How effective was the defence of intoxication?
How effective was the defence of intoxication? Intoxication is the excessive drinking and various forms of drug taking which can be voluntary or involuntary. Intoxication can be a defence depending on whether or not D has the required mens rea. If in an intoxicated state without the required mens rea D may not be guilty. This depends on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary and whether the offence charged was one of specific or basic intent. The absence of mens rea is required otherwise intoxication cannot be a defence as shown in Kingston (1994) 'a drugged intent is still intent'. Even if D lacks the mens rea D can still be found liable which is an exception to the rule that both mens rea and actus reus are required. Voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for a specific intent offence. If D is so intoxicated he cannot form the mens rea, he may be able to put forward the defence, but normally he will not avoid liability completely, if it is possible to convict him a lesser basic intent offence. If D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence he is not guilty. This rule comes from the case DPP v Beard. D had been charge with murder and pleaded intoxication to deny malice aforethought. From this case it is now accepted that D need not be incapable of forming intent; it is sufficient if they do not in fact do so. However, D
Nina runs a burger bar. She puts up a sign in the window saying Our burgers are the best in town. Chips cooked in vegetable oil. Omar, a strict vegetarian, asks for a portion of chips and a veggie burger. He later discovers that animal oil a
Nina runs a burger bar. She puts up a sign in the window saying "Our burgers are the best in town. Chips cooked in vegetable oil." Omar, a strict vegetarian, asks for a portion of chips and a veggie burger. He later discovers that animal oil as well as vegetable oil was used to cook the chips. Anyway, the burger tastes awful. Prafal asks for a can of lemonade. Quince, who has been employed by Nina as a cashier, rather than giving him one of Nina's cans of lemonade, gives Prafal a can which she bought earlier from a supermarket. She pockets the money Prafal pays for the can and does not report the purchase to Nina. When later interviewed by the police she says that although most people would regard what she had done dishonest, she thinks that a lot of people would not. On the way out, Prafal picks up a newspaper belonging to Nina. He returns it the next day. What crimes, if any, have been committed? I will argue that Nina is committing fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. I believe Quince is potentially committing fraud by failing to disclose information under section 3, but does not quite fulfil all the requirements but there is also a potential that she is committing fraud by failing to abuse of position under section 4 and even fraud by false representation. There is no need to prove which means was used to commit fraud as long as the jury
Strict Liability. I shall look at different cases in order to justify whether the offence of strict liability is effective in promoting greater vigilance.
According to the criminal law, the actus reus and the mens rea are general requirements to constitute a criminal offence; however, where the offence is of strict liability, there is no requirement for the proof of mens rea. The negation of mens rea means that an individual may be convicted regardless of their mental state, whether they behaved reasonably or not. This has stirred up much debate on the justification of a strict liability offence as some view it as necessary to ‘promote the objects of the statute’ and is a matter of ‘social concern’; whilst others have taken the view that strict liability is too strict an offence and should be abolished. In this answer, I shall look at different cases in order to justify whether the offence of strict liability is effective in promoting greater vigilance. Firstly, statutes often contain unambiguous wordings in guiding courts as to whether mens rea is required in the interpretation of statutes. The courts then has the discretion to determine whether there should be a presumption of mens rea in establishing an offence; the courts must consider a few factors in determining whether the offence of strict liability should be inferred from the statute. These factors includes considering whether the offence was ‘truly criminal’, whether it was of social concern, whether the gravity of the offence would stigmatise an
Describe the Powers of the Police to Search and Arrest.
Police powers The Police when stopping and searching on the street they first ask where you are going and for what purpose, if they are searching in the public place they have the right to search a person and their vehicle, if the police requires the person to remove more than his coat, he should be taken to a private place, if he is carrying a weapon or the police finds a weapon in his vehicle the person will be believed to be a criminal, and he will be arrested, the police although has to have a reason for searching the particular person, the reasons might be either he fits the profile of a criminal seen in that area or he is acting suspiciously, the suspect might not tell his name ,phone no or address to the police unless and until he is arrested .The criminal then will be taken to the police station and will be kept in custody, the minimum hours of detention is 24 hrs., if the police requires to keep him more than that they have to have the permission of the senior officers, the maximum hours of detention is 96 hrs., if the police need to enquire more about the criminal the police will need to apply to the magistrates for permission. The criminal can then call and inform someone of his arrest and can then arrange a lawyer for himself, he has the right to take legal advice for free. He may be searched in the police station, and if an intimate search is required it may be
'Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do "the right thing" in a moral sense and not turn a blind eye or fail to act to help someone who is in need.' Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions reflects this.
An omission is where an individual fails to act when they had a duty to do so. By failing to act, they are breaching their duty, which constitutes as the actus reus for a crime. The basic rule for an omission was outlined by Stephen J, a 19th Century Judge – ‘A sees B drowning and is able to save him by holding out his hand. A abstains from doing so in order that B may be drowned. A has committed no offence.’ This states that an omission cannot make someone guilty of an offence. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. In current law, there are 6 duties that make an individual legally responsible and liable for any failure to act. The first duty is a statutory duty, a duty that has been defined in a statute/piece of legislation. An example of this duty is the Road Traffic Act 1988, where an individual is liable for failing to stop at or report a traffic accident. The second duty is a contractual duty, a duty that has been outlined in a contract an individual has signed. An example of this duty is the case of Pittwood, where a railway-crossing keeper omitted to shut the gates, resulting in a person crossing and being hit by the oncoming train and the defendant was convicted of manslaughter. The third duty is a duty through relationship, where a person is responsible for the care of another through their family relationship with that person. An example of this
Describe the power of the police to stop and search a person on the street
Sheena Shah Law exam question: Describe the power of the police to stop and search a person on the street The law containing police powers is defined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. It’s mainly stored in sections 1-7 of PACE, which contain police powers to stop and search people and vehicles. Section 1, consists of the right to stop and search in a public place like a car park, street or private garden which is not owned by the suspect being stopped, it is only then lawful. This section also covers that police officers can stop and search when he/she has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person is in possession of stolen goods and prohibited articles such as, weapons, drugs or items used for burglary. After which then the officer is allowed to seize such items from any persons. Section 2 of PACE indicated that if in public, the suspect can only be asked to remove their outer jacket, coat and gloves. If then it is decided more is in need to be removed he can ask if the suspects t-shirt and shoes be taken off but under private conditions out of the eye of the public. A place such as the station or the back of a police van is used to do so. Officers also have to give their name, station and reason for search accompanied with a written report, either on the spot or at the station during the search otherwise it may be seen as unlawful. Most
Discuss whether the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law are in a satisfactory state or are in need of reform.
Q3 Discuss whether the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law are in a satisfactory state or are in need of reform. [50] Insanity is a complete, general defence. A complete defence is where the mens rea is completely removed from the crime; mens rea is Latin for ‘guilty mind’ and refers to the definition of a crime that deals with what the defendants state of mind must have been to be guilty for example Murder, the mens rea of it is the intent to kill or do GBH.. The general part of insanity Is something which can be used for any crime. Insanity is also known as insane automatism and the Criminal Procedure Act 1991 gives the outlines for the defendant who is found not guilty by way of insanity. Insanity cannot count as a defence to strict liability crimes such as speeding and these are crimes which are less serious and don’t have a mens rea. At any time throughout the trial the defence for insanity can be called upon by any member of the defence or prosecution. If a claim for insanity is successful then the defendant will end up with a verdict of not guilty however they will have to go to a mental hospital to prevent further danger to themselves and other people. If there is an unsuccessful claim of insanity then the defendant may be found guilty and therefore go to prison etc, or he may be fully acquitted. Whether the defendant can be classed as
English law does not normally impose liability for an omission or failure to act despite the fact that there may be compelling moral justifications for doing so. For example, the courts have often explained that there is no legal duty upon a stranger to rescue a drowning child. Consider whether the current legal principles governing omissions are satisfactory (50 marks)
‘English law does not normally impose liability for an omission or failure to act despite the fact that there may be compelling moral justifications for doing so. For example, the courts have often explained that there is no legal duty upon a stranger to rescue a drowning child.’ Consider whether the current legal principles governing omissions are satisfactory (50 marks) The term Actus Reus is the Latin translation of ‘Guilty Act’. The Actus Reus of an offence concerns all those elements of the offence not relating to the defendants state of mind, the Mens Rea. For the Actus Reus the act or omission must be a positive voluntary act on the part of the defendant. If the defendant has no control over his actions then he has not committed the offence. The Actus Reus must also be Positive except in certain cases; this is the area of law that states for someone to commit an offence they must positively cause an act and not an omission to act, The law also states that there is no legal duty upon a stranger to rescue a drowning child. On the other hand, as there are several areas of law, 5 implemented by courts and 1 implemented through parliament, where a duty to act is existent there is often uncertainty on behalf of the defendant that they were under a duty to act in the first place. This could be solved by putting in a ‘good Samaritan’ law such as is in place in
How Satisfactory Is The Current Law On The Deception Offences?
Anthony Day In Your View, How Satisfactory Is The Current Law On The Deception Offences? There have been problems with the law on deception. However the Theft Act was passed to clarify the law and to fill in some of the gaps the current law seems to be complex and confused. Some parts of the act, there was parts so obscure and difficult to use that just 4 years after the Act was passed, the CLRC was asked to look at amending it. There were also gaps in the coverage of the Act. The 1978 legislation was passed to remedy both problems, repealing the troublesome part of section 16 and creating the new deception offences of obtaining services by deception, making off without payment and evasion of liability by deception. Recently problems with the legislation have been highlighted by the House of Lords judgement in R v Preddy. While some of the difficulties arising from the case have been dealt with by the Theft Amendment Act, some problems still remain and the Theft Acts still fall short of the high hopes that were held for them. There were now twice the number of problems of interpretation and application, so it would seem that instead of getting better at reforming this area, the law on deception is still as complex and unsatisfactory than ever before. The term deception in itself is defined quite broadly because it includes deception by words of conduct which can be as to
Explain what is meant by the term causation in criminal law and assess how the courts have interpreted its significance in determining criminal liability.
Causation Explain what is meant by the term ‘causation’ in criminal law and assess how the courts have interpreted its significance in determining criminal liability. With a conduct crime an act or an omission is enough to establish the actus Reus e.g. someone punches another person; the act of punching is sufficient to establish the actus Reus. With a result crime the act or omission must result in a given consequence e.g. if a person stabs someone and they die of the injuries. The act of stabbing has resulted in the consequence of the death. Causation is only relevant to result crimes most cases involve homicide where the act or omission of the defendant has resulted in the consequences necessary for this offence of death. The causation element will be established if the act or omission of the D actually caused the death. Causation is a matter for the jury to decide from the facts of the case and also with direction from the judge. In the case of Pagett the following direction was given to help establish causation in law: 'Simply that in law the accused's act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause, of the victims death, it being enough that his act contributed significantly to that result'. In the case of Kimsey the court of appeal held that instead of using the Latin phrase de minimis, it was acceptable to tell the jury it must be 'more than a
