been more appropriate.

Answer 176

An offender who **commits the actus reus** and has the relevant **mens rea** **at the same time*** The first thing that must be done when more than one party is involved in the commission of an offence is to **establish who the principle offender is**. * Liability of any other party **derives** from the principle's offender

Answer 177

If **two defendants act together** for a **common purpose** in committing the act, they are both considered to be principal offenders.Example: A and B both decide to attack V to kill them. They track V down and begin beating V. V dies but it is not known who struck the fatal blow. Both A and B are guilty of murder.

Answer 178

* If a **defendant asks someone to do something** that the **defendant knows is an offence**, but the **other party is unaware**, the defendant can still be guilty of the offence as a principal offender. * The reason is that the **unaware party is effectively just an instrument** for the defendant to commit their crime. Example: D asks A to deliver a parcel to V's house. D has placed a bomb in the parcel, but A is unaware. A delivers the bomb and it explodes, killing V. D is guilty of killing V, but A is not criminally liable.

Answer 179

If a defendant **aids**, **abets**, **counsels**, or **procures** another offender, they will **also be guilty of the principal offence**. * The accessory will be charged as the **principal offender*** The **indictment** will include "aiding, abetting, counselling, and procuring" in the wording and all 4 words should be used to avoid technical acquitals.* The courts have suggested that there is **actually only 2 forms** of accessory liability: assisting and encouraging

Answer 180

**Assisting** or **helping** at the **scene** at the **time of the offence**Example: A drives the getaway car for B when B robs a bank. A has assisted in the commission of the offence and is, therefore, guilty of the offence of robbery.

Answer 181

**Encouraging** or **inciting** an offence at the **scene** of a crime at the **time** of the offenceExample: A is at the scene of the bank robbery. He gives B a pep talk before going in and encourages him to go ahead with the robbery.

Answer 182

* **Advising** or **soliciting** a crime, **usually beforehand** and **not at the scene** of the crime. * There **does not need to be a causal link** between the counselling and the commission of the offence e.g. Huntsman kills Snow White on the Queen's instructions, this is a simple example of counselling. However, if the huntsman had secretly decided not to kill Snow White, but then when he gets into the woods gets angry with her and kills her anyway, there would be no causal link but the Queen would still be guilty of counselling.Example: A encourages B to rob a bank. A obtains plans for the bank and its safe. He gives B advice as to the best time to enter the bank and what gun to use.

Answer 183

**Producing by endeavour** Example: A recruits B, a known criminal, to commit a burglary. A obtains the bank floorplans and arranges for a bank employee to leave the safe unlocked.

Answer 184

The joint enterprise doctrine can **impute criminal liability to a secondary participant** if:* the participant **assisted or encouraged** the commission of a crime and * in this assistance or encouragement, the participant **intended to assist or encourage** the commission of a crime committed by the principal. It is **not enough merely to foresee that the principal might commit the crime**; the participant must intend that the principal will do so. Example: A and B agree to rob a bank, and B uses a knife to stab and kill a teller during the robbery. A is not guilty of murder merely because A knew that B always carries a knife. To be guilty of murder, A must have intended to assist or encourage B to kill or cause very serious harm during the robbery.

Answer 185

Whilst he did not hit the victim themselves, he may be liable on the **joint enterprise**. In terms of mens rea, the court would have to consider whether Ben **intended to assist or encourage** the commission of GBH. Since Ben is also involved in fighting and also has a weapon, it may well be that the court infers intention to encourage or assist in the commission of GBH here.

Answer 186

* Attempt* Conspiracy

Answer 187

A defendant is guilty of attempting to commit an offence if:* they **do not complete the crime** but * do something '**more than merely preparatory**' towards its commission* **intending to complete** the full offenceA defendant **can be guilty of attempt** if there is **factual impossibility** but **not if there is legal impossibility**Usually attempt is **punished less severly** than the actual crime.Example: D laces V's coffee with poison designed to kill them. V allows the coffee to go cold and throws it away. D would be guilty of attempted murder. However, had D simply obtained the poison but not used it, D would likely be not guilty of attempt. The act of obtaining the poison is 'merely preparatory'.

Answer 188

Nearly always **intention to complete the full offence** and, therefore, can be higher than is required for the underlying substantive offence. Example: a defendant must intend to murder someone to be guilty of attempted murder, but they can be guilty of murder if they intend only grievous bodily harm but their actions nevertheless actually kill the victim

Answer 189

**No**. Whilst the defendant had taken many preparatory steps to kidnapping a child, he had **not gone beyond preparation**. He had not done acts more than merely preparatory, and so he was not guilty of attempt.

Answer 190

**Yes**. At that stage, the acts would have been **more than merely preparatory**, and the defendant would have embarked on the crime proper.

Answer 191

**Yes**. If a defendant attempts to commit an offence that is **physically impossible to complete**, the defendant can still be guilty of attempt of the offence. Example: D believes there is a diamond in V's bag. D rummages around in the bag but cannot find the diamond. D could never have committed theft of the diamond because there was no diamond in the bag to steal. However, D would be guilty of attempted theft of the diamond because they rummaged through the bag dishonestly with the intention to permanently deprive the true owner.

Answer 192

**No**. If the defendant, **having completed all acts that they had intended, would have committed no crime,** they **cannot be guilty** of an attempt when they fail to com- plete all of the intended acts. This is known as legal impossibility, and it is **rare**. Example: D is a United States citizen. The drinking age in the US is 21. While in London, D gives their 19-year-old roommate a beer. D does not know the legal drinking age in England is 18 and not 21, as it is in the United States. cannot be guilty of attempting to give alcohol to an underage person because the act they intended is not illegal even if they believed it to be.

Answer 193

**Yes**. They had the mens rea even though the crime was factually impossible.

Answer 194

**No**. A defendant charged only with attempt may not be convicted of the completed crime.Note, a **defendant charged with a completed crime may be found guilty of either** the completed crime or an attempt to commit the crime as long as the evidence presented supports such a verdict.

Answer 195

Most attempted offences **may be punished to the same extent** as the completed crime, but **courts tend to punish attempt less severely** than the crime attempted. Note, attempted murder carries a **discretionary life sentence rather than a mandatory** life sentence, as in the case of murder.

Answer 196

An **agreement** between **two or more parties** to **carry out anoffence**.* They **do not need to complete the crime** agreed upon to be guilty of conspiracy and it may be an **impossible crime** . * The **court does not need to identify** the other party or parties and complex arrangements may exist (**chain relationships** and **hub-and-spoke relationships**)* A **conditional agreement** is sufficient.

Answer 197

**Making of an agreement** between **two or more parties** to **do something that is criminal** i.e. they don't need to plan how they will commit the criminal offence in order to conspire * The parties **need do nothing more in pursuance** of this. * The **court does not need to identify the other party** or parties. Example: D is heard on the telephone to agree with another party to burgle a house. The fact that there is an agreement to burgle is sufficient. D can be found guilty of conspiracy regardless of whether the prosecution can identify the person on the other end of the telephone line.

Answer 198

* A **child*** Someone who l**acks mental capacity*** **Spouses** cannot conspire with one another **if no other party is involved*** The proposed **victim** Example: D agrees with V to wound him. Neither party is quilty of conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm because V is the intended victim.

Answer 199

**Yes**, the **agreement can be conditional** but note, just negotiating, encouraging, or assisting will not amount to conspiracy. Examples:* Two robbers agree that if the police arrive on the scene of a bank robbery, they will shoot and kill the cashier. The robbers have entered into a conspiracy to commit murder despite the fact that police might not arrive during the robbery. * If the two robbers were simply talking about whether it would be a good idea to kill the cashier, no agreement will have been made and, therefore, there was no conspiracy.

Answer 200

* **'Chain' relationships** i.e. one large conspiracy* **'Hub-and-Spoke relationships** i.e. multiple conspiracies

Answer 201

If there are:* **sub-agreements, all of which are regarded as part of a single large scheme** * in which **all of the parties to the sub-agreements are interested**, the situation will be regarded as one large conspiracy involving all of the participants. * The sub-agreements will be characterised as **'links' in the overall 'chain'** relationship. Example: In a large narcotics ring, a smuggler brings heroin into the country and sells it to a wholesaler. The wholesaler sells it to numerous retailers. This is one conspiracy, because this is a 'chain' situation. Because the smuggler-wholesaler agreement and the wholesaler-retailers agreements were all part of a scheme in which all participants were interested, there is only one conspiracy.

Answer 202

* One participant (the '**common member'**) may enter into a number of **sub-agreements, each involving different persons**. * The **common member can be characterised as the 'hub'** (as of a wheel) and is a member of each conspiracy and each **sub-agreement as a 'spoke'**. Members of each 'spoke' conspiracy are not members of the other 'spoke' conspiracies and have not conspired with the members of those conspiracies. * If it is established that the **sub-agreements are reasonably independent** of each other-if, e.g. the members of each agreement (other than the common member) have little or no interest in whether the other agreements succeed-the situation will be regarded as involving **numerous different and independent conspiracies**. Example: A agrees with B, C, and D to help each of them make fraudulent loan applications. Each application is to be an independent action and the applicants in one situation will have no interest in whether the other fraudulent applications are successful. There are 3 conspiracies: A with B, A with C, and A with D. Since the sub-agreements are not part of an overall scheme in which B, C, and D all are interested, this is a 'hub-and-spoke' situation. D has not conspired with Band C, but only with A.

Answer 203

* **Factual impossibility**: Yes* **Legal impossibility**: NoExample: * A and B agree to murder C. They do not know at that point that C is already dead. A and B would be guilty of conspiracy to murder. A and B agree to publish an anti-government pamphlet believing it to be illegal. It is, in fact, not illegal to publish such a pamphlet. Therefore, A and B did not commit a conspiracy.

Answer 204

They must **intend to form the agreement**. * The defendant must **intend or know** that **all parts of the criminal act** will be **completed by themselves or other parties** to the agreement. * Intent exists even if the parties agree to **commit an offence only if certain events occur*** Note that it is **no excuse** that the defendant does **not know that the substantive offence is a crime**. Intention to agree to do the act is sufficient.* **At the point that the agreement is formed**, there must be at least two parties who intend to form it. Example: A owns a shop from which they buy and sell rare coins. B proposes to sell A some worthless coins at unreasonably high prices and that C will buy those coins from the shop at even higher prices. A does not know that the transactions proposed constitute an illegal money laundering scheme. If A agrees to the scheme, they can be found guilty of conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Answer 205

**Yes**, A can be guilty of conspiracy to import drugs because **at the time that A and B make the agreement, both parties agree** that the drugs should be exported

Answer 206

**No**, A would not be guilty of a conspiracy because **B never had any intention** that the act of importation would be carried out by A. However, if **A and B conspired with another person C** to export drugs, **A and C could still be guilty** of entering a conspiracy because the two of them would have formed an agreement to commit the offence at the same time.

Answer 207

**Yes**, as soon as the two bank robbers agree that they will shoot the cashier if the police arrive, the coincidence of their criminal mental states is satisfied. It **does not matter that the agreement is conditional** on the arrival of the police

Answer 208

**No**. The defendant **must intend or know** that **all parts of the criminal act will be completed** by themselves or other parties to the agreement (note Anderson case exception). Example: An owner of a bureau de change has a sudden and substantial increase in currency turnover. The owner has suspicion that the money had criminal origins but not knowledge. They are not guilty of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Guilt would require that they intend or know every element of laundering money will be carried out by the other parties, and the crime of money laundering would require that the money be of criminal origin.

Answer 209

The **Case of Anderson [1986] AC 27** * Where a defendant supplied diamond wire for a prisoner's escape, he could be part of a conspiracy to escape. * The defendant **believed that the escape attempt was doomed** to failure and never intended that the prisoner escape.* Nevertheless, the **court held that an agreement to commit the offence was enough** and the intention that the act be carried out was irrelevant. * This case has **not been overturned**, but it **does not reflect recent cases.*** If a question follows this exact pattern of facts, Anderson should be applied. However, in all other cases, you should not follow this result, as later cases have not followed this reasoning.

Answer 210

Capacity is distinct from a defence. * A defence **negates** the **unlawful** element of a crime* Lack of capacity excuses the potential defendant from liability because they are **unable to commit the alleged offence**. This may be caused by **age** or **mental state**.

Answer 211

**10 years old**. A child under the age of 10 is incapable of committing a crime.

Answer 212

**No**. * It is accepted that a child, especially one who is still of a very young age, **may not be able to apply the same 'moral' standards** as an adult. * The court will **assess a child's ability to form the intent** to commit a crime or to be negligent as to whether an offence is committed based on their age.

Answer 213

They must be "of **sufficient intellect** to:* **comprehend** the **course of the proceedings** in the trial as to make a proper defence, * to **challenge a juror** to whom they might wish to object, and * to **comprehend the details of the evidence**" A defendant must be able to plead, instruct their lawyers and understand the process and charge. **If they cannot, the court will hear evidence on the issue**.

Answer 214

There will be a **mini trial*** The **court will decide** in a mini trial whether the defendant "**did the act or made the omission** charged against them as the offence" based on the **actus reus alone**. * The mens rea is irrelevant as the defendant has been found not to be legally responsible for their actions. If the court finds that the **defendant has committed the act**, the court has a variety of disposals. * Often the court will send the defendant to **hospital** for a set period of time or until they improve. * A defendant can also receive a **supervision order** from the probation service * They could receive an **absolute discharge** (i,e, no penalty is imposed).* However, in the case of **murder**, the court is obliged to send the defendant to **hospital for an indefinite period**.

Answer 215

Sometimes called **duress of circumstance*** The act was required to avoid some **inevitable and irreparable evil*** The defendant only did what was **reasonably necessary** and * The evil inflicted was **not disproportionate** to the evil avoided. This defence is **not available to a charge of murder**. If a defendant is faced with a choice of dying or killing another to avoid their own death, they are legally obliged to sacrifice their own life rather than another's.

Answer 216

At times, the defence can be relied upon if the defendant was **subjected to threats and committed an offence to avoid the threats** being realised. Restrictions: * It is not available for **murder or attempted murder**; * There must be a **threat of death or serious injury**;* The threat must be against the **defendant**, their **close relative or friend**, or someone for whom the **defendant reasonably feels responsible**; * The defendant must have **good cause to fear**, taking into account the **nature** of the threat* A **person of reasonable firmness with the defendant's characteristics** would have acted the same* The threat must be **sufficiently immediate,** and there must be **no opportunity to take evasive action**; and * The defendant **cannot rely on the defence if they have voluntarily associated with the maker of the threat**, knowing that their associate has violent criminal tendencies.

Answer 217

**Complete** defence requiring:* The defendant must be acting to protect **themselves, another, or property**; or must be acting to **prevent a crime** or to effect a **lawful arrest*** **Trigger**: The defendant must have a **subjective honest belief** that force was immediately required (belief does not need to be correct) and * **Response** (note **Householder exception**): The amount of force the defendant uses must be **reasonable (proportionate) based on the facts that the defendant believed them to be at the time** (objective test). This can be **pre-emptive force**

Answer 218

**No**, if D's belief is **honest** and the force they use is **reasonable**, self-defence will be available to them.

Answer 219

* It **can be pre-emptive**, and a defendant can hit someone if they reasonably believe that is the only way not to be assaulted themselves. * The defendant's reaction must be **proportionate** to be reasonable e.g. it would not be reasonable for a defendant to smash a bottle over a would-be assailant's head if they feared that the assailant was about to slap them.

Answer 220

* Householders may use **any force that is not grossly disproportionate** or not so disproportionate as to be unreasonable and still rely on self-defence if an **intruder enters their home**.* The courts will take into account that decisions are made in the **heat of the moment** in deciding what amounts to grossly disproportionate. * To fall into the householder exception, the **defendant must be in a dwelling**, must **not be a trespasser**, and must **believe that the victim is a trespasser**. Example: D enters V's property in the middle of the night. V grabs D and places them in a headlock until the police arrive. As a result, D lapses into a coma. It is likely a court would find V's actions to be reasonable, that is, not 'grossly disproportionate.

Answer 221

**No**, this was grossly disproportionate and so here they were liable for shooting the burglar in the back.

Answer 222

D would be able to plead self-defence, even though D was mistaken, and even though D struck the first blow.

Answer 223

In certain circumstances, the court will accept the argument that the **defendant could not form the mens rea** of the offence and find the defendant **not guilty**. * The law draws a **sharp distinction** between **voluntary** intoxication (e.g. when a defendant decides to drink alcohol excessively) and **involuntary** intoxication (e.g. when someone is 'spiked'), as well as between **dangerous and nondangerous drugs**. * Drunken intent is still intent

Answer 224

A court may find that D **could not form the requisite intent** to cause criminal damage because their mental state had been affected by the alcohol. D was involuntarily intoxicated.

Answer 225

* If the defendant's intent was not formed by the defendant's intoxicated state, but rather by their **own desires and predilections**-**drunken intent is still intent** e.g. A 'spikes' the drinks of D, who has pedophilic tendencies. D then sexually assaults a minor. D can be guilty of sexual assault because, even though drunk, D formed the intent to commit the act on the minor. * If a defendant **simply does not know the strength of the alcohol or the drug they are taking**, the court will not consider this to be involuntary intoxication e.g. D assaults V after drinking alcohol they believe to be of far lower strength than it is. A court will hold that the intoxication is voluntary.

Answer 226

A court will have to consider **how each part of the intoxication, voluntary and involuntary, affected the defendant** before making its decision e.g. they drink a double shot of alcohol where they think it was a single shot

Answer 227

**Non-dangerous drugs*** if the defendant becomes intoxicated after taking **prescription medication**, this will be considered intoxication by a nondangerous substance. * In these circumstances, the **intoxication can negate mens rea**, subject to the proviso that intoxicated intent is still intent.**Specific intent offences**, can be committed only intentionally; recklessness will not satisfy the mens rea requirement of these offences. * A court will not find that a defendant who was **voluntarily intoxicated by alcohol or drugs** has the required mental state to desire the outcome of the offence e.g. for s18 GBH with intent, that the victim be severely injured. * This is **subject to the proviso that drunken intent is still intent**.* Note, if they became intoxivated to gain **courage** to commit the specific intent crime, they will be guilty of the offence.

Answer 228

**No**. A crime of basic intent, such as s20 GBH, can be committed either **intentionally** or **recklessly**. A court will find that a defendant who voluntarily becomes intoxicated and then causes injury to a victim has been **reckless by becoming intoxicated** and, therefore, has satisfied the mens rea of a basic intent offence, such as s20 GBH.

Answer 229

**No**, such offences **do not require any mental state** on the part of the defendant. Example: D, whose drinks have been spiked, is caught on a speeding camera exceeding the speed limit. D will not be able to deny the offence by claiming that they were involuntarily intoxicated. Note: D would have substantial mitigation that might mean that they receive little or no punishment for the offence. However, they would still be guilty of speeding

Answer 230

**No**, a court will find that they had the mental state to kill before drinking; therefore, they are guilty of murder. This will be the case even if, at the actual time that D stabbed their partner, they were so drunk that they did not even intend to cause their partner serious harm. The mental state they had when they started drinking will be sufficient.