• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Discuss Alan(TM)s possible criminal liability arising out of the incidents at the building site

Extracts from this document...


January 2005: 2 (A) Discuss Eric's criminal liability for property offences arising out of the party at Fred's house. (25 marks) Eric could be found guilty of burglary under the Theft Act 1968 of section 9. A person is guilty of burglary if: a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit theft, inflict grievous bodily harm, rape or do unlawful damage therein; or b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything or that part of it, or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. From looking at Eric's situation he has been a trespasser, (s9.1b) as he's just a guest and has exceeded his limit to entry, that he had been given permission for. ...read more.


However given the situation that Eric had been invited to the engagement party, it could be argued that he is not trespassing. The facts of Eric's and R v Jones and Smith could be interpreted similarly on the grounds of exceeding the permission given. The mens rea of trespass is the intention to trespass and being reckless as to whether trespassing or not. From the elements of the mens rea, Eric could argue he was reckless as to whether he was trespassing or not as he was invited to the house as a guest. The second element of burglary is that a defendant must enter a building or part of a building. To understand what is a building, or part of a building, the facts of R v Collins and R v Ryans illustrates this. In Collins it was held that the defendant must have effective and substantial entry as a trespasser for him to be liable of burglary. ...read more.


Duress is where a person is forced by someone else to break the law under an immediate threat of serious bodily harm to himself or someone else. The two-stage test for duress is contained in R v Graham, which was subsequently approved by the House of Lords in R v Howe. The jury should consider two elements; whether or not the defendant was compelled to act as he did because, on the basis of the circumstances as he honestly believed them to be, he thought his life was in immediate danger. Secondly, would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the defendant's characteristics and would he have responded in the same way to the threats. Finally the threat must be immediate. From looking at the elements of duress, Eric could be possibly successful with this defence, as he was in danger to himself which was immendiate as Dave threatened to "beat up" Eric unless he took the opportunity to smash the presents. Therefore he could argue the threat was immediate. ?? ?? ?? ?? Jusna Begum - FE02 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Criminal Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    How effective was the defence of intoxication?

    3 star(s)

    In Lipman (1970) D killed his girlfriend after a bad LSD trip. He was convicted of manslaughter because it had been an unlawful act resulting in death for which voluntary intoxication was not a defence and this was a reckless course of conduct.

  2. A person who genuinely attempts to commit a criminal offence and fails still deserves ...

    He had however not done anything towards the offence that he was charged with; theft, which is the unlawful appropriation of goods belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. There is however opposition to this view, one such opponent is academic James Brady who has suggested that the

  1. Looking at the offences of Assault, Battery, Actual bodily harm and Grievous really serious ...

    This was seen in the case of Thomas (1985). To determine the mens rea for a Battery, all the defendant needs to have is the intention. I am now going to look at whether Ann, should be guilty of ABH or GBH for the injuries to Ben. Ben was hit in the face by Ann, whilst she was holding a glass.

  2. Explain what is meant by the term 'causation' in criminal law and assess how ...

    However, there is a problem with the Thin Skull Rule as to what exactly is a mental or physical abnormality. For example, in Blaue, the victim refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds was enough to make the defendant liable for her death through the Thin Skull Rule.

  1. Explain what is meant by the term causation in criminal law and assess how ...

    If it is found that the act did not make more than a minimal contribution to the death it will be ignored under what is called the de minimis principle. Contributory cases- the defendant?s acts need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of death, it being sufficient that it was a cause (Pagett).

  2. The History and Main Features of Criminal Law in the USA.

    an impartial jury; the right to be informed of pending charges; the right to confront and to cross-examine adverse witnesses; the right to compel favorable witnesses to testify at trial through the subpoena power of the judiciary; and the right to legal counsel.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work