paper 1 - criminal

Question 1

describe assault - actus reus

Answer 1

assault is a common law offence in s39 of the criminal justice act 1988 with the definitions being in case law. the ar is ‘to cause the v to fear the application of immediate unlawful violence (Fagan v mpc). the v has to be afraid of being hurt (lamb).
no physical comntact is required and fear can be cause by written/ verbal communication (constanza), silence (Ireland) or actions (logdon/ smith).
if d has done a frightening act but words negate the threat then theres no assault (tuberville v savage).
law interpreted ‘immediate’ very widely, cases like ‘constanza’ show its not clear when v were to be attacked but it could be at any time including immediate future.

Question 2

describe assault - mens rea

Answer 2

mr is to ‘intentionally/ recklessly cause fear’ (fagan v mpc). inetntion is proven direct (Mohan) or indirect (woollin) or recklessness (Cunningham)

Question 3

describe battery - actus reus

Answer 3

common law offence under s39 criminal justice act 1988 but defined case law. ar is ‘application of unlawful force’.
it doesnt need to be hostile, rude, agressive (Faulkner v Talbot)
force can be simple touching and contact with clothes is enough (Thomas).
can be indirect (haystead - punched lady who dropped her baby).
force must be ‘unlawful’ and cant be self defence or with consent.

Question 4

describe battery - mens rea

Answer 4

mr is to ‘intentionally or recklessly apply force’ (Venna).
intention is direct (Mohan) or indirect (woollin) or recklessness (Cunningham)

Question 5

describe s47 - actus reus

Answer 5

the actus reus requires a ‘common assault occasioning abh’ which can be an assault or battery.
abh is anything that interferes with the comfort or health of the victim (miller)
injury must be more than trivial and not insignificant.
can include psychiatric injury but not emotions (chan-fook), losing consciousness (t v dpp) or harm to anything attached to the body like hair (smith)

Question 6

describe s47 - mens rea

Answer 6

the mens rea isnt included. so use mens rea for specific offence - assault and battery (roberts).
theres no additional mens rea for a s47 (savage).
direct intent (Mohan) or indirect (woollin). recklessness (Cunningham)

Question 7

describe s20 - actus reus

Answer 7

an unlawful act that causes gbh or wounding.
gbh is really serious but not life threatening harm and can be a series of minor injuries all inflicted together (brown and Stratton).
serious psychiatric injury counts (Burstow) and so does deliberatly giving std (dicas).
‘grievous’ is for the jury to decide and factors like the age or health of the victim can be considered (bollom).
wounding is where all layers of the skin have been broken (jcc v Eisenhower) and there must be blood.

Question 8

describe s20 - mens rea

Answer 8

‘maliciously’ so no ill will is needed (Cunningham). there needs to be intent or recklessness and if the d didnt appreciate the risk of some injury occuring then there is no mr (parmenter).
direct (mohan) or indirect (woollin) recklessness (cunningham).

Question 9

describe s18 - actus reus

Answer 9

an unlawful act that causes gbh or wounding.
gbh is really serious but not life threatening harm and can be a series of minor injuries all inflicted together (brown and Stratton).
serious psychiatric injury counts (Burstow) and so does deliberatly giving std (dicas).
‘grievous’ is for the jury to decide and factors like the age or health of the victim can be considered (bollom).
wounding is where all layers of the skin have been broken (jcc v Eisenhower) and there must be blood.

Question 10

describe s18 - mens rea

Answer 10

the d must have intended the serious harm.
this can be intentionall resisting arrest (Morrison).
the injury whould be deliberate with no justification and recklessness as to casuing harm isnt enough (belfon).
direct (mohan) or indirect (woollin)

Question 11

explain theft

Answer 11

the definition of theft is from s1(1) of theft act 1968 “a person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive the other of it”.
the actus reus is s3 “appropriates”, s4 “property and s5 “belonging to another”.
the mens rea is s2 “dishonestly” and s6 “intent to permanently deprive the other of it”.

Question 12

explain s3 of theft - actus reus

Answer 12

s3 “appropriates” is taking an object from its owner and assuming some or all of its rights e.g lending, selling property (pitham and hehl).
it has to occur at as specific point in time.
it can happen with the owners consent (hinks).

Question 13

explain s4 of theft - actus reus

Answer 13

s4 is “property”. this can be intangible, real, personal, things in action or money (kelly and Lindsay).
you can steal land in 3 situations s4(1) -
s4(2)(a) if a trustee/ personal representative takes land in breach of their duties.
s4(2)(b) person not in possession severs anything part of the land.
s4(2)(c) tenant takes fixture/ structure from land let to him.
s4(3) says you cant steal wild mushrooms, flowers, fruit or land unless they do it for reward, sale or other commercial purpose.
s4(4) says cant steal wild creatures not tamed or kept captive.
‘woodman’ says you can. steal own property if another has proprietary interest in it.

Question 14

explain s5 of theft - actus reus

Answer 14

s5 “belonging to another” means property belongs to any person having possession, control or proprietary interest (turner (no2)).
proprietary means you can have interest in the property but you dont need to be the owner (Webster).
property receieved by mistake and they dont return it can be theft (stalham).

Question 15

explain s2 of theft - mens rea

Answer 15

s2 “dishonesty” isnt defined in the theft act 1968 but it gives 3 situations where you may be honest -
s2(1)(a) belief you have a right to deprive (Robinson, small).
s2(1)(b) owners consent.
s2(1)(c) cant discover owner when taking reasonable steps.
if they have a genuine belief in one of these then they are not guilty.
if there is no genuine belief then the test for dishonesty is objective from ‘barton and booth 2020’. juries apply a 2 part test -
a. what was d actual state of knowledge or belief of facts
b. was his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

Question 16

explain s6 and s7 of theft - mens rea and sentence

Answer 16

s6 “intent to permanently deprive the other of it” -
1. if intention is to treat the thing as their own to dispose of
2. borrow or lend for a period of time and in a circumstance making it equal to outright taking or disposal (veluyml, dpp v lavender).
‘lloyd’ shows theres no intent as borrowing means the whole point is you give it back. if you borrow it for so long it becomes useless it then becomes theft. we are looking for the practical value so if it still has value then its borrowing not theft.
s7 says the sentence is 7 years in prison.

Question 17

explain robbery

Answer 17

s8 of the theft act 1968 outlines robbery.
(1) a person is guilty of rovvery if they steal and immediately before/ at the time of doing so and in order to do so he uses force/ puts someone in fear of force.
(2) guilty of robbery or assault with intent to rob can be liable for life imprisonment.

Question 18

explain robbery - actus reus

Answer 18

the actus reus comes from ‘corcoran v anderton’ and says “when force is used to steal the moment theft is complet theres robbery”.
the prosecution needs to prove force/ threat of force.
the amount of force can be small (dawson and james, clouden).
force doesnt need to be applied. words and threatening gestures can be enough to put v in fear of force (b and r v dpp 2007).
force must be imemdiately beofe or at the time of theft and this force must be in order to steal, not for any other purpose.

Question 19

explain robbery - mens rea

Answer 19

the mens rea for robbery is the same as for the mens rea of theft.
s2 “dishonesty” isnt defined in the theft act 1968 but it gives 3 situations where you may be honest -
s2(1)(a) belief you have a right to deprive (Robinson, small).
s2(1)(b) owners consent.
s2(1)(c) cant discover owner when taking reasonable steps.
if they have a genuine belief in one of these then they are not guilty.
if there is no genuine belief then the test for dishonesty is objective from ‘barton and booth 2020’. juries apply a 2 part test -
a. what was d actual state of knowledge or belief of facts
b. was his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.
s6 “intent to permanently deprive the other of it” -
1. if intention is to treat the thing as their own to dispose of
2. borrow or lend for a period of time and in a circumstance making it equal to outright taking or disposal (veluyml, dpp v lavender).
‘lloyd’ shows theres no intent as borrowing means the whole point is you give it back. if you borrow it for so long it becomes useless it then becomes theft. we are looking for the practical value so if it still has value then its borrowing not theft.

Question 20

explain murder - definition and actus reus

Answer 20

sir edward coke defines murder as the “unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under kings peace with malice aforethought”.
the actus reus is a “human being killed under kings peace with no lawful excuse like self defence”.
murder is a result crime so causation also needs to be proved.

Question 21

explain murder - mens rea

Answer 21

the mens rea is “malice aforethought either express or implied” (vickers/ Cunningham).
you have to intend to kill (express) or cause gbh (implied).
this can be direct where its the aim purpose or desire (Mohan) or indirect where its a virtual certainty of the d actions and they knew this (woollin).

Question 22

explain gross negligence manslaughter - definition

Answer 22

GNM is a common law offence that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. GNM can be done by an act or an omission. ‘adomako 1994’ says there is 3 elements to this offence. you need a duty of care, a breach of this duty and a death from this breach.

Question 23

explain GNM - duty of care

Answer 23

first there needs to be a duty of care owed from the d to the v.
this was first established from the principles in ‘donaghue v stevenson’ where they said duty is owed to your ‘neighbour’. your neighbour is someone so closely and directly affected by your acts/omissions that you ought to reasonably have them in contemplation when directing your mind to the acts/omissions in question. you have to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which would injure your neighbour.
the law has developed with ‘caparo’ 3 part test but ‘robinson chief constable of west yorkshire’ suggests caparo doesnt apply to every situation (only novel ones) so courts should look to existing statutes and identify duties through analogy - if theres an existing duty dont cosider caparo.
this has been further extended by wacker 2002 where its shown criminal duty can exist in situations where civil duty doesnt, shown in singh.
duty can comr from 4 situations - duty from a relationship, d and v party to an illegal act, d contributed by supply or voluntarily assumed duty.

Question 24

explain GNM - breach of duty

Answer 24

2. is to prove duty of care breached and in turn caused a death. to show a breach we test the d against the reasonable man or reasonable expert in the field of professionalism concerned. must be proved theres a breach that caused death (stone and dobinson). jury has to ask ‘how would the reasonable man act in circumstances’.

Question 25

explain GNM - death from breach

Answer 25

breach must cause death so prove factual and legal causation.
also discuss intervening acts and thin skull (blaue).

Question 26

explain GNM - gross

Answer 26

not every breach results in death - negligence must be ‘gross’ (adomako). prosecution must show such disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime deserving of punishment (Bateman). jury decide if conduct is so bad it results in all the circumstances that it results to a criminal act.

Question 27

explain GNM - mens rea

Answer 27

for the mens rea, as its all judged objectively, it doesnt matter that the d didnt see the risk.

Question 28

explain unlawful act manslaughter - define

Answer 28

unlawful act manslaughter (UAM) is a common law offence with a maximum life sentence.
the actus reus needs an ‘unlawful dangerous act that causes death’. theres no specific requirement considering death in the mens rea.

Question 29

explain UAM - actus reus

Answer 29

the first requirement of ar is ‘unlawful act’ which must be a criminal act, a civil wrongdoing isnt enough (Franklin). all elements of the crime must be satisfied and committed (lamb had no liability as they couldnt prove the v had fear so there was no assault that caused death). there cant be an omission (khan and khan stated the crime requires an act). APPLY
the unlawful act must be ‘dangerous’ which is an objective test established in ‘church’ - the ‘act must be one that all sober reasonable persons recognises as having a risk of harm’. the d doesnt need to foresee a risk of hamr (dawson). APPLY
the third part of the ar says unlawful act must cause death (r v Kennedy). establish factual and legal causation. APPLY

Question 30

explain UAM - mens rea

Answer 30

the mens rea requires the mens rea for the specific offence (newberry and jones), dont need intent to kill or cause GBH. can be direct or indirect intention or recklessness.

Question 31

explain attempts - definition

Answer 31

attempts is defined in s1(1) or the criminal attempts act 1981 “with intent to commit an offence a person does an act that is more than merely preparatory to the comission of the offence”.

Question 32

explain attempts - actus reus

Answer 32

the actus reus is ‘more than merely preparatory’. the d needs to embark on the crime proper, which they did in ‘ag ref 1993’ but didnt in ‘r v gullefer 1987’. they must be trying to commit the full offence like in ‘r v boyle and boyle 1987’, but not in ‘r v Geddes 1996’.

Question 33

explain attempts - mens rea

Answer 33

for the mens rea you need the mens rea for the act. so intent is needed for the full offence (r v easom 1971) or the conditional offence (ag ref 1979).
normally recklessness isnt enough like in ‘r v millard and Vernon, but recklessness as part of the offence is enough (ag ref 1994).
you also need to consider ‘attempting the impossible’ as s1(2) and s1(3) says the d can be guilty even if the full offence is physically impossible (r v shivpuri 1986).

Question 34

explain transfer of malice

Answer 34

d can be guilty if they committed the same or similar crime (crimes of the same kind) against a different victim they intended to e.g. aim punch at one person with MR for assault occasioning abh, miss and hit another (latimer).
the actus reus passes from the intended vivtim to the acual victim.
if MR is for a different crime then d may not be guilty like in ‘pembilton’ where aimed stones at people and actually hit window. intention to hit people couldnt be transferred to window.