Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal > Inchoate Offences > Flashcards

Inchoate Offences Flashcards

1
Q

Conspiracy: Criminal Law Act 1977 s1(1)

A

Actus Reus

  • Agreement to a course of conduct that will necessarily amount to or involve an offence

Mens Rea

  • Intention to agree that offence be committed OR
  • Intention to play a role in the crime
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

R v Walker [1962]

Actus Reus

Conspiracy: Criminal Law Act 1977 s1(1)

A

Parties must have gone beyond more than mere discussion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

R v Nock [1978]

Actus Reus

Conspiracy: Criminal Law Act 1977 s1(1)

A

No need to agree all details

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

DPP v Doot [1973]

Actus Reus

Conspiracy: Criminal Law Act 1977 s1(1)

A

No need to take steps to carry out the agreement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

People who cannot conspire under

Criminal Law Act 1977 s2(2)

A
  • Spouses (including civil partners)
  • Children under 10
  • The victim of the crime
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Chrastny [1991]

Conspiracy

Criminal Law Act 1977 s2(2)

A

S2(2)(a) does not prevent conviction or person who conspires with their spouse and others.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Re Anderson [1986]

Mens Rea

Intention to agree that offence be committed

Conspiracy: Criminal Law Act 1977

A
  • No need for the defendant to believe the offence will be committed.
    • Anderson was involved in a conspiracy to effect an escape from prison. Was going to supply fellow prisoner with equipment to cut through the bars. Did not succeed as was involved in a car crash. Admitted to intending to supply the cutting equipment, but argued in his defence that he never intended the plan to be carried out and that he did not believe would succeed.
    • Lord Bridge rejected any construction of the statutory language which required the prosecution to prove an intention on the part of each conspirator that the offence will be committed.
    • Not likely to be followed as contrary to the statute.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v McPhillips [1990]

Mens Rea

Intention to agree that offence be committed

Conspiracy: Criminal Law Act 1977

A
  • The defendant must intend for the offence to be committed.
    • McPhillips joined in a conspiracy to plant a bomb, timed to explode on roof of a hotel at 1am when disco would be at its height. There was no plan to call in the threat so intention was murder.
    • McPhillips claimed, unknown to his accomplices, that he was going to call in the threat and provide a warning.
    • CoA Northern Ireland held he couldn’t be guilty of conspiracy to murder because his intention was not for murder to be carried out.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v Edwards [1991]

Mens Rea

Intention to agree that offence be committed

Conspiracy: Criminal Law Act 1977

A

Defendant could not be convicted of conspiracy to supply amphetamine unless he intended to carry out the agreement to do so.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v Ashton [1992]

Mens Rea

Intention to agree that offence be committed

Conspiracy: Criminal Law Act 1977

A

Although A had agreed with W to kill C, he was motivated by friendship to W, did not intent to carry out the agreement and was keeping everything under control. Therefore, not guilty of conspiracy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Yip Chiu-Cheung v R [1994]

Mens Rea

Intention to agree that offence be committed

Conspiracy: Criminal Law Act 1977

A
  • The crime of conspiracy requires an agreement between 2 or more persons to commit an unlawful act with the intention of carrying it out.
  • It is the intention to carry out the crime that constitutes the necessary mens rea for the offence.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Re Anderson [1986]

Mens Rea

Intention to play a part in carrying out the agreement

Conspiracy: Criminal Law Act 1977

A
  • Lord Bridge – Mens rea can only be proven if, and only if, accused intended to take part in course of conduct. Nothing less is intended, nothing more is required.
    • Problem because the person most likely to plan the crime, head honcho, is not going to be guilty
  • Anderson represents the law, but it is unlikely to be followed by a future Supreme Court.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

R v Siracusa [1986]

Mens Rea

Intention to play a part in carrying out the agreement

Conspiracy: Criminal Law Act 1977

A
  • Wasn’t Lord Bridge’s intention in Anderson – taking part included coming up with the plan, sanctioning employees to commit it etc counted
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R v Jackson [1985]

Mens Rea

Conditional Intent

Conspiracy: Criminal Law Act 1977

A
  • Where parties agree that they will commit a criminal offence only if certain circumstances occur, this is sufficient to establish both the actus reus and the mens rea of conspiracy.
    • Jackson in court and case not going well
    • Said to his friends to break his leg. If he was convicted, judge would take pity on him and not send him to prison.
    • Police found out in advance and he was charged with conspiracy offence
    • He argued conditional – would only arise if convicted; was arrested before this and so didn’t arise so he had no intention to commit crime
    • CoA said a conditional agreement is sufficient to satisfy AR and MR.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Attempt: Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s1(1)

A

Actus Reus

  • D does an act “more than merely preparatory to the commission of an offence”
  • Whether actions are more than merely preparatory is one of fact to be decided by the jury, providing the judge is satisfied – CAA 1981, s4(3)

Mens Rea

  • Intention to act: see s1(1)
  • Intent to bring about the missing element of A/R
    • e.g. Result offence: Intention to bring about the required consequences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v Gullefer [1987]

Actus Reus

Attempt: Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s1(1)

A
  • “When the merely preparatory act comes to an end and D embarks on the crime proper’
    • At a dog track; realised dog was hopeless and was never going to win; if race gets cancelled, all bets are off. Gullefer ran onto track and race was abandoned. Charged with a fraud offence. However, the offence would have been going to the bookie to get his money back.
17
Q

R v Tosti [1997]

Actus Reus

Attempt: Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s1(1)

A
  • Distinguish between a preparatory act, which can be an attempt under s 1(1), and a merely preparatory act which is not
    • 2 burglars – approached a farmer’s barn, seen by farmer inspecting padlock. Farmer moved and burglars ran off. Caught quickly and police found cutting equipment. Conclusion was obvious and charged with attempted burglary of the barn. Argued that act was preparatory and hadn’t committed the act proper.
18
Q

R v Whybrow [1951]

Mens Rea

Attempt: Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s1(1)

A

mens rea for attempted murder: intention to kill

19
Q

R v Toole [1830]

Mens Rea

Attempt: Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s1(1)

A
  • mens rea for attempted basic criminal damage is intention to damage property
20
Q

R v Walker & Hayles [1990]

Mens Rea

Attempt: Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s1(1)

A
  • Jury may infer intention when they are satisfied that the defendant foresaw the result as a virtual certainty.
    • Throwing victim from a 3rd floor balcony was clearly attempted murder
21
Q

A-G’s Ref (No3 of 1992)

Mens Rea

Attempt: Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s1(1)

A
  • It is only necessary to prove an intent to achieve what was missing from the full offence, together with the other mens rea required for the offence.
    • Defendant threw a petrol bomb from a moving car at another car. Missed the car and hit the wall behind, which was not damaged.
    • Charged with aggravated arson – MR is a) intention or recklessness as to damaging property and b) intention or recklessness as to endangering life; AR is damaging property and no need for life to be endangered.
    • Trial judge ruled no evidence to convict as no property was damaged.
    • CoA held that for an attempt to commit aggravated arson, was only necessary to prove an intent to achieve what was missing from the full offence – damage to property – together with MR required for the offence.
    • Therefore, D had to have an intention to damage property AND remaining state of mind required for offence of aggravated arson – recklessness as to whether life was thereby endangered.
    • Defendant had state of mind for full offence and intended to do the physical element which was missing.
22
Q

A-G’s Ref (Nos 1 & 2 of 1979)

Mens Rea

Attempt: Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s1(1)

A
  • Conditional intent counts as intention.
  • Where a defendant intends to commit an offence subject to certain conditions, the defendant will have sufficient MR for an attempt.
23
Q

3 types of impossibility

A
  • Non-existent crime
  • Impossibility through inadequacy
  • Impossibility in fact
24
Q

R v Taafe [1983]

Non-Existent Crime

Impossibility

A
  • Non-existent crime - where accused believes what he doing is an offence, where it is in fact lawful
  • Attemped smuggling of drugs into the UK. Stopped at ferry terminal. Undoubtedly, trying to smuggling in cannabis – 5 packs in tyre of his car. He said he believed them to be cash, and believed it was a crime to import cash into UK (it isn’t).
25
Q

Impossibility through Inadequacy

A
  • where defendant has chosen a method that is never going to work, e.g. poisoning someone with a substance that isn’t harmful
  • Anderson should be authority but it isn’t
26
Q

Impossibility in fact

A
  • Physical Impossibility – impossible to do the act – can’t kill someone who is already dead
  • Legal impossibility – possible to do the act but missing element of AR means it won’t be a crime – damaging property you believe to be someone else’s but turns out to be yours – can’t be liable to damage
  • NOW No defence to Conspiracy: CLA 1977 s1(1)(b)
  • NOW No defence to attempt: CAA 1981 s 1(2) & (3)

Criminal (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions