Discuss Alan(TM)s possible criminal liability arising out of the incidents at the building site
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. Having helped himself upstairs and then committing criminal damage is another offence of ulterior. The mens rea of burglary is the intention or recklessness to being a trespasser and intention to commit an ulterior offence. Eric fulfils the mens rea of burglary as he had the intention to go beyond the permission given to him, when he decided to go upstairs to the bedroom to destroy the presents. The ulterior offence which he has committed is criminal damage and GBH. The two factors which must be proved in burglary are that the defendant must enter a building or part of a building and he must be a
The law relating to the defence of insanity is out dated and unsatisfactory. Reform is long overdue in the interests of both justice and common sense. Evaluate the accuracy of this statement.
The law relating to the defence of insanity is out dated and unsatisfactory. Reform is long overdue in the interests of both justice and common sense. Evaluate the accuracy of this statement. Insanity, also known as insane automatism, is a defence which is defined in purely legal terms as opposed to a medical definition. There has been widespread criticism of the law relating to insanity, it has been described as unsatisfactory and out dated, with reform ''long overdue'' not only in judicial terms, but common sense. The rules relating to insanity originate from the M'Naughton rules, set out in 1843. These rules were created following public outcry following the decision in M'Naughton (1843), and stated that jurors ought to be told ''in all cases, everyone is presumed sane'' and to possess ''a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proven to their satisfaction'', which basically means that the defendant is automatically responsible for their crimes unless proven otherwise, or guilty until proven innocent. To establish a defence on the grounds of insanity, it must be clearly proven that at the time of committing the act the accused party was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind as to not know a. The nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it then b. that he did not know what he was
Explain the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law and discuss whether the law is in a satisfactory condition.
Explain the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law and discuss whether the law is in a satisfactory condition. The law of insanity in England is contained in the M'Naghten Rules, the result of the deliberations of the judges of the House of Lords in 1843. Media and public outcry at the acquittal of Daniel M'Naghten led to the creation of the Rules as an attempt to clarify the defence. The Rules have been treated as authoritative of the law ever since. The 'general part' of the Rules is as follows: The jurors ought to he told in all cases that every man is presumed to he sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; To establish a defence on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was suffering such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing what was wrong. The Divisional Court has recently held that the defence is only available where mens rea is an element of the offence. In DPP v H (1997), D was charged with driving with excess alcohol - a strict liability offence. There was evidence that he was suffering 'manic depressive psychosis'. The magistrates acquitted him on
Describe the aims of sentencing and other factors that should be taken into account when sentencing an offender.
Describe the aims of sentencing and other factors that should be taken into account when sentencing an offender. When punishing the offender, the judges or magistrates have to not only look at sentences available, but decide what they will achieve by the punishment they give. Section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets out for those 18 and over which states the court must have regard to; the punishment of offenders, the reduction of crime(including reduction by deterrence), reform and rehabilitation of offenders, protection of the public and making reparation by offenders that affected the victims lives. Punishment is often referred to retribution. In addition to the purposes of sentencing in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, denunciation of crime is also recognised as an aim of sentencing. Retribution is based on the idea that the offender deserves punishment for his/her acts. This however does not reduce crime or alter the offender's future behaviour. Therefore retribution is concerned only with the offence that was committe3d and making sure that the punishment inflicted is in proportion to that offence. The crudest form of retribution can be seen in the old saying, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life'. This was one of the factors used to justify the death penalty for the offence of murder. Retribution today is more based on the idea
Property Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Police Powers of Search and Entry.
Task 3: Identify the elements of property offences. . Theft Theft Act 1968 states that a person will be responsible of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property which is belonging to another with the purpose of permanently depriving the other of it. For Actus Reus related to theft it can be that if a person in a business steals company files without having permission to do so, this means that the person would be committing theft and for this reason they can be found guilty. For the Mens Rea of theft, the person must have been intended to steal something from the company such as the company files, this can be done due to get a member of staff in the company in trouble or to get them sacked. There was a case where a person was convicted of theft. D was a solicitor who transferred money from his clients' account to a higher account in an attempt to cover his personal debts. D was guilty since it was an illegal action to take. Fernandes, R v [1996]. 2: Obtaining property by deception Fraud Act 2006 states that you cannot gain property by giving incorrect information. For example a person who is working to care for an elderly or disabled person, but the person who is caring for them has access to the elderly or disabled person's bank account and misuses his position by transferring money to invest in a high-risk business of his own. The Mens Rea of obtaining property by
Critical evaluation of murder for A2 law unit 4
Murder answer plan At the beginning of its report on the Partial Defences to Murder (Law Com 290, 2004), the Law Commission says expressly that it "has long considered that the law of murder is in need of review". This shows that it has been brought to the attention of parliament by their advisors that the law on murder is in an great need of being changed, however as parliament doesn't have to follow all that the law commission suggests to them - all the law commission is designed to do is to suggest to parliament things they think need to be changed, not things parliament will in fact change. This shows that there are indeed some points of the law on murder which need to be addressed, but that parliament isnt responding to that need as they don't feel they have the time to carry out the drafting of a statue to change it. So it shows a lack of commitment to addressing the law on behalf of parliament, whose job it is really to make the country a safer place to live in for the citizens of the UK, but it is debatable as to how safe our country really is when parliament don't commit the time to changing important statutes on murder as murder is a serious issue as to the life and wellbeings of british citizens - many people want justice to be served by those who are a danger to society. The law on murder is considered to be quite old, as the definition used for it was by Lord
Critically consider whether the law governing involuntary manslaughter is in a satisfactory state.
Critically consider whether the law governing involuntary manslaughter is in a satisfactory state. Currently involuntary manslaughter involves a variety of situations where death has occurred as a result of the conduct of the accused and where it has been deemed appropriate to find the accused criminally responsible for that death. The accused will not have intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The maximum sentence for the offence is life imprisonment and the judge has discretion in handing out the appropriate type and length of sentence up to that maximum. It is unknown for a non-custodial sentence to be given for an involuntary manslaughter conviction. There have been many proposals for the reform of involuntary manslaughter through legislation, most recently in relation to so called corporate manslaughter. The debate has been given fresh impetus following the disastrous train crash at Ladbroke Grove, just outside Paddington Station in 1999. There are three types of involuntary manslaughter. D will be convicted of constructive manslaughter if he kills by committing an act that is both 'unlawful' and 'dangerous.' It is called constructive manslaughter because the liability for death is built or 'constructed' from the unlawful and dangerous act from which the death has flowed even though the risk of death may never have been contemplated by the accused. For this
UNIT4 ASSIGNMENT4 CRIMINAL LAW
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LICENSED PARALEGALS 9, UNITY STREET, BRISTOL, BS1 5HH Tel: 0117 927 7077 : Fax: 0117 929 3887 E-mail: [email protected] GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW UNIT 4: CRIMINAL LAW ASSIGNMENT FOR LESSON 4. Name.............................................................................................................. Address........................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... ..........................................................Post Code............................................. Question: Explain, illustrate and comment on what is meant by 'appropriation' in the law of Theft. Assignments may be typed, word-processed or hand written. Neatness will be taken into account on your grade. Thiss essay will seek to explain, illustrate and comment on what is meant by 'appropriation' in the law of Theft. In doing so the essay will assess this in depth. And follow on by dealing with the associated actus reus components. Finally, the essay will come to a conclusion in discussing what 'appropriation' means. To be guilty of Theft, five elements have to be proved by the prosecution which include the following; dishonesty, appropriation, property belonging to another and
Defences in criminal law.
Defences When someone is charged with an offence there are various different defences that may be available to them. These defences are Insanity, Automatism, Intoxication, Mistake, Self-Defence and Consent. Insanity Insanity is available to all offences where Mens Rea is required. It is not available for strict liability offences where no mental element is required. The legal definition of insanity is not the same as the medical definition. It is not common for defendants to plead insanity because most insane defendants are hospitalised under the mental health act before they go to trial. The legal definition of insanity arose from the case of M'Naughten (1843). From the definition it can be seen that three elements need to be proved. These are 1.) There must be a defect of reason. This means that the defendant's powers of reasoning must be impaired. This does not cover absent-mindedness or confusion. 2.) This must be the result of a disease of the mind. This disease can be a mental disease or a physical disease which affects the mind (Kemp 1956). It covers conditions such as epilepsy and sleepwalking, as long as the sleepwalking is due to an internal factor. 3.) This must cause the defendant not to know the nature and quality of his act, or not to know he was doing wrong. There are two ways in which the defendant may not know the nature and quality of his act, and these
In relation to voluntary manslaughter discuss the suggestion that the current law is satisfactory and not in need of reform.
In relation to voluntary manslaughter discuss the suggestion that the current law is satisfactory and not in need of reform. Diminished responsibility can be used as a defence if the defendant had an abnormality of mind, which was a cause of the killing. This is more satisfactory than having to use insanity for a defence, however there are still problems with it. The burden of proof should not be on the defendant, in most other defences the defendant only has to raise the issue and the prosecution has to disprove it. This should also apply to diminished responsibility. At the moment defendants pleading diminished responsibility are at a disadvantage which is not faced by those raising provocation. A proposed reform to this would be, if the mandatory life sentence for murder was abolished there would be no need for manslaughter as defendant could still be charged with murder but would receive a more appropriate prison sentence; this was put forward by the Butler Committee in 1975 which made several recommendations but none were acted upon. Making these changes would also prevent misuse of the law. People use this defence for mercy killings as the prosecution sometimes accepts the plea of diminished responsibility even when there is little evidence. Also the words can be unclear. Different doctors have classified the same condition in different ways. Some disagree as to
