Normally an act must be a positive act in order to make a person liable for an offence however; there are 6 duty situations where D may be liable if he/she fails to perform an act. In France there is a general duty to act and this I known as “The Good Samaritan law”, English courts have not adopted this as it would be impractical and costly.
This duty arises from an act of parliament. Legislation means that failing to act in a certain way will make you liable for an offence; examples include the Road Traffic Act (1988) failure to stop at the scene of a crime.
This duty arises due to a person’s job where they are required to act at the normal standards of a reasonable person in their field of work. Adamako: Anaesthetist who failed to stop a tube had come away. Pitwood: Railway crossing’s guard failed to life the crossing down resulting in a collision.
Duty due to relationship:
This is a duty that exists as a result of a relationship- usually parent/child but can be extended to sibling relationship and possibly husband and wife- although this is not clear. Gibbons & Proctor: failed to feed their child.
Voluntary assumption of care:
This is where a D agrees to take on a duty to provide necessary care for V. Stone & Dobbinson: although this is controversial IQ was not taken in to account; D looked after his sister but failed to help her get proper medical attention when she needed it. Evans: Sister and mother failed to seek help when the daughter overdosed
Duty due to one’s official position:
This duty is similar to contractual duty but it highlights that more care is expected of those in the emergency services to protect the public sufficiently- Dytham: on duty police officer failed to help when he saw a man get beat up
Duty due to a dangerous situation created:
This duty means that if a person creates a dangerous situation they have a duty to call for help or fix it- the limits to this duty are not clear but it is thought that D does not have to be a hero but have the competence to help in a situation that he created- Miller: Tramp set light to a room and failed to do anything
“Sine qua none”- “But for…” test; Pagett- Pregnant girlfriend shield
“De minimus none curat lex”- “more the a minimal/ trivial cause of death (Rock climber analogy of cutting the rope)
Thin Skull Rule:
D must take his victim as he/she finds them; this can be seen as harsh and unfair but it needs to balance the rights of the victim and the rights of the individual. Blaue: Jehovah's Witness refused blood transfusion. Mamout Kulang: V hit by D but V suffered from a “mushy spleen” so was more susceptible to hits
• Acts of a 3rd party:
Unlikely to break the chain Smith: if wounds are operating and substantial medical treatment will never break the chain, solider stabbed and dropped suffering treatment that worsened his condition. Cheshire: medical negligence will only break the chain is the M.N. is so independent and potent of D’s acts that his acts are considered an insignificant cause (this only applies when the wound is healed or almost). Jordan: V was stabbed and given chest compressions- didn’t break the chain. Malcherek: Switching off life support machines does NOT break the chain.
• Victim’s own acts:
The ‘Daftness test’ is used here- would a reasonable person in the same situation have acted that way or where his actions considered being unreasonable and daft? Only a daft response will break the chain and the jury decides this point. Roberts: V jumped out of a car fearing rape (Not daft) Williams: V jumped out of a car fearing he was to be robbed (Daft). Refusing treatment may not break the chain in the case of Dear is was assumed that V refused treatment and may have made his wounds worse however this did not break the chain.
• Natural but unforeseeable acts:
Very rarely seen but the test here is: “was the event that took place reasonably foreseeable to a reasonable person?” Hallet: D punched V after he made homosexual advances on him which resulted in V being drowned by the incoming tided. This is classed as reasonably foreseeable (this is an Australian case so provides persuasive precedent over our courts).
Intention: (Highest level of MR & hardest to prove)
Mohan: Intention is not the same as motive. Motive is proof of intention not intention itself.
Direct intention: this is the D’s aim, want desire or purpose
Indirect intention: it is not the D’s main aim although in carrying out his main aim the consequences are a virtual certainty to happen (99-98% likely)
Foresight of consequences:
How probable was the consequences which resulted in D’s voluntary act?
Did D foresee the consequence?
Moloney: Drunken quick fire, Nedrick: paraffin in door (jury are directed to infer the intention), Woolin: baby thrown in to cot (now changed, jury are directed to find the necessary intention)
Comes from the case of Cunningham: gas meter ripped of the wall
“Did D realise the risk and then proceed to take it?”
“Would an ordinary, reasonable man have realised the risk?”
Cadwell: Fire in hotel, G & Other: £1 million in damage after fire
“Would a reasonable man of the same level of professionalism as D, in the same situation, have acted in the same way?” Adamako
Where the victim is not the one D intended however D can be found liable if his intentions were relatable to the offence that actually occurred Latimer: belt bounced of a man D intended to harm and hit a woman in the face. If the MR for the offence that happens is different from the one D intends then he is not liable.
Coincidence of MR and AR:
MR and AR must occur at the same time. Thabo Meli: thought he killed a man & pushed him off a cliff, he later died of exposure. Church: punched a woman thought she died and pushed her in a river she later drowned. Fagan: accidently drove on PC’s foot later wouldn’t move off it.
Strict liability offences:
Absolute liability: (a type of state of affairs)
This is where the AR is not preformed voluntarily. D is liable when he is found in a situation. Larsonner: alien of the state, Winza: drunk person in hospital.
• Presume MR is required
• If no MR is required for the whole offence of part of the offence then it is one of SL Prince, Hibbert: taking a girl who is under the age without consent from father.
• No fault is needed to make D liable nor is there a defence of due diligence (D did everything in his/her power to prevent the act from happening but it still happened) Callow V Tillstone: infected meat, Shah & Shah: underage lottery ticket
• No defence of mistake, Cundy V Le Cocq: sold alcohol to a drunken person, Sharas V De Rutzen: sold alcohol to an on duty police man.
• Presumption of MR- Sweet V Parsley: Students growing cannabis
• Look at the wording of the act for any MR words i.e. knowingly, maliciously - Storkwain: forged prescription
• Is the offence quasi or truly criminal? B V DPP: “Shinner”
• Is it an issue of social concern i.e. environmental, public nuisance- Alphacell V Woodward: pollution in river
• Does it promote law enforcement?- Lim Chin Aik V The Queen: illegal immigration
Judges tend not to create SLO’s as they think they are somewhat unfair and immoral to convict someone who didn’t have the required MR however they are willing to create them if it is an area of public concern, public nuisance or creates public outcry- Lemon & Whitehouse: Homosexual poem about Jesus, Gibson & Sylveire: Freeze dry foetus
“Unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being, under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought expressed or implied”
• D killed
Can be an act or omission Gibbins & Proctor: Daughter
• A reasonable creature in being
Problems when deciding if a foetus is a creature in being; the court takes the opinion that once the child is expelled and can live independent of the mother then it is a reasonable creature. A.G.’s Ref: Stabbed woman while pregnant, had the baby but later died (This is murder) . it is uncertain but “brain-dead” is the recognised test for death and the rule “A Year and a day” no longer applies and there is no limit on the time scale of death after an injury- but it is thought common sense will take hold.
• Under Queen’s peace
Killing in war time of an enemy is not deemed murder
• Killing was unlawful
If the force used is out of self-defence and considered not excessive then it is not classed as murder, Martin: Farmer, shot in back, Clegg: Solider shot after danger had passed, Beckford: shot when thought V had a gun, Re A: Conjoined twins blurs the thin moral line here
Simply it is intention to kill or cause GBH Cunningham: Gas meter, didn’t have intention to kill, Smith: tells us GBH means really serious harm.
D does not have MR for murder unless he foresaw a consequence of death or GBH
Foresight of consequences:
This is not intention; it is only evidence for intention which may be found by the jury, Moloney: drunken quick fire. Nerdick: Paraffin in door, Woolin: Changed Nedrick’s ruling from infer to find.
1. How probable was the consequence which resulted from D’s voluntary act?
2. Did D foresee the consequence?
Jury should find intention if consequence was a virtual certainty.
Can be thought of as a defence and offence at the same time, if successful it will reduce a murder charge to that of manslaughter. There are 3 partial defences to murder; Diminished responsibility, Loss of voluntary self-control and suicide pacts (Homicide Act 1957).
Set out in the Homicide Act 1957, before 1957 if D killed the only defence D would get would be insanity.
S.2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957: Definition of diminished responsibility:
• Abnormality of mental functioning
• Caused by a recognised medical condition (World Health Organisation classification of medical conditions) this covers psychological and physical conditions
• That substantially impairs D’s ability to understand the nature of quality of the act or form a rational judgement and exercise self-control
• And it provides AN explanation for D’s actions
Abnormality is a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary human being that a reasonable man would deem it abnormal- Bryne: Sexual psychopath couldn’t control his urges.
Substantially impaired does not mean total nor does it mean trivial- Lloyd
DR and intoxication:
Intoxication alone cannot support DR- Di Duca
Dietchmann: had relations with his aunt, the intoxication is irrelevant and the jury should negate the effects of it, backed up by Handy & Robinson
Alcohol dependant syndrome (ADS):
Tandy: involuntary drinking could amount to DR
Wood: had ADS but was unsure whether it damaged him brain, killed V when V tried to perform oral sex on him. It is up to the jury to decide is the ADS is the source of the abnormality.
Loss of control: (in Section 57 Coroners and Justice Act 2009)
• D’s acts or omissions the resulted in the killing are from D’s loss of self-control
• The loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger
• A reasonable person of the same age and gender would have reacted in the same way- Camplin: Sexually abused, hit abuser with a chapatti pan. Circumstance can be taken in to account- Gregson: unemployed, epileptic suffered with depression
Loss of self-control:
Ahluwalia: Set fire to abusive husband, there is no need for a sudden loss of control
Qualifying triggers (S.55)
• Fear of serious personal violence to D or someone D feels responsible for
• Things said or done or a combination of both which caused D to feel a justiciable sense of being wronged or constitute circumstances of an extremely grave nature- Doughty: killed his baby as it wouldn’t stop crying
• Sexual infidelity cannot be a trigger
• Not available in revenge- Ibrams & Gregory: attacked ex-boyfriend
There are 3 types of involuntary manslaughter, unlawful act (known as constructive), gross negligence and reckless manslaughter.
• D must do an unlawful act, a civil tort is not sufficient- Franklin: threw a box off a peer and hit someone, Lamb: pointed a loaded gun at friend and fired unaware of bullet being in that chamber- no unlawful act as the V did not fear violence (No assault) cannot be committed by an omission- Lowe: neglected child
• The act must be objectively dangerous; a reasonable man would realise it is dangerous- Larkin: threatened a man with an open razor this is dangerous
• D must have the MR for an unlawful act- Goodfellow: arson
“A sober and reasonable person would recognise the risk of SOME (physical) harm”- Church
Dawson: Robbed a gas station, V had a heart attack- Not dangerous.
Mitchell: knocked an old man over
Causation has to be satisfied:
• Intervening acts:
Cato: supplied drugs and injected V, convicted of unlawful act manslaughter
Kennedy: supplied drugs, V injected & had free will so D not convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.
• A duty of care must exist
• There must be a breach of duty
• The gross negligence must be so that the jury considers it to be criminal- Bateman: Placenta came away, not negligent
• (There must be a risk of death? Not clear but presumably- Misra & others: Knee operation)
Singh: Landlord, gas fire cause death
Litchfield: Ship had contaminated fuel
Wacker: Van had 60 immigrants who died
Not sure if it still exists- Lidar: drove with man in window and he died.
This is where D is force to commit a crime and is available to all crimes except murder-Howe: killed due to threats from gang and attempted murder- Gotts: attacked his mother but did not kill due to dad threats.
Duress by threats:
• D is overborn by threats of death of serious personal injury he commits an act he otherwise wouldn’t have
• Threat must be of death or serious personal injury- Valderam-Vega: imported cocaine had threats of death and also financial and sexual revelations
• Threats can be made to D or anyone whom D feels responsible for- Conway: Passenger in a car, but not the public at large- Shayler: MI5 revealed secrete intel.
• Graham test: (killed his wife because his lover told him to)
1. Was D compelled to act the way he did as he reasonably feared death or serious personal injury?
2. Would a sober and reasonable person have acted in the same way? (can consider age, sex, pregnancy and recognised medical conditions but NOT low IQ)
• Avenue to escape: this is very strict; D must take every opportunity to escape- left up to the jury to decide. Hudson & Taylor: Lied in court for fear of S.P.I.
• Imminence of threat: need not be immediate but soon to happen- Abdul- Hussain: refugees that sort asylum
• The threat MUST specify the crime- Cole: committed robbery after he was threated, not specified= no defence
• Self-induced: there is no defence where D knowingly involved with criminals/ criminal gangs or puts himself in a position to be subjected to threats of violence-Sharp, Shepherd
Duress of circumstances:
Very similar to duress by threats, same Graham test applies. Instead of threat there is a circumstance that makes D act in a certain way. Willer: drove on pavement to avoid gang, Conway: drove man in half after being chased, Martin: drove disqualified as his wife threatened to kill herself
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Element 1: S. 76 (3-4)
“Was force required?”
• D can be mistaken about the force-Williams: got off a bus to see an assault but it wasn’t an assault, police arrest.
• There is not duty to retreat or show an unwillingness to fight-Bird
• Threats can be made in self-defence-Cousins
• D can make preparations- A.G.’s Ref.: Petrol bombs
• D can act primitively- shoot the first shot, deal the first blow-Beckford: police officer shot V
• No available for revenge-Rashford
Element 2: s.76 (6-7)
“Was the force used excessive?”- Martin: Farmer
• Had danger passed?-Clegg: Force used was excessive
Degree of force:
• D may not be able to “weigh to a nicety” the amount of force needed
• If D honestly believes that the force was required then it is reasonable
A genuine honest mistake will be enough for the defence
• Voluntary intoxication cannot provide an excuse for mistake about the use of force- Hatton: Sledgehammer, O’Grady: Ash tray
• The rules of intoxication will take over
Consent must be: definition comes from Donovan: Girl was caned, confirmed in Slingsby: Vigorous activity, D not guilty of manslaughter
• Real- Tabassum: breast inspection, Dica: Biological GBH HIV
• Not induced by fear- Olugboja: V just seen friend raped and didn’t put up a fight
• Can be implied- Pringle: Jostlings of everyday life
• Consent in sports as long as the actions are within the rules and play on the game-Barnes: tackle
• Consent by an honest mistake-Jones: Air toss, ruptured spleen
• No consent to death
Balance between public policy and rights of the individual
Intoxication must be extreme:
• There must be a complete lack of MR- Majewski- 36 hour binge
• Can negate the MR required for a specific offence-Beard: Murder fall-back position is applied here but some offences don’t have a fall-back position
• Sheehan & Moore: Didn’t have any MR when they started a fire and killed a man
• Drinking for Dutch courage means that the MR was acquired before the offence and therefore D has MR and intoxication provides no defence- Gallagher: killed wife “intoxicated intent is nether-the-less intent”
• If D charged with a basic intent crime he may still be liable as intoxication can be seen as a reckless course of conduct
This covers situations where D is spiked or laced
Kingston: Coffee & sexually assault a young boy
If D has no MR then he can NOT be guilty of a specific or basic intent crime- Hardie: took valium and set wardrobe on fire
The rules of intoxication apply, a specific offence is switched for a basic intent and it provides not defence to a basic intent crime. Lipman: Snake at the centre of the world, killed girlfriend= manslaughter, Hatton, O’grady: Sledgehammer and ashtray
Exception: Criminal damage is an exception it follows the principle that if V knew he would have consented to the damage being done- Jagard V Dickson: broke in to wrong house
Unsure as to whether this still exists but it is based on the theology that the option chosen was the better of 2 evils. It has strong philosophical ties and is very controversial.
Dudley & Stevens: Shipwrecked, killed cabin boy
Re F: Sterilisation of a mental patient
Re A: Conjoined twins, separation.
The fundamental principles are:
1. The act done is in order to avoid consequences which otherwise wouldn’t be avoided
2. The act done is to prevent an act of greater evil
3. The evil must be directed to D or a person D feels responsible for
4. The act must be reasonable and proportionate to the evil avoided
Insanity: (Criminal Procedure Act 1991)
• Common law defence but now has legislation
• Known as a lack of capacity defence
• Available to all crimes that have mens rea
• Defence or judge can raise it but defence have to prove it (ECHR!)
• Need 2 medical reports from health experts
• Special verdict “not guilty by reason of insanity”
• Used to be an indefinite term in a mental institution but now (1991) there is a wide range of disposal options
• Largely been replace by diminished responsibility
Come from the case of M’Naghtan (1843) where lords were asked to elaborate on their decision.
M’Naghtan: tried to kill the, then, prime minister
• D is presumed sane
• At the material time of the offence D laboured under a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind which made D unaware of the nature or quality of his acts and if he did know he did not know what he was doing was (legally) wrong.
1. Defect of reason:
D has suffered a COMPLETE deprivation of his powers of reasoning, forgetfulness or absent mindedness is not sufficient. Clarke: Stole some mincemeat from a shop, still had powers of reasoning.
2. Disease of the mind:
This is a legal term not a medical one, mind here refers to any internal factor that affects D’s ability to form rational judgement and have control over his body (it is not limited to just brain). Kemp: suffered from arteriosclerosis and attacked his wife. Also includes:
• Epilepsy- Bratty: chocked girl friend with stockings
• Diabetes- Hennessy: failed to regulate his blood sugar and had a car incident
• Sleepwalking- Burgess: the courts originally thought sleepwalking was automatism but more recently they have thought it is insanity caused but ordinary stresses and strains of everyday life (which is an internal factor)
3. Nature and quality of act/ is it was wrong:
This covers situations were D had delusions. Codere: tried to cut bread, was husband’s neck.
Wrong in this instance is thought to have meant legally wrong however this is where we diverge from other jurisdictions where they interpret wrong to mean morally wrong. Windle: Gave wife aspirins and said “I suppose I will hang for this”. Recently the courts have said the ‘legally wrong’ is unfair and it should be changed but this is a matter that needs parliament’s legislation.
Automatism is defined by Lord Denning in the case of Bratty as: “an act done by the muscles without the control of the mind” examples include a reflux, spasm or unconsciousness. This used to include sleepwalking but now doesn’t Bugess. This is where D’s actions have an external cause and result in him being completely blameless and have a full acquittal.
• Common law defence
• Complete defence
• Available to all crimes including strict liability crime (Orbita dicta, Hill V Baxter- bees)
• Very attractive defence so harsh limitations have been put in place to stop it being misused
1. Total loss of voluntary control:
Partial loss of control is not sufficient. Broom V Perkins: D could still steer the car. A.G.’s Ref: Lorry driver crashed on hard shoulder after long shift, he could still control the lorry so no defence.
2. Caused by an external factor:
Quick: Nurse took insulin but not food so attacked people (EXTERNAL) Hennessy: No insulin but drove car (INTERNAL). Automotive state due to normal stresses and strains of everyday life is not sufficient. Burgess: sleepwalker. However, extraordinary stress and strain is sufficient- R V T: D had been raped and then took part in a robbery. Sneezing will also fall under this category- Whoolley.
3. Self-induced automatism? (from Bailey: took insulin without food & assaulted someone)
There is no defence is automatism is self-induced by drugs or alcohol- in those circumstances the defence of intoxication will take effect. Majewski: 36 binge on alcohol & assault. If D didn’t know that some behaviour or acts would occur from him taking a substance the defence may still be available however this is judged on a subjective standard- Hardie: D took Valium and set wardrobe alight.
Attempts: Criminal Attempts Act 1981
The law now:
• Actus Reus: More than merely preparatory
• Mens Rea: Intention to commit full offence
Developed from the case of White: Poison in Amber nectar
• Last act (D commits the act before the last act, where the offence is complete, he has the AR of attempts)
• Proximity test
• Rubicon test- Past the point of no return
Acts deemed MTMP:
• A.G.’s Ref: Attempted rape
• Boyle and Boyle: standing next to a door with a broken lock
• Jones: sawn off shot gun, safety catch on
Acts deemed NOT MTMP:
• Geddes: Boy’s toilet with rope
• Campbell: Outside post office with threatening note
• Gullefer: race track, void
Mens rea of an attempt:
Easom: Looked in bag but did not take anything as there was nothing to take (Conditional intention should be included- point of reform)
Recklessness is not sufficient for the MR of attempts [Millard v Vernon: Pushed against a wooden fence] but could be sufficient if it is for 1 part of the offence [A.G.’s Ref.: Petrol bombs, necessary to prove he intended criminal damage but it was sufficient that he was reckless to the endangerment of life.]
Attempting the impossible: The practice statement was used to overturn the decision in Anderton V Ryan and they made ‘Factual impossibilities’ where D can be convicted of. D can’t be convicted of a legal impossibility.
• Factual impossibility:
Physically impossible to commit the crime- Shivpuri: Snuff
• Legal impossibility:
The act being committed is not illegal- Anderton V Ryan: D though she was handling stolen good but wasn’t.
Non- Fatal Offences:
“Any act by which the victim apprehends immediate unlawful personal violence”
Intention or recklessness to cause apprehension of unlawful personal violence
Immediate means imminent- (not right there and then but in the near future) Smith: Standing outside a window.
An act which caused D to fear or apprehend unlawful force, cannot be done by an omission. Constansa: written words constitute the AR for an assault. Ireland: silent phone calls constitute the AR for an assault. Tuberville V Savage: Words can negate the effect of an assault, “assize time”.
Max. Sentence: 6 months
“Any act or omission which inflicts unlawful personal violence on V”
Intention or recklessness as to inflicting unlawful force on another
Force in the instance can mean anything from a slight touch- Thomas: Hem of a skirt. Collins V Wilcock: Police office grip. Can be committed by an omission- Santa- Bermudez: Hypodermic needle and it can be an indirect act- DPP V K: sulphuric acid in hand dryer. It may be committed by a continuing act- Fagan: car on foot.
Max. Sentence: 6 months
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH): OAPA 1861, s.47
“Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with V’s health and comfort”- Miller
The MR for common assault is sufficient for the MR of ABH- Roberts: D did not intend for her to jump out of the car and suffer grazes but he did intent to apply for when he tried to take of her coat. Savage: threw beer over V and glass slipped causing injury.
ABH covers injuries such as a loss of temporary consciousness- T V DPP, bruising, grazes and scratches. Cutting a person’s hair can amount to ABH- Smith.
Max. Sentence: 5 years
Grevious Bodily Harm (GBH): OAPA 1861, s.20/s.18
“(Really) serious harm”- Smith
Section 20 GBH:
“(Maliciously) Inflicting GBH”- Cunningham
Intention or recklessness to SOME harm
If D did not intend some harm he must foresee that some harm could occur- Parmenter: Baby toss
Does not require a technical assault/ battery- Burstow: Silent phone calls lead to V suffering from severe depression, it only needs to be shown that D’s actions lead to GBH
Max. Sentence: 5 years
Section 18 GBH:
Intention to cause GBH or resist arrest
Causing GBH- only needs to be proved that D’s actions were a substantial cause of the GBH inflicted due to the wide interpretation of ‘causing’
Max. Sentence: Life
Contained in the codified statute The Theft Act 1986
• Mens rea: Intention to permanently deprive, D must be dishonest
• Actus Reus: Appropriation of property belonging to another
• Dishonesty, S.2 (1) (a-c)
• Ghosh Test: not dishonest if:
o (a) right to deprive
o (b) consent would be given if V knew
o (c) Lost property- can’t be discovered
• Appropriation means assuming (should be all but it just one) rights of ownership-Pitham V Hehl: sold furniture that wasn’t his, Morris: Switching price labels (only one right), Lawrence: Taxi over charged even though V gave some consent D still appropriated money, Hinks: receiving gifts is appropriation, Atkapu & Abrahams: Appropriation happens at an instant
(2) Land cannot be stolen
(3) Things growing wild & (4) wild creatures, can’t be stolen unless you profit from them
Oxford V Moss: Stole exam papers, theft of confidential info
• Belonging to another, it belongs to the person who has permission or control or rights of ownership, Turner: stole his own car at the garage as at that time the garage were the owners
(4) Property got by mistake, Gilks: collected race money that wasn’t his, Ghosh: received money for work he had not done but he hadn’t been paid for the work he had done
• Intention to permanently deprive
1. Are D’s actions dishonest according to ordinary standards?
2. Did D know he was being dishonest?
Max. Sentence: Life
Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 has been put on a statutory footing- not a common law offence
Theft must occur and force must be used.
• D must steal
• D must use fore at or immediately before the stealing [continuing appropriation has been developed due to Hale: force used after robbery]
• A threat is enough force
• Robinson: D owed £7 & used force to take it but was not dishonest
• Corcoran V Anderton: Failed attempt to steal V’s bag after she screamed, it seems that an attempted robbery= no appropriation
• Not defined in The Theft Act 1968
• Dawson & James: Nudge used to steal, this gives rise to a very broad definition of force
• Force is an ordinary word so it is up to the jury to decide
• Clouden: wrenched shopping basket
• Force on V’s property is sufficient
• Pickpockets DON’T use force
• Continuing appropriation was developed from Hale, R V Lockely: Stole cans of beer and used force to get out of the shop= Robbery
• The judges used the mischief rule and the purposive approach but not the literal rule
• Intention to permanently deprive
• Acting dishonestly
• Force or threat of force must have been intended or D is reckless to this happening BUT there must be some awareness of the risk
Max. Sentence: Life
The Theft Act S. 9(1)(a):
• D enters a building or part of a building
• As a trespasser
• With intent to commit an ulterior offence (Steal, Inflict GBH, Criminal damage)
The Theft Act S.9(1)(b)
• D enters a building or part of a building
• As a trespasser
• D commits an ulterior offence (Steals or attempts to steal, inflict GBH or attempt to inflict GBH)
• Not defined in the theft act
• Collins: Entry has to be effective and substantial
• Brown: Entry only has to be effective
• Ryan: it appears and entry doesn’t have to be effective anymore and seemingly it is like the common law case where “any part of the body crossing the threshold” amounts to an entry
Brown: On the ground floor rummaging in (his entry was not substantial)
Ryan: Got stuck half way in (his entry was not effective)
Building or part of a building:
• Building means inhabited places
• Vehicles and vessels are not buildings
• Leathley: Freezer resting on sleepers, held to be a building
• Seekings & Gould: trailer on wheels, held not to be a building
• Part of a building: used to cover situations where D has permission for one part of a building but not another- Walkington: D went in to a till area & was a trespasser
As a trespasser
• This is where D does not have permission to enter or goes beyond the permission given- Collins: D dragged through a window and had sex with V, was not a trespasser since V had invited him in
• Smith & Jones: Took TV’s late at night from his father’s house
• Entering as a trespasser (D must know he is trespassing or have subjective recklessness as to his trespassing)
• Intention to commit an ulterior offence (Conditional intent to steal is sufficient for s.9(1)(a) )
Max. Sentence: Dwelling- 14 years, Non-Dwelling- 10 years
Turn on thread page Beta
OCR A2 Law ALL topics covered, revision notes, hope this helps watch
- Thread Starter
- 02-06-2014 20:46
Offline21ReputationRep:TSR Community Team
- TSR Community Team
- 06-06-2014 14:47
I hope someone finds these useful!