Inchoate Crimes Flashcards
HMA v Tannahill and Neilson 1943
Incitement, instigation.Plan to use subcontractors to defraud thier customers and acquire money, he didn’t complete the crime, the fraud didn’t take place but they had managed to get the subcontractors to agree to the scheme before they found out. Charged with incitement
Baxter v HMA 1998
Incitement, instigation.Obstruction. Refurbishment scheme. Tried to remove the obstruction and tried to kill him. He hired an employee to kill a man. He did not instructed him but was talking about it and he also asked how much something like that and that he will give a call. The court held that the important part was whether he had an intention to kill so the mens rea not his actions as the crime was not committed.Held (1) that a person might be guilty of incitement without actually instructing the other to commit the crime in question and although the trial judge had been correct to stress the importance of the jury being satisfied that the pannel had seriously intended the employee to kill the complainer, it was unnecessary for the jury to find that he specifically instructed him to do so provided that the pannel seriously intended the employee to carry out the crime; and (2) that, on the evidence, the jury had been entitled to draw the necessary inference; and appeal refused . (Attempted murder)
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act s294
An attempt to commit a crime is in itself a crime
Attempt at crime.
(1)Attempt to commit any indictable crime is itself an indictable crime.
(2)Attempt to commit any offence punishable on complaint shall itself be an offence punishable on complaint.
R v Bentley 1998
Incitement, instigation.Derek William Bentley (B), 19, and Christopher Craig (C), 16, attempted to burgle a warehouse. B carried a knife and a knuckle-duster, given to him by C, and C carried a gun. B was arrested, and while in the custody of the police he shouted “let him have it” to C, following which C entered into a gun fight with Police Constable Sidney Miles (M), who died as a result. C was convicted of murder and B was convicted as an accomplice to murder.
Issue
The issue in question was whether B could be convicted for murder as an accessory in joint enterprise, where he had not fired the fatal shot. B argued that there was no joint agreement to resist arrest by violence, but if there had been, he had dissociated himself from it.
Held
A person who aids or encourages a crime can be held equally liable as the person who actually committed the crime. B was an accessory in the joint enterprise to the killing of M when resisting arrest, which was murder under the common law principle of constructive malice. The common law doctrine of constructive malice is now abolished under the Homicide Act 1957, which also introduced the defence of diminished responsibility, relevant to B due to the argument that he had an actual mental capacity of an 11-year-old. C, being a minor at the time, was detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. B was hanged, murder being a capital offence at this time in England and Wales but now abolished under the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965. B was royally pardoned, however, in 1993, and his conviction quashed in 1998 due to the inconsistencies in evidence and misdirection by the judge at trial, however the principle of equal liability still stands.
The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 s 293 (2)
criminalizes incitement to commit any statutory offence
Sayers v HMA 1982
CONSPIRACY;the charge was futhering an organisation’s aims by criminal means; if ‘criminal means’ are not proved the charge will become irrelevant; Altar Volunteer Force (NR) prescribed organisation; criminal means element dropped, conviction quashed, crown failed to show criminal means. they’d only show that he was futhering the organization aims by mean
Maxwell v HMA 1980
CONSPIRACY; Impossibility of achievement conspiracy’s aims is not a defence. Lord Emslie, Lord Cameron and Avonside. 3 man, to bribe or otherwise influence on members of board of city of Glasgow distric, licensing board, gamin licence. It was not within competence of the board to transfer since the matter of issue of the licence was itself under appeal to the sheriff. Thus factually impossible to achieve. Hel, the crime of conspiracy was constituted by the agreement of two or more ppl to futher or achieve criminal purpose, irrespective of the result thet might or might not follow from the execution of the purposes. The crime of conspiracy was thus complete when the agreement to bribe was made, and there had been no misdirection by the judge; appeal refused
West v HMA 1985
CONSPIRACY.A gang of men was observed loitering in the vicinity of premises. One with scissors blade other with razor. they left this place only when they had been aware of presence of the police, which was observing them (no actions). Held, that there was sufficient evidence to permit the jury to infer a conspiracy, appeal dismissed.
Socratus v HMA 1987
CONSPIRACY. (the possibility of withdrawing from a conspiracy). Engineer in the ship which is being used to stire a cargo of drugs in the fuel tank. he claimed that he had not been a part of the conspiracy because all that he’d done was just merely show that he installed the cargo safely, he took the first opportunity to leave the shi. the High Court held that dissociation is no defence from criminal enterprise once it has been commenced so that what you need to do is like you would need to act before the agreement was made.
The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 s 28 (1)
(1) A person who agrees with at least one other person to become involved in serious organised crime commits an offence.
