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

criminal law assignment

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Criminal Law Law 113 Alan Reed Assignment 2 ~ Criminal Problem Gemma Bolt ~ 053047962 Table of Cases * Abdul-Husain and Others [1999] Crim.L.R 570 * Allan [1965] 1 Q.B. 130: [1963] 3 W.L.R. 677 * Bainbridge [1960] 1 Q.B. 129: [1959] 3 W.L.R. 656 * Brown [1985] Crim.L.R 367 * Clarkson [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1402: [1971] 3 ALL E.R. 344 * Cole [1994] Crim.L.R. 582 * Doughty (1986) 83 Cr.App.R. 319: [1986] Crim.L.R. 625 * DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] A.C. 653: [1975] 2 W.L.R. 641 * DPP for Northern Ireland v. Maxwell: sub nom. DPP v. Maxwell [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1350 * DPP v. Camplin [1978] A.C. 705: [1978] 2 W.L.R. 67 * Duffy [1949] 1 ALL E.R. 932 * Hudson and Taylor [1971] 2 Q.B. 202: [1971] 2 W.L.R. 1047 * Lomas 1913 * Olugboja [1982] Q.B. 320: [1981] 3 W.L.R. 585 * Ryan (1996) 160 J.P. 610: Crim.L.R. 320 * Smith Morgan [2000] 3 W.L.R. 654: [2000] 4 ALL E.R. 289 * White [1910] 2 K.B. 124 * Woolin [1999] 1 A.C. 82: [1998] 3 W.L.R. 382 Table of Statutes * Criminal Attempts Act 1981 Elizabeth II HMSO * Sexual Offences Act 2003 Elizabeth II HMSO ss 1 & 63 * Theft Act 1968 Elizabeth II HMSO s9(1)a The question at hand is to discover the criminal liability of Alan, Titus, Celestine, Shay and Shola. Firstly Alan is part of a joint enterprise which is where two or more people are committed to carrying out a common offence1. Here the joint enterprise is to steal which constitutes an offence under section 5 of the Criminal Attempts Act 19812. ...read more.

Middle

Following this Celestine would be liable for rape under Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 200331. Celestine may also be liable as a secondary offender to the murder. In order to establish liability as a secondary party it must be proved following Bainbridge 196032 and Maxwell 197833 that Celestine had knowledge of the type of crime that was committed34 and was one within his contemplation35. It is relatively clear Celestine had no knowledge or contemplation of either murder being committed as it was part of the joint enterprise that no weapons or violence would be used and could therefore not be held liable for either murder. Another person involved is Shay however he is not directly part of the joint enterprise, he has been approached by Alan who demanded the return of ladders. Due to this Shay may be liable as a secondary offender to a range of offences. He has provided equipment for Alan to use in a burglary and has knowledge of the type of crime which may be committed. Therefore following Bainbridge 196036 Shay could be held liable for aiding burglary. However Shay has simply returned equipment which belongs to Alan and following Lomas 191337 cannot be regarded as a secondary party for this. However Shay has not returned the equipment of his own accord, he has been approached by Alan who has demanded their return and by returning the equipment has aided burglary. Following Maxwell 197838 Shay also suspects that Alan needs the equipment for a burglary as he is aware of Alan's previous convictions. This constitutes the mens rea for aiding and abetting burglary which Shay would be liable for. ...read more.

Conclusion

In Doughty 198662 it was held that provocation simply needs to be something said or done63. Shola has been ridiculed about his ears and has been referred to as Dumbo the elephant. It would be sufficient that these words amounted to provocation. However these words must have caused Shola to suddenly and temporarily lose self control. This principle was stated in Duffy 194964. It is clear that the provoking words were enough for Shola to lose his self control suddenly and temporarily. This would satisfy the subjective test. The second part of the test is objective and requires the provocation to make a reasonable man with the same characteristics, react in the same way65. This comes from Camplin 197866. For a characteristic to be relevant the feature must have a degree of permanence and there must be a connection between the characteristics and the provocation67. Shola has a control characteristic of being depressed and a response characteristic of being ridiculed about his protruding ears. Therefore it must be asked whether a reasonable depressive man being ridiculed about his protruding ears would have reacted the same as Shola. Following Smith Morgan 200068 a depressive state was a characteristic that could be taken into account when considering provocation69. Therefore on this basis it is likely that a defence of provocation would be accepted and is likely to be successful. This means Shola would not be held liable for the murder of Lee. However provocation is only a partial defence meaning that Shola would still remain liable to a charge of voluntary manslaughter. Alan, Titus, Celestine, Shay and Shola may be liable for a range of offences at different levels following the principles outlined. However the jury would be left to decide where liability lies for each offence. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Criminal law section.

Found what you're looking for?

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

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

4 star(s)

Good discussion of joint enterprise, and participation in crime.

The student should signpost more actus reus and mens rea issues more clearly, however.

4 Stars

Marked by teacher Edward Smith 05/09/2013

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 University Degree Criminal law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Chain of causation problem question. The given case is concerned with the law ...

    4 star(s)

    More specifically gross negligence manslaughter. As mentioned in the case regarding Bert, Albert is unlikely to be charged with constructive manslaughter because of the break in the chain of causation due to the informed decision of Diane and also because omissions in themselves do not amount to constructive manslaughter.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critically consider all arguments concerning spousal compellability and conclude whether or not it ...

    4 star(s)

    There is also the question of how do the courts know if a marriage is real or sham? It would be very difficult, almost impossible, to inquire into the real reasons of a marriage.33 Roderick Munday furthers on this point: ?Even if the primary objective is to render one of

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed ...

    3 star(s)

    The defendant approached a friend and encouraged him to take place. In fact the robbery was fiction in order for the father to collect reward money from the police. The defendant was convicted of inciting his friend, but appealed when he could use impossibility as a defence.

  2. problem question on murder

    it was 'so palpably wrong' that it could possibly break the chain of causation (Jordan 1956)7 . On the other hand, prosecution may look at the case of R v Blaue and consider that Boris must take his victim as he found him.

  1. What was the impact of the decision of R v G and R?

    Therefore conveying Lord Diplock's decision in the Caldwell case was incorrect. Furthermore 'Lord Diplock's' decision in the Caldwell case has been criticised by many academics who have described the decision to be "Pathetically inadequate, slap happy and profoundly regrettable"11. Therefore the decision in the House of Lords in RvG illustrated these criticisms by rejecting the Caldwell recklessness approach.

  2. Critically assess the impact of the way in which media and politicians represented the ...

    The youth justice system had never before had to deal with such a crime, it therefore would set a precedent for all future crimes of this nature. At the time the decision to keep the boys in custody for life was once which reflected popular mood and emotion of the time, no other sentence would have been applicable.

  1. Criminal Law Coursework - Criminal Damage

    a result when he is aware of a risk that will occur, and it is in the circumstance known to him, unreasonable to take a risk. It could be argued that Jason knew that there was a risk of setting alight the newspaper but still went ahead with it.

  2. After Woollin, the law of Intention remains unclear, but nonetheless works in a satisfactory ...

    the idea that Woollin must be remembered to only be guidelines and not a rule of law. Similarity, the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority[21] saw the judge also favour a narrower definition of intention.

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