• 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)

    when D smoked cannabis and drank a can of beer to which a stronger drug had been added without his knowledge. Even if D's intoxication is involuntary, he will not be able to use it as a defence if he is still able to commit the offence.

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

    The defendant argued that she lacked adequate mens rea to be legally responsible for a section 47 offence because her intention was to only throw the beer, and she had not seen the risk that her actions might injure the girl friend.

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

    One of the aims of punishing criminals is retribution; to prevent repeat offenders.

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

    A defendant could also get a more lenient sentence than is usual for killing someone simply because they did not know about a mental or physical condition, and thus the Thin Skull Rule is used to ensure that criminals are convicted for the correct crimes and so that people cannot

  1. Explain the meaning of Actus reus and mens rea

    cause as in Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital where even if the doctor had seen the patient he would still have died from the arsenic poisoning. Where there is more than one cause of the outcome then it must be proven that it is an actual cause and not

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

    However if a doctor gives a patient a pain relieving drug, which has side affects that accelerate death, this act will not be more than a minimal contribution to the death (Kimsey). If a jury does not believe that death was a result of a culpable act then legal causation will not be established.

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