Criminal SBAQs- Attempts + Accomplice Liability Flashcards
In which ONE or MORE of the following situations would Rohit be guilty of attempted murder? In each case, assume Rohit has the requisite mens rea.
A. He leaves his daughter Amina without food or water hoping she will die. Amina is found by relatives and survives.
B. He stabs Hans without realising that Hans died of natural causes ten minutes ago.
C. He buys a gun planning to kill Tonya next week.
D. He puts a gun to Tonya’s head, releases the safety catch and is about to pull the trigger when he is arrested.
The correct answers are options B and D.
Rohit is not guilty of attempted murder in option A, as s.1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981 requires the commission of an act - omissions do not establish the actus reus of an attempted offence. He will be guilty of attempted murder in option B because impossibility is no defence to a charge of attempting to commit a crime.
Rohit cannot be convicted in option C as he has not gone beyond the preparatory stage. He is likely to be guilty in option D because there is sufficient evidence that Rohit has done something more than merely preparatory towards committing murder, although this is for the jury to decide.
Which of the following statements correctly describes what the prosecution must prove in order to establish the mens rea for an attempt contrary to s.1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981?
A. For attempted criminal damage, that the defendant intended to destroy or damage property belonging to another.
B. For attempted grievous bodily harm, that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the infliction of serious bodily harm on the victim.
C. For attempted aggravated arson, that the defendant intended to destroy or damage property belonging to self or another and intended to endanger life
Option A is correct because, for attempted criminal damage only, an intent to commit the offence will suffice (even though recklessness is an adequate mens rea for the full offence).
Option B is wrong because for assaults under ss.18 and 20 OAPA 1861, the prosecution must prove that the defendant intended grievous bodily harm. As a consequence, there would be no advantage to prosecuting a defendant for attempted wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm under s.20 OAPA 1861.
Answer C is also wrong as, for aggravated criminal damage and arson, the prosecution need only establish that the defendant was reckless as to the endangerment to life, although an intent to destroy or damage property is required.
Assume that the facts are as stated in question 9 (above). When questioned by the police, Kay admits that she is aware Diane is unpredictable and aggressive and known to be violent on occasion. Is the following statement true or false?
The jury may conclude that, despite Kay saying that she only foresaw some injury to Wendy, there is sufficient evidence to convict Kay as an accomplice to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
The statement is True!
The fact that Kay knows Diane is unpredictable and aggressive and known to be violent on occasion provides evidence from which the jury could infer that she has the necessary foresight / contemplation that Diane might cause grievous bodily harm using the knife with intent, whether Kay wanted her to or not.
Assume that Diane attacked Wendy with a hockey stick as planned and intended to cause grievous bodily harm, whereas Kay thought she would only cause a minor injury with the stick.
Which of the following correctly identifies the liability of Kay, if Wendy suffers serious injuries?
A. Principal to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
B. No liability for Wendy’s injuries.
C. Accomplice to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
D. Accomplice to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The correct answer is option D
The actus reus is as contemplated by Kay - an assault - but this becomes a more serious assault than Kay envisaged. Because Diane intended serious harm, she is a principal offender to causing grievous bodily harm with intent. However, Kay is only liable to the extent of her own mens rea. She foresaw Wendy suffering a minor injury and so Kay becomes an accomplice to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Option A is wrong - Kay is not a principal offender because she does not commit the actus reus of the offence, as she does not hurt Wendy. Option B is incorrect because Diane has not completely departed from the plan; whilst Option C is also wrong because Wendy did not intend to assist or encourage Diane in causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
A girl and a boy have fallen out with the victim in their college because she reported them to the police for bullying her online. They decide to punish her and wait for her outside her house. The girl acts as a lookout while the boy beats the victim repeatedly with an iron bar, causing a fractured jaw and a broken arm. He confirms in his police interview that he intended to cause the victim serious bodily harm. In contrast, the girl only thought that the boy would cause the victim some injury such as bruising, just to ‘teach her not to mess with us’.
The boy is convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Which one of the following correctly identifies the liability of the girl?
A. Principal to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
B. No liability for the victim’s injuries.
C. Accomplice to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
D. Accomplice to inflicting grievous bodily harm.
E. Accomplice to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
The correct option is D
The girl commits the actus reus of accomplice liability as she aids the offence. She also satisfies the first limb of the mens rea as she acted deliberately or intentionally in being the lookout. She is an accomplice to a s.20 assault (inflicting grievous bodily harm) as she contemplated the victim receiving ‘some injury such as bruising’ but not a really serious one. She aids the agreed act (the assault) but with a different mens rea from that of the principal and so she will be judged on the basis of her own level of mens rea.
Option A is wrong as the girl has a lesser involvement in the assault and is merely an accomplice. The person who actually commits the assault is the principal offender – the boy. However, because the boy has not completely departed from the plan, she does not escape liability altogether, so B is wrong. This is because there was an agreement to assault the victim, albeit not as severely as occurred.
Options C and E are wrong for the reasons set out in the discussion of option D. The girl does not intend to assist or encourage the boy in causing the victim grievous bodily harm with intent (s.18 OAPA 1861), or with intention or recklessness as to an assault only. The evidence is that the girl thought the boy would cause the victim ‘some injury’.
A man plans to carry out a robbery of a bank, but the police are tipped off and are lying in wait for him. In preparation, the man has located a bank to rob, obtained an imitation firearm, written a demand note which is in his pocket, been seen loitering outside the bank wearing sunglasses and carrying a heavy object (an imitation firearm), failed to give any warning about his intended actions and had just entered the bank when he was stopped and arrested.
Which of the following statements correctly describes whether the man satisfies the actus reus of attempted robbery?
A. The judge would not allow the matter to proceed to the jury as there is insufficient evidence that the man has moved from the preparatory stages to commit the full offence of robbery.
B. The jury may take account of all the defendant’s actions and omissions when determining if he is guilty of attempted robbery.
C. The jury must decide, as a question of fact, whether what the defendant has done is sufficient for the offence of attempted robbery.
D. To be guilty of an attempted robbery, the man must have embarked on the middle stages of the crime, and the evidence provided suggests that he has.
E. The jury is unlikely to conclude that the man satisfies the actus reus for attempted robbery, as he has not completed the final act towards committing the full offence.
Option C is the correct answer as this is the question for the jury to decide. Option A is wrong because, in a scenario such as this, there is sufficient evidence to allow the matter to go to the jury. Option B is wrong because the jury cannot take account of the defendant’s omissions, such as his failure to give any warning, when determining if he is liable for attempted robbery.
Option E is also wrong. The jury is likely to conclude that the man has moved from the preparatory stage to the commission stage and the prosecution do not have to wait until he has completed the final act before the event. The man must have embarked on the ‘crime proper’ to be guilty of attempted robbery – not the ‘middle stages of the crime’ – hence, Option D is wrong.
A woman and her boyfriend are rock climbing when an argument develops. As they are perched together on a high ledge, she gives him a shove. He falls off the ledge and descends 60 metres, before landing on a patch of grass. Miraculously, he survives sustaining only a broken leg and two broken arms. When interviewed, she says she did not want to kill him but she did want to seriously hurt him and she foresaw that death was highly probable.
If she is charged with attempted murder which of the following statements best describes her chances of being convicted?
A. She would be found guilty as she has done an act more than merely preparatory and she intended grievous bodily harm.
B. She might be found not guilty as she has done an act more than merely preparatory but she lacked the mens rea for attempted murder which requires an intention to kill.
C. She might be found guilty as she has done an act more than merely preparatory and a jury is likely to find that grievous bodily harm was a virtual certainty and that she foresaw this.
D. She might be found guilty as she has done an act which is more than merely preparatory and a jury is likely to find that death was a virtual certainty, and that she foresaw this.
E. She might be found not guilty as although she has committed the actus reus, she has not committed the mens rea as only a direct intent will suffice for an attempt.
Option D is the correct one. For attempts, the actus reus is doing an act more than merely preparatory and the mens rea is intending the commission of the offence. For attempted murder, this means the defendant must intend to kill. Intention to cause grievous bodily harm is not sufficient - R v Whybrow [1951] although the intent can be direct or indirect - R v Pearman [1985]. Therefore, although the woman has only admitted that she wanted to cause him serious bodily harm, given that she pushed him off the edge of a cliff with a 60-metre drop, it is likely that the jury would conclude that death was a virtual certainty and that she would have foreseen this.
Options A and C are wrong because an intent to cause grievous bodily harm is not sufficient for attempted murder.
Option B is wrong because while she may not have a direct intent to kill, she may well have an indirect intent to kill on the facts. See Option A. Option E is wrong because intent can be direct or indirect.
A woman has recently discovered her husband has been having an affair. Furious, she decides to kill him. The woman purchases a handgun on the internet which she intends to use to shoot her husband. Unknown to the woman, the handgun is a fake. The woman waits for her husband outside of his work, checks the handgun is loaded and tucks it into her back pocket. She hides some distance away, intending to run at her husband and shoot him when he appears. When her husband appears, she changes her mind but is apprehended by a security guard who has spotted the handgun.
Is the woman guilty of attempted murder?
A. Yes, she has done something more than merely preparatory and intended to kill her husband.
B. Yes, she has done something more than merely preparatory and impossibility of means is not a defence.
C. Yes, she has done something more than merely preparatory and it does not matter that she changed her mind.
D. No, she has not done something more than merely preparatory as she did not have a real handgun.
E. No, she has not done something more than merely preparatory as she had not yet embarked on the crime proper.
Option E is correct as the woman has only hidden and not yet run at her husband, pointed the handgun or pulled the trigger. She has not gone beyond preparation and embarked on the crime proper - R v Jones [1990].
Option A is wrong as whilst the mens rea for attempted murder is an intention to kill, the woman had not done something more than merely preparatory. Option B is also wrong as although impossibility of means is not a defence, the woman had not done something more than merely preparatory.
Option C is wrong as the woman had not done something more than merely preparatory, the actus reus is not satisfied and her change of mind is therefore irrelevant. Finally, option D is wrong as although the woman had not done something more than merely preparatory, that is because she is still hidden and not because she has a fake handgun.
The head teacher of a school is desperate to raise funds for the school. She asks an engineer to write a report saying that extensive work is needed to the school wall to make it safe. The head teacher and the engineer both know there is no problem with the wall. The engineer knows that the head teacher plans to submit the false report to the company that insures the school premises, and that she hopes to use the insurance money to fix the school roof. The engineer writes the report as requested but the insurance company rejects the claim stating that the engineer’s report is false.
The head teacher is charged with an offence of fraud and pleads guilty. When questioned by the police, the engineer says he had hoped the head teacher would not go ahead with the claim.
Which of the following statements best describes the engineer’s potential liability as an accomplice to this offence of fraud?
A. The engineer is guilty of being an accomplice to fraud because he intentionally procured the commission of the offence.
B. The engineer is guilty of being an accomplice to fraud because he counselled the commission of the offence with the relevant mens rea.
C. The engineer is guilty of being an accomplice to fraud because he helped the head teacher to commit the offence, realising what the head teacher planned to do with the report.
D. The engineer is guilty of being an accomplice to fraud because he intentionally helped the head teacher by writing the report.
E. The engineer is guilty of being an accomplice to fraud because he helped the head teacher by intentionally writing the report, knowing what the head teacher planned to do with it.
Option E is correct-
it describes both the actus reus and mens rea elements of accomplice liability. The engineer aided the head teacher by writing the report (the actus reus) and intended to do the act (of writing the report), so he satisfies the first limb of the mens rea. The engineer also satisfies the second limb as he did so with knowledge of what the head teacher planned to do (commit an offence of fraud).
A is not the best option as the engineer did not procure, namely ‘produce by endeavour’ or bring about, the offence of fraud – Attorney General’s Reference (No.1 of 1975) [1975]. Nor is option B as he did not counsel (encourage) the commission of the offence.
C is not the best option because the prosecution also has to prove he intended to do the act that assisted (the first limb of the mens rea). Finally, option D is not the best answer because the prosecution also has to prove that he knew the circumstances of the offence.
Two sisters are drinking at a bar, and they particularly like the cocktail glasses they are drinking from. Despite knowing that the cocktail glasses belong to the bar, they discuss whether they should put them in the handbag of the younger sister to take them home and keep them. Although they both initially agree that the younger sister should put them in her bag, the older sister then says to the younger sister that she does not feel comfortable about the plan, but tells the younger sister that she should feel free to do whatever she wants. When they get home, the older sister discovers that the younger sister has brought the two glasses home, and they both keep a glass each.
Which of the following descriptions best represents the older sister’s criminal liability in this situation?
A. Although the older sister has said to the younger sister that she should feel free to do whatever she wants, she will be an accomplice to the theft as the offence was within her contemplation when she encouraged her to take the glass.
B. Because the older sister told the younger sister that she was not comfortable with the plan, she did not aid, abet, counsel or procure the offence.
C. Both sisters are principal offenders in the offence of theft of the glasses because they have both kept a glass each.
D. In order for the older sister to be liable as an accomplice for theft, it is sufficient only that she was present when the theft took place.
E. The older sister took reasonable steps to withdraw from the plan and therefore will not be liable for theft.
Option A is the correct option because the older sister initially encouraged her (younger) sister by agreeing with her that she should take the glasses (counselling). At that time, she had the elements of theft within her contemplation.
Option B is wrong because by the time the older sister had said she was not comfortable with the plan, she had already abetted and counselled her younger sister. Option C is wrong because the appropriation aspect of the theft took place once the glasses were picked up by the younger sister, not when they got home and kept them.
Option D is wrong because mere presence does not create accomplice liability. Finally, option E is wrong because, whilst someone who takes reasonable steps to withdraw from the plan will avoid liability as an accomplice, the steps the sister took were not sufficient by simply saying she was no longer going to go ahead with it.
A teenage boy suggests to his girlfriend that it would be fun to put some burning
paper through the letterbox of any local house to see if it will cause a bit of damage
inside. The girlfriend agrees and provides him with some matches. Unknown to her,
the boy wants to take revenge on an older boy who has bullied him in the past. He
goes to the older boy’s house at night and puts some burning paper through the
letterbox. He intends that the paper should cause a fire and at least endanger the
older boy’s life. In fact, he hopes that the older boy will suffer serious bodily harm.
The older boy dies in the ensuing fire.
Which of the following best describes the girlfriend’s criminal liability?
A. She is not guilty as an accomplice to any offence because she did not know
which house the boy was going to go to and put burning paper through the
letterbox.
B. She is guilty as an accomplice to simple arson and aggravated arson because the
boy has committed these offences as the principal offender and she aided both by
providing the matches.
C. She is guilty as an accomplice to simple arson and murder.
D. She is guilty as an accomplice to simple arson and manslaughter.
E. She is not guilty as an accomplice to any offence because the boy, as the principal offender, went beyond the scope of the plan and committed a new
offence
Option D is correct. The girlfriend aided simple arson as she assisted by providing the matches. She intended to do the act (it was deliberate) and had knowledge of the
circumstances as she was aware of sufficient facts to know a crime of simple arson
would be committed (even if she did not know the exact property involved). The girlfriend is also guilty as an accomplice to unlawful act manslaughter but not murder nor aggravated arson. She aids the agreed act (putting burning paper through a letterbox) but with a different mens rea from that of the principal offender and so she will be judged on the basis of her own level of mens rea. She is still guilty of manslaughter because she intentionally aided an unlawful act (the arson) with knowledge of those circumstances, a jury would consider it dangerous, and it caused
death.
Option A is wrong as accomplice liability only requires the defendant to know enough of the circumstances that make the conduct criminal, not necessarily the exact address of the property to be damaged by fire.
Option B is wrong. Although the girlfriend has aided the offences, there is no evidence from which a jury might infer that she intended to aid the aggravated arson. She did not know the circumstances of that offence as she did not know that the boyfriend intended or was reckless as to endangering life from the damage.
Option C is wrong for similar reasons. The boy intended to cause grievous bodily harm and so is guilty of murder. However, the girlfriend is not guilty as an accomplice to murder as she only believed the boy was going to cause a limited amount of damage by fire so will be guilty only according to the level of her own mens rea ie. for manslaughter, not murder (as in the case of Gilmour).
Option E is also wrong because the boy, as the principal offender, has not completely departed from the plan, so the girlfriend does not escape liability altogether. There was an agreement to commit simple arson by putting burning paper through a letterbox which the girlfriend aided and the boy carried out
