Summary
Summary SQE2- Black Letter Law Criminal
- Course
- Institution
Used these notes to achieve 70% on SQE2 first time.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
SQELawNotes
Content preview
CRIMINAL LAWATTEMPTS & ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY
AR and MR must occur at the same point in time, however this can occur within one series
of acts (Thabo-Meli v R) or within the same sequence of events (R v Le Brun).
If the defendant has malice (intent/recklessness) transferred malice can occur which will
transfer the MR for the original intended victim to the actual untended victim (R v Latimer).
AR must be the same type of crime as the defendant originally intended (R v Pembliton).
Attempted CRIME - s.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981
AR
Do an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission the offence.
‘To do an act’ highlights that the act cannot be an omission. ‘More than merely preparatory
to the commission of the offence’ means that significant steps must have been taken to
fulfil the offence. However, the defendant need not complete all the steps of the offence.
Pointing a gun at someone is more than preparatory (R v Jones). The line that divides an
act that is merely preparatory and the full crime is for the jury to decide (R v Gullefer).
Under s.1(2) CAA 1981 impossibility will not prevent the establishment of the AR. By this it
is meant that just because a crime is impossible to commit does not mean the attempt to
commit a crime has not occurred i.e. breaking into a safe with a plastic fork, dose not
eliminate the act of attempting to break into the safe.
MR
Intention to commit the substantive offence. It is not the same as the MR for the crime. The
prosecution is usually under the duty to establish that the defendant intended the
consequences that form the AR of the full offence.
Recklessness is not normally enough to form the MR for intent (R v Millard and Vernon).
Recklessness will only become relevant in order to establish surrounding circumstances or
the ulterior MR. Examples include aggravated criminal damage, where the defendants
must have intent to commit the criminal damage but can be reckless as to the
endangerment of life (A-G’s Ref #3 of 1992). Similarly, for rape the defendant must intent
the intercourse, either knowing the victim does not consent or he must be reckless to the
lack of consent (R v Khan).
As per s.1(3) CAA 1981, the defendant is judge of the facts as they believe them. Thus,
impossibility is also irrelevant for the MR. In R v Shivpuri, it was irrelevant that the
defendant was not carrying drugs and only talcum powder as she believed she was
smuggling drugs and thus had the sufficient MR for the crime.
Conditional intent can also be sufficient - ‘I’ll only steal something if there is something
worth stealing’.
,Accomplice Liability - s.8 Aiders and Abettors Act 1861 & s.44 Magistrates Court Act
1980
AR
The principal offence must be committed for an accomplice to be liable (R v Dias). The
defendant must ‘aid, abet, counsel or procure’ a crime to be an accomplice. Attorney
General’s Reference No 1 1975 confirmed that these words should be given their ordinary
meaning. The courts have since established that the words mean the following:
- Aid = give assistance (no needs for metal or causal link between accomplice and
principal
- Abet = give encouragement at the time of the act (likely to have a mental link, but not
causal).
- Counsel = give encouragement earlier i.e. before the offence has been committed (likely
to have a mental link, but not causal).
- Procure = bring about the offence (no mental link, nut causal).
It was established in R v Clarkson that merely being present at the scene of the crime did
not make you an accomplice.
It could amount to the encouragement of a crime if you pay to attend an illegal event e.g a
rave or an unlicensed concert (Wilcox v Jefferey).
When a statutory duty is held by the accused accomplice they will be liable if they remain
silent or fail to intervene as this amounts to a form of encouragement (Du Cros v
Lambourne). For example, In R v Russell and Russell the failure of one parent to intervene
and stop the abuse from the other parent amounted to encouragement and they were held
to be an accomplice.
An accomplice can still be guilty even if the principal offender has been acquitted (R v
Cogan and Leak).
The use of innocent agents to commit crimes will normally result in the accomplice being
charged as the primary offender. However, under some circumstances the defendant will
still only be charged as an accomplice due to the MR requirements e.g. rape (R v Borune).
MR
There are two limbs to the MR:
1. The accomplice must intend to do the act or say the words that assisted/encouraged.
2. A must have knowledge of the circumstances, that is the facts that make the principal
offenders conduct criminal (NCB v Gamble). In Youden v Johnson this was defined as
knowledge of ‘the essential matters which constitute the offence’.
For the second limb it is more complicated. It must be established that:
, - the accomplice knows the type of crime (Bainbridge) OR knows the crime is within a
limited range of offences (Maxwell). There is no requirement for the knowledge to be
specific just that a certain type of crime will be committed.
- there is sufficient evidence that the understanding and foresight of the accomplice of
what might occur amounts to intent (Jogee).
- The principal offender commits the agreed crime but with a different MR to that
contemplated by the accomplice. Essentially, an accomplice can be convicted of a
different offence to the principal offender. It is even possible of the accomplice to be
convicted of a more serious crime if the AR is the same for both crimes but the
accomplice has the MR for the more serious crime (Gilmour; Howe). In other words, the
accomplice will be guilty of the offence that matches their own MR.
Being contractually obliged to assist in a crime is not a valid defence (Garrett v Arthur
Churchill).
In cases that have strict liability where the principal offender does not need an MR, the
accomplice still always needs an MR (Callow v Tillstone).
NOTE - YOU CANNOT BE CHARED WITH ATTEMPTING TO BE AN ACCOMPLICE (s.
1(4)(b) CAA 1981), BUT YOU CAN BE AN ACCOMPLICE TO AN ATTEMPT.
ROBBERY & BURGLARY
Robbery - s.8(1) Theft Act 1968
The offence is the same as theft, however it has an added element of force against
someone in order to steal.
AR
There has to have been appropriation of property belonging to another. Additionally, the
defendant must have used force on any person or sought to put any person in fear of
immediate force and the force or threat of force must have been immediately before or at
the time of the theft.
The use of force need not be significant and is a matter for the jury to decide (R v
Dawson). However, slight touching will not amount to force (P v DPP).
The force must be in relation to any person (s.8(1) TA 1968), however if the threatened
force is against a third party, the third party must be aware of the threat.
The jury must assess whether the appropriation was still continuing at the point of the use
of force. If it was then the defendant may be guilty (R v Hale).
The force may also be against a person’s property as well e.g. purse snatching (R v
Clouden).
MR
The defendant has the intention to permanently deprive and they act with dishonesty. This
is the MR for theft and it must be established in order to establish the MR for robbery (R v
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller SQELawNotes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $17.40. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
79835 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now