Evolution Of Offence Flashcards
Types of Intent
Deliberate Act- act must be done deliberately,must be more than involuntary or accidental.
Intent to produce a result-
Aim object or purpose
Case law Intent
R V Collister- circumstantial evidence from which an offenders intent may be inferred can include- the offenders actions and words before, during and after the event.
The surrounding circumstances.
The nature of the act itself
Definition of Knowing
Simester and Brookbanks- knowing means “knowing or correctly believing”
Conspiracy section/elements
Section 310,CA1961
-Two or more people
-Made an agreement
-The agreement was to commit an offence
-At the time of the agreement their Intention was to commit the offence
Case law Conspiracy
Mulcahy V R
Conspiracy consists not merely In the intention of two more but an agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act. When the two agree to carry out the offence the very plot is an act itself.
Actus Reus
The physical acts,words or gestures used by the conspirators in making their agreement is what is to be considered the actus reus of a conspiratorial agreement.
Men’s Rea
Means meant to do it, they desire a specific result. Act with aim or purpose
When does conspiracy end?
R V Sanders- a conspiracy does not end with the making of an agreement. The conspiratorial agreement continues in operation and therefore in existence until it is ended by completion of its performance or abandonment or in any other manner by which agreements are discharged.
Conspiring with unknown parties(identity)
R V White - that suspect can still be convicted if the identity of the other parties is never established and remains unknown.
Attempts section/elements
Section 72,CA1961
-Identity of suspect
-intended to commit an offence
-did or omitted to do something to achieve that end
Case law- knowledge
R V Crooks- knowledge means actual knowledge or belief in the real sense of having no doubt. Suspicion of an offence is insufficient
Case law- Attempt
R V Ring- the offenders intent was to steal by putting his hand into the pocket of the victim. Unbeknown to the offender the pocket was empty.
Test for proximity
Simester and brook banks- suggest the folllowing questions should be asked.
Has the offender done anything more than get himself into a position from which he could attempt?
Had the offender actually commenced execution. Taken a step in committing the crime.
Case law- proximity
R V Harpur- independent acts when viewed in isolation can be construed as prepatory. When the same acts viewed collectively they can take on a different context therefore amount to criminal attempt.
