Extras

Question 1

Oblique intention

Answer 1

Only use when intention is only form of mens rea

Test in R v Woollin

• The result must be a virtual certainty (objective).
• The defendant must appreciate that the result was a VC (subjective).

If both yes… jury can find intention for offence. Maloney, depends on which kind of mens rea.

Question 2

The Doctrine of Transferred Malice

Answer 2

A D will still be liable where he intends or is reckless as to committing a crime against one person but actually commits it against another (R v Latimer, R v Mitchell)

The MR can only be transferred if the D commits the offence intended (R v Pembliton) or the an offence with the same MR as the intended offence

Question 3

The one transaction principle

Answer 3

Where an offence is committed through a series of actions, it is sufficient that the MR merely occurs at some point during that series of actions (R v Thabo Meli)

Question 4

Mistake

Answer 4

Ignorance if the law is no defence, even where it would have been impossible for the person to know about the law (R v Bailey)

Question 5

Intoxication

Answer 5

Used with defence or prevent creation of MR.

Basic and specific intent crimes

Question 6

Basic intent crime

Answer 6

Recklessness is available as an alternative type of MR (R v Heard)
Ex:
S 20 GBH
Assault
Battery
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

was the D reckless in becoming intoxicated / taking the drug?

Question 7

Specific intent crime

Answer 7

Intention is the only form of MR available (R v Majewski)
Intention is intention to bring about a particular consequence / result (R v Heard)
Ex:
S 18 OAP
S 23 & 24 OAP
Theft

despite the intoxication, did the D manage to form the MR?

Question 8

Intoxication - loss of control

Answer 8

Intoxication will make it easier to prove the D was not exercising ordinary powers of self-control, a criteria against which the D is judged in s 54(1)(c) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (R v Marshall)

Question 9

Defence - consent

Answer 9

A statutory defence for the Theft Act 1968 (s 2(1)(b))
it only acts as a defence to assault and battery (AG Ref (no 6 of 1980))
Can’t consent to ABH (R v Brown)
Horseplay - R v Jones

Question 10

Defence - self-defence

Answer 10

Complete defence
can use force to defend either himself, another or property and under s 3 Criminal Law Act 1967
Protect from physical, not psychiatric, harm.

Honestly believe that the use of force is necessary (the trigger)
This is judged subjectively
The level of force must be reasonable
This is judge objectively on the facts as the D believes them to be (the response

Question 11

Duress

Answer 11

Duress is a complete defence.

There are three types of duress
Duress by threat - R v Hasam
Duress by circumstances
Driving recklessly to escape a threat (R v Willer)
Duress by necessity
Situation where a D has no alternative but to act in a particular way as failing to act in that way will result in a worse outcome (Re A: Conjoined Twins)

Question 12

Conspiricy - agreement

Answer 12

An agreement must be more than mere negotiations or discussion (R v Walker)
An agreement can exist regardless of whether
All the specific details are agreed upon (R v Nock), or
Steps are actually taken to carry out the agreement (DPP v Doot)

Question 13

Conspiracy - 2 or more people

Answer 13

The D’s agreement with the following can never constitute a conspiracy (s 2(2))
His spouse
Although it is possible to conspire with his spouse and others (R v Chrastny)
A child under the age of 10
An intended victim of the crime

Question 14

Conspiricy MR

Answer 14

Intention to agree and intention that the offence be committed

Question 15

Conspiracy - mr - intention to agree/ carry out offence

Answer 15

Ordinary meaning (Maloney)
The D must have intended to commit the offence (R v McPhillips

Question 16

Conspiracy - specific defences

all general available

Answer 16

Impossibility
(1) D will have a defence if it is impossible to commit a crime because it is not actual a crime, regardless of whether he believes that what he is doing is unlawful (R v Taafe)

(2) Impossibility due to physical or legal impossibility is no defence s 1(1)(b) CLA 1977
Physical: D can’t accomplish what he wants to achieve
Legal: the outcome the D desires to accomplish will not constitute the crime he considers it to be

Question 17

Attempt - ar - more than prepatory

Answer 17

Go beyond the point of no return (R v Stonehouse). This has been reduced to merely embarking on the ‘crime proper’ (R v Gullefer) or ‘trying to commit the offence (R v Tosti - inspecting a lock)

Question 18

Attempt - mr

Answer 18

D must intend the full consequences of the offence (R v Whybrow) - eg KILL.

Question 19

attempt - specific def same as above AND

Answer 19

Impossibility through inadequacy is not a defence. It is irrelevant that the D’s chosen method will not achieve the intended consequence, he will still be guilty of attempt (s 1(2) CAA 1981)