Criminal law set 3 sep 9 Flashcards
A girl wanted to play a trick on her teacher. The girl told a boy about the trick and told him she needed a rubber snake. The boy bought a rubber snake, which he then gave to the girl. The girl placed the rubber snake in the teacher’s desk drawer. After opening her desk, the teacher saw the snake and fell off her chair, breaking her hip.
How best could the prosecution bring a charge against the boy for wounding or causing grievous bodily harm without intent?
(C) The boy can be held liable for the crime as an accomplice because he aided in the commission of a crime. A person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures another offender is an accomplice and will also be guilty of the crime committed. Here, the boy aided the girl by providing the rubber snake that the girl used to scare the teacher. (A) is incorrect because there is no doctrine of vicarious liability in criminal law. (B) is incorrect because the boy can be charged as a party to the offence, if not the principal. (D) is incorrect because a co-principal is one who acts together with another to commit the prohibited act, and here the boy did not act with the girl in committing the crime. It is doubtful the boy’s action of giving the girl a rubber snake is enough to be guilty as a co-principal. (E) is incorrect because attempt requires specific intent. To be guilty of attempt it must be shown that the boy intended to cause the teacher grievous bodily harm, and there is nothing in the facts that shows this; the facts merely indicate that the boy knew the girl wanted to play a trick on their teacher.
Question
On Monday, a man walks by an upscale clothing shop and sees a sign in the shop window indicating the shop is closed for the remainder of the week because the owners are on holiday. The man decides that on Wednesday, he will break into the clothing shop and steal as much merchandise as he can carry. The man purchases a lock-picking tool and a mask, and brings the items home. Late Wednesday night, the man retrieves the mask and lock-picking tool, and walks toward the clothing shop. He arrives at the clothing shop and starts trying to pick the lock. Fortunately, an on-duty police officer sees the man. The officer orders the man to back away from the clothing shop’s door and prevents him from entering.
Which of the following presents the earliest time at which the man could be found guilty of attempting the burglary?
When the man began to use the lock-picking tool on the clothing shop’s door, because that satisfied the circumstance element of the offence but not the result element.
(E) The earliest the man could be convicted of attempt is when he began to use the lock-picking tool on the clothing shop’s door. Attempt is defined as an act which is more than merely preparatory in the commission of the offence. The man went beyond mere preparation when he started to use the lock-picking tool on the clothing shop’s door. (A), (B), (C), and (D) are incorrect because doing a preparatory act or merely deciding to commit a criminal offence do not go far enough toward completion. (B) is also incorrect because the “substantial step” test is not used in the UK.
An 11-year-old boy is playing with some matches in the local park. The boy strikes a match, drops it in the bin, and then watches it smoulder. Believing it will go out and not foreseeing the risk of fire, the boy leaves the park and goes home. The smouldering match sets fire to the bin, which spreads to neighbouring plants, fencing, and the park ranger’s lodge, causing significant damage.
Is the boy guilty of arson for the damage caused to the park ranger’s lodge?
No, as the boy did not foresee the risk of damage to property.
(D) The boy is not guilty of arson. Arson is criminal damage by fire. A person commits criminal damage by destroying or damaging property belonging to another, intending to do so or being reckless as to whether the property is damaged. The test for recklessness is largely subjective: Did the defendant foresee the risk of the harm occurring, and, in the circumstances known to the defendant, was it an unreasonable risk to take? Here, the boy did not foresee the risk of the harm occurring, so he was not reckless. There is also no intention of damaging the park ranger’s lodge by fire, so there is no mens rea for the offence. (A) is, therefore, incorrect. (B) is incorrect as the age of criminal responsibility is 10. (C) is incorrect, as the test for recklessness is not objective. (E) is incorrect, as the fire the boy started spread to the lodge, and so the actus reus is satisfied
The manager of a residential care home for people with extreme learning difficulties withdrew £3,000 from a resident’s account to pay off the manager’s personal credit card debt.
Which of the following would be the most appropriate offence with which to charge the manager?
Fraud by abuse of position.
C) The manager should be charged with fraud by abuse of position. A defendant commits fraud by abuse of position when she abuses her position in which she is expected to safeguard the financial interests of another. Here, the manager was in a position where she was expected to safeguard the bank accounts of residents. She abused that position by using a resident’s funds to pay off her own debts. (A) is incorrect because fraud by false representation requires a false representation, and nothing in the facts indicates any such representation was made. (B) is likewise incorrect because fraud by failure to disclose requires a failure to disclose information one is under a duty to disclose to make a gain for herself, and here there is no evidence of such a nondisclosure. (D) is incorrect because burglary requires trespass, which is not relevant here. (E) is arguably correct, but not as clearly as (C). Theft requires the taking of another person’s property with an intention to permanently deprive the other of that property. We do not know if the manager intended to return the money (that is, if she was just ‘borrowing’ it from the resident until she could repay it), and so (C) is the better choice.
A traveller had been transporting drugs for a drug smuggler for some time. As he was entering England, he was stopped at customs and asked to open his bag. The traveller said, “That’s a fair cop, I’ve been smuggling cocaine”. The customs officer found a bag containing white powder, which the traveller thought was cocaine. However, someone had secretly stolen his cocaine before he boarded his plane and had replaced it with powdered sugar.
Has the traveller committed a crime?
Yes, the traveller can be guilty of attempting to import drugs even if it was factually impossible under the circumstances.
(D) The traveller can be guilty of attempting to import drugs. Attempt can be charged when a defendant does something which is more than preparatory toward the commission of a crime. Here, the traveller came to England with what he thought was cocaine. A defendant can be guilty of attempting an offence, even if the completed offence would be impossible because of the facts. Thus, it does not matter that the powder was sugar. Therefore, (A) is incorrect. (E) is incorrect for the same reason; it is just a fancier way of writing what is in (A). (B) and (C) are incorrect because there is no legal impossibility here. A legal impossibility is where the completed offence would not be illegal even if a defendant thinks it would be. Here, the importation of drugs-what the traveller thought he was doing-is illegal.
