🚨Criminal Law: general defences, attempts, parties, Flashcards
What are the general defences
- Intoxication
- Self defence or defence of another
Elements of defence of intoxication
Voluntary intoxication
(a) Offences of basic intent: NO defence
(b) Offences of specific intent: Defence if lack MR
Involuntary Intoxication
Defence if lacked MR
When will you be involuntarily intoxicated?
- No knowledge you were taking drug/drink
- Taking a non-dangerous or prescribed drug which has an unusual side effect
When will you be voluntarily intoxicated?
□ D intentionally took drugs/drank
□ Drinks but merely underestimated the amount or the effect it was having on them
□Drinks on medication when they know they shouldn’t
What is voluntary intoxication not a defence for specifically?
Sexual offences
Rules for intoxication and dutch courage
=drink to get courage to do offence
NOT a defence if had MR before they started to drink
Rules for intoxication and mistakes
Cant rely on any mistake made as a consequence of intoxication
May only rely on self defence if reaction didn’t exceed that of a sober person in the same situation
Rules for intoxication and lawful excuse (for criminal damage)
A genuine but drunken mistake would still enable accused to rely on lawful excuse (because belief has to be genuinely held, its irrelevant if they came to it because theyre intoxicated
Elements of self defence/defence of another
- Did D believe it was necessary to use such force? (subjective-based on facts as D honestly believed them to be, even if unreasonable/mistaken)
- Was the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be? (objective) (e. not disproportionate in the circumstances)
Self defence: is the psychiatric condition of D relevant when deciding if the amount of force used was reasonable?
No
Self defence: legal end evidential burden
-D has evidential burden (usually cross examining prosecution witness and D giving evidence)
-Prosecution must then disprove defence beyond a reasonable doubt
Self defence: when does the ‘householder’ rule apply?
inc:
□ Building/part of a building that’s a dwelling
□ Forces accommodation
□ vehicles/vessel that’s a dwelling
Need not be a homeowner, but cant be a trespasser and must be in/partly in a dwelling
Self defence: what is the rule for householder cases?
Was force proportionate (not GROSSLY disproportionate) to circumstances as D believed them to be
Self defence: what is account given to?
- No duty to retreat before resorting to action
(When deciding reasonableness, the fact they could have retreated is to be considered but no more) - Heat of the moment: Account given for fact Ds under pressure and must act quickly
- Pre-emptive strikes: D doesn’t have to wait ot be attacked if they honestly believe the use of force is necessary to ward off an attack
What does attempts apply to?
○ Inc almost all indictable offences
○ NOT summary offences unless specifically created
Elements of an attempt (AR/MR)
AR:
1. D does an act (not omission)
2. which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence
MR: intend to commit the specific offence attempted
Attempts: what is ‘more than merely preparatory’
- Accused needed to be ‘on the job’ which ‘begins when the merely preparatory acts have come to an end and D embarks on the crime proper’
- Significant steps need to be taken towards the commission of the full offence
Attempts: what counts towards the MR of ‘intend to commit the specific offence attempted’?
- If a result crime, D must intend the prohibited result even if lesser MR would satisfy the full offence (
- Can inc. direct or indirect intent
- attempted criminal damage-just need to prove D intended to OR was reckless as to endangering life
Conditional intent adequat
How may a crime be impossible?
-As to end result (pickpocket by pockets empty)
-As to means (tries to stab somone with paper straw)
How does impossibility affect the AR of an attempt?
Wont prevent the AR of an attempt
How does impossibly affect the MR of an attempt?
D judged on facts of case as they believed them to be
Eg have MR if pulled trigger even if no bullet in gun
Who is the principle offender
person who commits AR and MR of substantive criminal offence (inc using innocent agent to commit AR)
What are Co-principles-/joint principles
when 2 or more people commit AR and MR together
who is a Secondary party/accomplice/accessory-
assist in commission of offence whilst not committing AR themselves.
What is a joint venture/enterprise
where multiple people commit crime with common purpose/plan (eg gangs but not involved)
How are accomplices treated for trial/sentencing
same way as principle offenders
AR and MR of accomplice liability
AR: Aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of the offence
MR: Intend to do act that assisted, encouraged or procured the offence OR /say words that advised, encouraged or procured the crime.
AND knowledge of relevant circumstances
1. Full knowledge
2. Type of crime but not deeds
3. Limited range of 1 or more crimes
What is aiding?
- Physically helping, assisting or supporting the principal
- BEFORE or DURING (Eg. look out/holding v down)
- No mental/causal link required
What is Abetting?
Encourage principal DURIN
Mental link need
What is counselling?
Instigating, soliciting, encouraging or threatening the principal to commit the offence BEFORE
Mental link needed
What is procuring?
- ‘to produce by endeavour’
=the accused sets out to achieve a particular state of affairs and takes appropriate steps to bring about that offence. - BEFORE
No mental link but YES Causal link required
For the AR of accomplice liability, when is a mental or causal link required and what are they?
Niether: aiding
Mental: Abetting and counselling
Causal: Procuring
Mental=P aware of encouragement/advice?
Causal=would P have committed crime anyway
Attempts: what is not sufficient for the MR of attempted murder
MUST have an intention to kill, an intention to cause GBH is not sufficient
Accomplice liability: what happens if the principle does the agreed act but with different MR?
Liability based on own MR, whether higher or lower than principles
Applies to: offences sharing same AR with different MR: ◊ Murder/manslaughter ◊ s18/20 OAPA
Accomplice liability: what happens if the principle goes beyond the plan?
If A intend to assist/encourage new offence=guilty of new crime
BUT Foresight that new offence might occur doesn’t mean they indented it , Such foresight is evidence of intent but no more
If they foresaw that by committing crime A, they may commit crim B, could be concluded that that they had the necessary intent that crime B would be committed=its within the scope of the original plan (Jogee)
Does presence at scene amount to accomplice liability?
NO BUT may be liable for presence if:
1. Attendance was by prior arrangement with principle (acting as support)
2. They encourage of assist by words/actions (inc remaining passive when there’s duty to act)
3. sometimes presence scene of an illegal event (even without obvious evidence of encouragement)
When may the accomplice be convicted by the principle isnt?
- Principle has a defence
- Principal not prosecuted/cant be found
What is innocent agency?
Where someone who commits the AR of a crime but not guilty of the offence (lack of MR/defence).
○ Where someone uses innocent agent to commit AR, instigator usually charged as the principal offender rather than the accomplice.
What is the appropriate charge for innocent agency for sexual offences
acting as an accomplice having procured the commission of the offence.
Accomplice liability: how to withdraw from the plan
○ Decision must be effectively communicated
○ ultimately a matter for the jury
Before the offence: Words alone may suffice,Must be timely and unequivocal
During the offence: physical intervention may be required
