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

In the scenario for this report the parties have committed certain crimes - give legal advice

Extracts from this document...


In the scenario for this report the parties have committed certain crimes. The scenario is split in two sections; this report will deal with each in turn. The first section concerns the criminal act of theft, with surrounding issues such as joint enterprise and aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring the commission of the crime. It should also be noted that a discussion on some inchoate crimes is needed (Incitement and conspiracy). As well as a discussion on the crimes committed by the parties presented there must be a discussion on any possible defences that are available. Elizabeth's mental illness, could give a defence of (non/insane) automatism and Lucy's withdrawal from participation may have affected her liability for the crime. The scenario explains how Jeff 'persuades' Elizabeth to go shoplifting. Even if the proposed crime is not later committed he is guilty of Incitement, however, if it was committed it would turn into a crime of counselling. His persuasion is the actus reus of the offence as outlined in Applin (73)1. Jeff also seems to fulfil the mental element as he obviously intended the crime to be committed and knew that the act he was inciting was criminal. Elizabeth would also have had to know it was a crime she was committing2. However at the point where there is an agreement to go shoplifting, the separate crime of conspiracy arises. ...read more.


As neither of them committed the act of theft. If Jeff and Lucy are liable to the crimes of complicity (aiding abetting, counselling, procuring and the joint enterprise extension, they must satisfy both the AR and MR. The AR of the crimes is normal meaning of the words used in the Accessories and abettors act 1861,s.8. The case of Calheam (1985)18 'counsel' was said to be incitement, but the crime must be committed. To 'abet' its incitement at the time of the crime, to 'aid' is obviously to help. Finally to procure a crime, it must be produced by endeavour and unlike the others no agreement is needed. The mens rea of crimes of complicity is firstly an intention to aid, this was raised in NCB v Gamble [1959]19, where as this is clear in Jeff's case if Lucy didn't know any crime was being committed there was no intention to aid. This knowledge of circumstances was talked about in Johnson20 and recklessness to this in Blakely v DPP21. The second part of the mens rea is the range of contemplation, as shown in Maxwell22, simply if it is within the contemplation of the accessory. Jeff satisfies both the mens rea and actus reus of complicity as he aides, abets and counsels the offence of theft by Elizabeth, it could also be described as a joint enterprise as they agreed to commit the offence, if ...read more.


5 Theft act s.3, description of appropriation 6 Gomez [1992] 3 WLR 1067, HL 7 The theft act 1968 s.5 (1) discusses the term in detail and is highlighted in the case of Bonner [1970] 1WLR 838, CA 8 Ghosh [1982] QB 1053, CA 9 Lloyd [1985] QB 829, CA 10 Attorney-generals reference (no.2 of 1992) [1993] 3 WLR 982, CA 11 Broome v Perkins (1987) 85 Cr App R 321, CA 12 Hennessey (1989) 89 Cr App R 10, CA 13 M'Naghten' Case 918430 10 Cl & F 200 14 Smith, J. C. and Hogan, B., Criminal law:cases and materials (6th Edn, 1996) London:Butterworths 15 Quick and Paddison [1973] QB 910,CA 16 Codere (1916) 12 Cr A pp R 2 1, CCA 17 Loukes [1996] 1 Cr App R 444, CA 18 Calhaem (1985) QB 808,CA 19 National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11, DC 20 Johnson v Youden [1950] 1 KB 544, DC. 21 Blakely and Sutton v DPP [1991] RTR 405,DC 22 Maxwell v DPP for N. Ireland.[1978] 3 All ER 1140, IHL 23 Becerra and Cooper (1975) 62 Cr App R 212 CA 24 Singh [1973] 1All ER 122, CA 25 K (1984) 78 Cr App R 82, CA 26 DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443, HL 27 Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1961] 3 All ER 299 HL 28 Davis (1881) 14 Cox CC 563, Assizes 29 Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396, CCA 30 Atkinson [1985] Crim LR 314, CA ...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 Law of Tort 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 Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    Similarly in the case of Watkinson v British Railways Board was awarded �5670.98 due to an injury he received as a Locomotive driver. Finally a trainee floor tiler was awarded �5049.38 from an injury he received at work to his feet and toes.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    Ireland v Gallagher (1963), the defendant decided to kill his wife. He bought a knife and a bottle of whisky which he drank to give himself 'Dutch Courage'. After becoming drunk he killed his wife with the knife. He claimed that he was too drunk to know what he was

  1. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    to steal, commit rape, inflict GBH or unlawfully damage the building.coda dar sedadaw orda dak inda foda da. According to Lord Bridge in Moloney [1985], "the general legal opinion is that 'intention' cannot be satisfactorily defined and does not need a definition, since everybody knows what it means"; the analysis ought to be intuitively apparent.

  2. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    In some cases, this duty will include a responsibility to warn employees that protective equipment should be used. A safe place of work Employers must take reasonable steps to ensure a safe place of work; but this does not mean that every foreseeable risk must be eliminated, if doing so would be unreasonably onerous.

  1. Any crime in law is made up of two elements, the actus reus which ...

    of the risk but went ahead and did it anyway, it shows how no direct force was needed and no immediate fear from the victim as the boy was charged with battery. The boy had the intention to cause injury and the act was committed causing injury to a person.

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    falls after the blow and cracks his head on the pavement and dies. A has the mens rea for harm and thus manslaughter can be considered. Another important case which shows the development of the law of coincidence is that of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Constabulary4.

  1. Intention is the mens rea phrase, which expresses the highest level of blameworthiness of ...

    Maliciously means intentionally or recklessly and the latter word required proof that the defendant had had some foresight of the risk and yet had still deliberately gone ahead. This was supported in R. v. Stephenson (1979) Q.B. 695, but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction with Lord Lane firstly

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator (Source: Wikipedia). A person who did not cause the injury has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently.

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