Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Criminal Law and Evidence > Offences > Flashcards

Offences Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Types of Causation

A

FACTUAL - prove that the result would not have happened “but for” accused’s actions.
LEGAL - prove that the accused’s actions were the direct cause - sometimes the actions may be too remote or their will be a break in causation.

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

Incitement

A

ACTUS REUS = committing an act that encourages a crime.
MENS REA = seriously intending to encourage the crime, or aware of likelihood -Baxter v HMA

Incitement is compltete as soon as the offence takes place.

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

CONSPIRACY

A

ACTUS REUS = agreement between two+ to commit a crime - Maxwell v HMA
MENS REA = eriusly intend to encourgae crime, or aware of likelihood.

Agreement does not need to be explicit, can be inferred from actions.
Offence is complete when they agree on the crime, no need to do it.
Not a defence to say it was impossible to commit - still had intent.

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

ATTEMPT

A

ACTUS REUS = carrying out an act that is more than prepatory for crime.
MENS REA = intention to do crime.
CPSA 1995

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

ART AND PART - PARTICIPATION

A

Watching is not participation - HMA v Kerr
Forms include:
- Counsel and instigation - Bazter v HMA
- Provision of materials - R v Bainbridge
- Actual physical assistance - can be spontaneous too.

Assisting after the crime is not participation - HMA v Igoe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

ART AND PART - COMMON PURPOSE

A

Does not have to be explicitly stated - implied - Coleman v HMA
Accused is not lmiable for something that goes beyond the common purpose if it is not foreseeable - Shephard v HMA

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

RECKLESS INJURY

A

ACTUS REUS = causing injury to another - HMA v Harris
MENS REA = recklessness or utter disregard to consequences - W v HMA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT

A

ACTUS REUS = act that endangers others.
MENS REA = recklessness, or utter disregard of the conseuences - Normand v Robinson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

MURDER

A

ACTUS REUS = killing the victim.
MENS REA = wicked intention to kill or wicked recklessness - Drury v HMA

Life starts when child has cried and breathed - HMA v Scott

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

WICKED RECKLESSNESS - test

A

Drury v HMA
1. intention to injure
2. in a manner that might have resulted in death
3. accused did not care whether victim lived.

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

CULPABLE HOMICIDE

voluntary, unlawful, lawful

A

Voluntary culpable homicide - if a murder case is diminished.

Unlawful culpable homicide - assault which results in death but not murder -Bird v HMA

Lawful cuplable homicide - when A recklessly causes B’s death - Transco v HMA
Recklessness is defined as “gross, or wicked, or criminal ngeligence” - Paton v HMA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

THEFT

A

ACTUS REUS = appropriaton of another’s property without their consent - Black v Carmichael
MENS REA = an intention to deprive (indefinitely or temporarily) - Fowler v O’Brien

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

EMBEZZLEMENT

A

Dishonest appropriation of entrusted property - accused was originally trusted to deal with this money as trustee, agent etc - HMA v Laing
MENS REA = requires dishonesty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

ROBERRY

A

ACTUS REUS = theft accomplished by personal violence - Cromar v HMA
MENS REA = intention to deprive, with violence used.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

EXTORTION

A

Consists of a command backed by a threat
ACTUS REUS = commanding someone to do something to gain an advantage through threat.
MENS REA = intending to threaten them and gain advanatage.
Black v Carmichael

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

FRAUD

A

Dishonestly made statement, in order to cause a practical result - no requirement of economic conponent.
ACTUS REUS =
1. false pretence - Richards v HMA
2. a definite practical result - Adcock v Archibald
3. a causal link between these

MENS REA = intend, recklessness is not enough - Mackenzie v Skeen

17
Q

RESET

A

Dishonest possession of goods obtained by another, knowing they were obtained thorugh theft, robbery, fraud or embezzlement.
ACTUS REUS = posession of the stolen items, or knoweldge that they are stored on your property.
MENS REA = knowledge that the items were obtained illegally - Latta v Herron

18
Q

MALICIOUS MISCHIEF

A

Intentionally damaging, destroying or causing financial damage to another person’s property.
MENS REA = recklessness - Wade v Robertson

Damage or destruction to corporeal proeprty - damage can be minor - Wade v Robertson
Interfering with property so as to cause economic loss - HMA v Wilson

19
Q

VANDALISM

A

ACTUS REUS = destroying or damaging another person’s property.
MENS REA = willfully or recklessly
Criminal Law Consolidation Scotland Act 1995

20
Q

FIRE-RAISING

A

Different to vandalism -
* wilful = setting fire to property intentionally.
* culpable and reckless = setting fire recklessly, utter disregard.
* Byrne v HMA

21
Q

BREACH OF THE PEACE

A

ACTUS REUS = conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people - Smith v Donnelly
MENS REA = no explicit mens rea.

Actual alarm is not required, objective test - Montgomerie v PF Kilmarnock

Conduct can be carried out in public, must have reasonable risk of being discovered - Jones v Carnegie

22
Q

IMPROPER USE OF PUBLIC ELECTRONIC COMMS

A

Communications Act 2003
Includes sending an offensive/indecent message online, persistently using public comms - or cause this.
MENS REA = intention to cause annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety.

Objective test - reasonable person reaction - Sutinye v PF Glasgow

23
Q

HATE CRIME

A

HCPO(S)A 2021
Covers any crime motivated by malice towards a protected characteristic.

Can be an aggravation to another offence if malice is discovered.

24
Q

STRUCTURE OF DEFENCES

alibi, error of law

A

Alibi = at the time of the offence, accused was not at the place libeled - time+place specified - HMA v Laing

Ignorance of the law is not a defence - Clark v Syme

25
Q

DEFENCES - SELF-DEFENCE

A

Complete defence.
Accused acted to protect themself or third party - HMA v Carson

REQUIREMENTS - HMA v Docherty
1. imminent danger
2. no reasonable escape opportunity
3. proportionate force

DANGER
Attack must be in progress/about to happen.

ESCAPE
Must not put you at risk - McBrearty v HMA

FORCE
Can be lethal to prevent rape or death or great harm - McCluskey v HMA

26
Q

DEFENCES - PROVOCATION

A

Murder changed to culpable homicide.

REQUIREMENTS - Capolo v HMA 2017
1. recognised provoation (violence or infidelity)
2. loss of self-control due to this - IMMEIDATE retaliation.
3. results in either (a) a response that is not disproportionate for violence, or (b) a response expected of ordinary person for infidelity.

VIOLENCE
Accused must not be disproportionate - Gillon v HMA
Cumulative provocation does not count - McKay v HMA

INFIDELITY
Do not need to catch in act - Hill v HMA
Couple need to have relationship of fidelity - McKay v HMA

27
Q

DEFENCES - NECESSITY

A

Complete defence.
Plea that a crime was done because it was least harmdul option.

REQUIREMENTS:
1. immediate danger of death/great harm - *Moss v Howdle *
2. no reasonable alternative - *Moss v Howdle *
3. conduct must have reasonable chance of removing danger - LAR 2000

28
Q

DEFENCES - COERCION

A

Complete defence
Plea that crime was done because of a threat of harm.

REQUIREMENTS - Thomson v HMA
1. immediate threat of death/great harm.
2. ‘ordinary person’ ?
3. accused must not have risked coercion.

Threat does not have to be personal - HMA v Docherty

29
Q

DEFENCES - INTOXICATION

A

Voluntary intoxication is not a defence - Brennan v HMA

30
Q

DEFENCES - DIMINSHED RESPONSIBILITY

A

Partial defence - murder changed to culpable homicide.

REQUIREMENTS
1. Abnormality of the mind
2. this causing impairment of ability to determine/control actions.

Unfit for trial if their disorder means that cannot understand nature of charge or evidence, or cannot participate with legal rep.
Decided by judge before trial - CPSA 1995

Need a medical report for medical unfitness - Murphy v HMA
If plea is allowed, will examine facts and then maybe go to trial later.

31
Q

DEFENCES - MENTAL DISORDER

A

Complete defence.

REQUIREMENTS - CPSA s51
1. Accused was suffering from a mental disorder.
2. Disorder meant they were unable to appreciate wrongness.

Means any mental illness, personality disorder or learning disability EXCEPT psychopaths - Mental Health (Care and Treatment) SA 2003

If plea is successful, court will examine facts and may make a disposal - s57

32
Q

DEFENCES - AUTOMATISM

A

Complete defence.
Plea that the accused was acting while unconscious.

REQUIREMENTS - Ross v HMA
1. A total alientation of reason - “unable to appreciate the nature and wrongness”.
2. Caused by external factor - drink spiked, concussion etc.
3. Which the accused was not ‘bound to foresee’, otherwise defence is ruled out.

33
Q

ASSAULT

A

ACTUS REUS = an attack
MENS REA = intention to attack, or to place them in fear or an attack - LAR 1992

Can also be attacks producing fear - Atkinson v HMA

Intention can be transferred - Connor v Jessup

DEFENCES
Consent is not a defence - Smart v HMA
Reasonable chastisement is not a defence - Children Equal Protection Act 2019

34
Q

ASSAULT - AGGRAVATIONS

A

Aggravated by:
* Using a weapon
* Severe injury or danger to life
* Committed in the victim’s home
* Intention to do a secondary crime like rape/rob.
* Hate crime
* Abuse by partner or ex-partner

35
Q

OMISSIONS LIABILITY

A

No general duty to intervene in a crim - HMA v Kerr

SOME SHOULD
Special or Personal Relationship
* Parent/child - Bone v HMA
* Spouse - R v Russel
* Siblings - R v Evans

Criminal Law and Evidence (5 decks)

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