Criminal law - Conspiracy
Criminal Law Assessment 2001 Three friends, Draco, Cradde and Goyle have committed criminal offences. This assessment will be looking at which party is liable for the offences, which will be discussed in this work. Conspiracy There are two offences of conspiracy, a) it is statutory offence to agree with other person or persons for the commission of an offence or offences. b) It is a common law offence to defraud or to outrage public decency. Draco, Cradde, and Goyle wanted to do something to their work colleague Harry, weather it is a physical harm or a psychological harm; it did not matter because they all dislike him. Draco suggested that they should damage his car because that was Harry's main pride. They all agreed to the suggestion made by Draco. In law, there cannot be a conspiracy unless there is a concluded agreement, an authority for this is Jones (1832) 4B&AD 345 at per Denman CJ. The offence of conspiracy is completed as soon as the parties agree and it is immaterial that they never begin to put it into effect, an authority for this is Paulterer's case (1610) 9 CO Rep 55b, or that the details remain to be agreed, an authority for this is Gill and Henry (1818) 2 B&ALD 2O4. The facts can be applied in this case; therefore, Grabbe, Goyle and Draco are guilty of conspiracy to harm Henry. Criminal damage You are liable for criminal damage, if you damage a
Criminal law essay
BEHAVIOUR Criminal law is essentially concerned with the regulation of behaviour. This may involve prohibitions on some kinds of behaviour such as stealing another person's property or harming them deliberately. Some criminal laws may require a specific action, such as having insurance when driving a car, or complying with regulations. In some instances it is the combination of behaviour with a particular situation that defines a crime such as being drunk in a public place. In others it is the combination of status with behaviour such as the purchase of alcohol by someone under 16 years of age. Illegality covers a multitude of actions, responsibilities, circumstances and statuses and hence the diversity of acts that may be characterised as criminal is considerable. Thus it is impossible to offer a simple explanation of why someone acts criminal. Furthermore, people do not act in an identical fashion. Some people are more prone to self-indulgence; others are more violent in character. The causes of criminal behaviour are complex and multiple. They are multiple because crime does not relate to only one form of action. For instance, the causes that lead a teenager to commit arson may be very different from those that lead an old- age pensioner to fraud. Therefore we should not expect to find a single cause for all types of criminality. RULES The rules which determine whether
The Effects of the Media on Criminal Behaviour
The Effects of the Media on Criminal Behaviour The Hypodermic Syringe Model This theory is a passive audience model, and states that the media almost 'injects' the audience with the contents of the media, which are opinions, or a message and then the audience accepts the attitudes, opinions and beliefs. In some cases, the audience responds to the message in terms of their behaviour, they may end up repeating violent behaviour that they have seen in the piece of media. If this behaviour is deemed as criminal, and members of society are repeating it, then ultimately, a criminal or violent society may be created. This means that it is individually deterministic and that we are almost being 'brainwashed' into acting in the way of the message. The audience has no active part in interpreting the message, and the theory suggests that the mass audience are like 'sheep'. We are easily led and not self-aware. However, if the message becomes corrupted, i.e. through perhaps, culture bias, then the message may be interpreted in a different way to which the sender has encoded it. E.g. If the message is about two white male criminals, then it may be internalised by white males, but not by Jamaican males, meaning that the behaviour would be repeated in certain members of society. This model was a response to the German fascists and capitalist societies, explaining how propaganda works.
Criminal Justice System
Abstract In the recent past, crime among the young people has been on the increase. This has led to the development by governments of policies to deal with this issue in the criminal justice system. These policies have not achieved a lot due to their disregard of some of the factors that have contributed to this trend. This paper looks at the policies that have been pursued by governments in the last 14 years in order to address the social causes of crime amongst the young people, and how effective these policies have been in dealing with this issue. Introduction Crime among the young people has been one of the major issues that the criminal justice has had to deal with. For very many years, crime among this group and how to deal with it has been one of the major problems facing the civilised society (Wilcox & Hoyle, 2004). Of the same importance is the fact that this should be achieved justly and effectively within a structure of human rights principles (Marshall, 1996). This is due to the fact that it is in the criminal justice system that these principles are not always observed and abuses or infringement of human rights can take place especially when dealing with young offenders. In the efforts to ensure that the rights are protected and that crime is dealt with, criminal justice systems across the world have undergone tremendous changes. With the increase in the
Criminal problem question
In order to establish the possible criminal liability of Joe and Keith it is necessary to identify the possible offences and the elements of those offences to determine whether either or both are culpable of the respective offences. Looking at the scenario as a whole the area of law we are mainly dealing with is homicide, but I will explore and support the possible offences in order of chronology. In this situation Keith elicits help from Joe to kill his wife. They discuss a fee and a means of payment. At this point both Joe and Keith are criminally liable for the statutory offence of conspiracy as set out in Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The ultimate intended consequences of their agreement was that if their 'conduct shall be pursued' (Criminal Law Act 1977) it will end with 'commission of the offence' (Criminal Law Act 1977). The 'agreed course of conduct' (Allen, Michael Textbook On criminal Law, 2007) principle was supported in R v Siracusa (1990) and it also established through their method of interpretation that as with this scenario the defendant would not necessarily have to or intend to play an active part in the actual commission of the offence. Up to this point there was some confusion as the criminal liability in relation to conspiracy when one part did not intend to play an 'active role in the commission of the substantive offence'. Now however
Criminal Law Coursework
Criminal law is a set of rules which govern the conduct of its citizens, and which, if these rules are broken, can punish this conduct by using sanctions. Though private prosecution is possible1, it is highly unusual and, in almost every instance, the Crown prosecutes on behalf of its citizens. In Scotland the Lord Advocate brings cases before the High Court if the charges are serious, with the Procurator Fiscal in charge of prosecuting more minor offences2, heard before the Sheriff and District Courts. The criminal law consists of both written and unwritten rules - common-law offences like murder and rape, and statutory offences such as being drunk on public transport3 respectively. Both common law and statutory crimes require 'Actus Reus' ("Criminal Act") and 'Mens Rea' ("Criminal Mind"), unless the crime is one of strict liability4. Actus Reus is more than a mere though to commit a crime5, there has to be an act, be it the planning of a crime6 or physically committing a criminal act7, though in certain circumstances those omitting to comply with a duty can also be criminally liable8. Mens Rea deals with the mental element to a crime, and usually looks at the intentions of those who committed the Actus Reus, though intention is not necessarily needed9. The term used in older Scots cases describes the mental element as 'dole', the literal meaning of which is 'evil intent,
Criminal Court.
Criminal Court. The Magistrates Court is the lowest tier of criminal court in England and Wales, dealing with about ninety-eight per cent of all criminal cases. Almost all cases are tried by Justices of the Peace (JPs). They are appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the Crown, on the recommendation of local committees. Potential JPs are nominated on the basis of their judgment and character or can apply to advertisements in local newspapers. To qualify you must be between 18 and 65 years old and live within 15 miles of the court; hence they come from a wide variety of backgrounds. JPs are not professionally qualified, nor are they paid, but they are assisted by professional clerks, who are fully qualified lawyers. The Magistrates Commission Committees are responsible for providing training under the supervision of the Judicial Studies Board. The Training is to familiarise them with court procedure, techniques of chairing and theory and practice of sentence. They undergo a short induction course on appointment and have to continue basic training for twelve hours every three years. However, some cases in the Magistrates Courts are tried by professionally qualified full-time stipendiary magistrates. The Crown Court, tries more serious criminal cases, as well as hearing appeals from the Magistrates Courts. It sits in permanent centers throughout England and Wales each centre
Criminal Law - There are six identifiable offences and resultant offences committed in this problem and I will deal with each in chronological order.
Criminal Law Assignment 2 Chris Thomas. Gerry Rubin. Monday 10 - 11. 2,158 words Question 1. There are six identifiable offences and resultant offences committed in this problem and I will deal with each in chronological order. The first is that of battery committed by Ross on Monica, namely a push. The actus reus of battery is the intentional infliction of force upon another. This can range from a head butt to a kiss, outlining where the use of the word 'force' can mislead. Generally it is said that D must have done some act and that it is not enough that he stood still and obstructed P's passage like an inanimate object, a ruling taken from Innes v Wylie1. There is however the issue of consent arising from normal contact in everyday life, this was dealt with in the ruling of Collins v Wilcock2, 'Generally speaking, consent is a defence to battery; and most of the physical contacts of ordinary life are not actionable because they are impliedly consented to by all who move in society and so expose themselves to the risk of bodily contact. So nobody can complain of the jostling which is inevitable from his presence in, for example, a supermarket, an underground station or a busy street; nor can a person who attends a party complain if his hand is seized in friendship, or even if his back is (within reason slapped). Although such cases are regarded as examples of
Criminal Law
Criminal Law Michealmas Term Essay 1 Questions about causation are simple factual ones. Therefore juries require no direction in answering them. Discuss Causation is an element of 'Result Crimes', in which the conduct itself does not constitute a crime, for example, shooting a gun, but rather the conduct along with it's harmful consequence, for example, shooting a gun at a person and the person dying. It is this gap between the conduct and harmful result, which gives rise to the uncertainty as to who's conduct caused the harmful result, and even if the harmful result was due to a human action, or just a natural event. When determining the chain of causal events leading up to a result, only the facts are relevant. However, once the causes are determined, principles of law must be applied to identify which of these causal acts were unlawful, as a person cannot be convicted for an innocent act. Therefore, causation is a question of fact and law. The main method for identifying causes to a harmful result is the 'But-For' test, with which all actions but for which the harmful result would not have occurred, are causes of the result. In the majority of cases, questions of causation are simple, even in homicide cases where the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. For example (1.0), if A shoots B, and B drops dead on the spot, it does not have to be proven that it was the
Criminal Law Homicide
Criminal Law Assignment Question 3 The law surrounding homicide carries a wide scope of controversial issues; this can include the topics of Murder, Manslaughter, Infanticide and Vehicular homicide.1 For the purposes of this assignment only murder and manslaughter will be dealt with. Murder carries with it the sentence of life imprisonment and therefore provides a rigid fixed sentence in which to punish someone for his or her crime. To allow certain individuals to become less liable for a killing, the offence of manslaughter creates, in certain circumstances, allowances.2 Manslaughter can be broken down into two categories - voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary Manslaughter allows cases concerning the defences of diminished responsibility and provocation to reduce murder charges.3 Involuntary manslaughter carries with it two types of involuntary acts i.e. unlawful act or constructive manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter, all of which will be explained in further detail. For any crime the basic requirements for an offence to be successful are an 'Actus Reus', 'Mens Rea' and an absence of a valid defence. The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of another person in the Queen's peace.4 The definition still stands today and until recently the definition included the "year and a day" rule but this has now been abolished.5 It is up to the prosecution to prove
