Essay question Flashcards
1
Q
Intro
A
- introduce CAA on doctrine of IOs, talk about mixed reviews in ambiguity, unfairness through precedence, and impact of revocation of proximity test.
- outline plans, review present issues, discuss reform
2
Q
Para 1 (CAA v Stonehouse)
A
- prior to CAA receiving Royal Assent, primary authority was Stonehouse;
- objective test gave clarity to juries, and precedence provided a clear, solid foundation for fair and consistent trials
- statute overruled the test, focussing on psychological commitment rather than proximity, brought pos and neg
3
Q
Para 2 (key elements, from social context)
A
- CAA removed need for physical proximity, 21st century more protection, instant comm means not relevant;
- if proximity considered, many D’s acquitted as distance in 21st rendered the principle superfluous (R v Griffen)
- break Stonehouse, law out of touch with society
4
Q
Para 3 (negatives in breaking Stonehouse)
A
- ambiguity, broadened liability too much?
- liable for ‘attempting impossible’, Anderton v Ryan, CAA saying opposite;
- compare Anderton to Shivpuri, Practice Statement of 1966 employed, allowing HoL to deviate from own precedence due to error
- for PS needed, shows inconsistency and potential unfair verdict, poignant as from highest court in land;
- Law Lord so obvious an error as to contradict, especially having not been bound by stare decesis, woeful inadequacy in doctrine
5
Q
Para 4 (unfair convictions/acquittals)
A
- R v Geddes, not ‘more than merely preparatory’
- difficult to see what more needed done given prep/equipment/location, compromises public safety
- compare to R v Tosti, examining padlock with equipment in car, convicted.
- Geddes closer to fruition of offence than Tosti
- too much ambiguity
6
Q
Para 5 (reform)
A
- Robinson “The Modern General Part: Three Illusions”, target mind, earlier intervention justified, higher conviction. Complements CAA’s ‘psychological commitment’;
- contrast, Duff, argues ‘substantive step’ could be preferred, ‘lying in wait’ being punishable would decrease inconsistency.
- Duff difficult to implement however, resisted by Law Commission, ‘suitable examples’ hard to find - create more ambiguity in trying to solve it.
