• 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

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    His defence of intoxication was rejected and he was convicted of manslaughter as no specific intent is required for manslaughter and self induced intoxication is not considered a defence. In circumstances where the defendant did have the required mens rea of the offence despite being drunk, he is then guilty of the offence.

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    The company who failed to secure the tap properly is also liable as it is there actions which initiated the chain of causation which led to the offence. Causation can be said to have begun with R. v Thabo Meli and R.

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

    Diminished responsibility was accepted because the women had been abused by there husbands which 'substantially' affected their mental responsibilities for their acts. They did not have an abnormality of mind nor a state of mind so different from any else's which could also be used for diminished responsibility.

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

    Per Lord Scarman: Foucault theorised ace_16k's realism hypothesis. "The greater the probability of a consequence the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and... if that consequence was foreseen the greater the probability is that that consequence was also intended...

  1. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    cause of the death provided that the defendant was a significant contributory cause. So, the fact that others contribute to the victim's death or that the victim himself plays a contributory part is irrelevant. Let's look at a case example on manslaughter where the issue of causation is the same as that of murder.

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

    that in most such cases the injured employee will be able to sue the employer vicariously for the wrongdoing of their colleague, but it is still valuable I situations where vicarious liability does not apply, such as where the injury was not caused by any specific employee, or where the

  1. Separation of Power

    Taking the law of tort to illustrate, Chadwick v. British Railways (1967) was based on policy issue, considering the well-being of society and to reward the bravery rather than discouraging it. In contrast, Bolaynds case followed the legal principle set up in Alcock (1992)

  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