Criminal Law-Course Outline

Criminal Law

Course Outline


1.         Murder”

2.         Manslaughter  Involuntary

3.         Manslaughter – Voluntary

4.         Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

5.         Theft

6.         The Deception Offences

7.         Criminal Damage

8.         Self Defence

9.         Duress of Threats & Circumstances

10.        Mistake & Intoxication

11.        Secondary Parties

12.        Attempted Offences

13.        Incitement & Conspiracy

14.        Revision

Criminal Law: Introduction


Recommended texts: Criminal Law, Smith & Hogan, 1999, Butterwort s. Criminal Law: Cases an Material smith & Hogan, 1999, Butter worth’s.

You are not required to purchase a statute book.

You are additionally expected to read the Criminal Law Review/The Times regularly so as to keep yourself fully up dated on the law in this area.


You will be assessed by way of an essay that will be circulated to you in the next few weeks and an examination at the end of this module, details of which will be included in the introductory lecture. A statute book will not be provided in the examination.


Attendance is required at both. You must not treat the lecture as a definitive account of the law. It is only a starting point. The onus is upon you to compile your own set of notes from ‘ the suggested reading. Key cases have been emboldened though you should aim to read all of the cases that are listed. Lectures will set out the framework for a particular area of criminal law. The emphasis will be upon familiarizing you with key concepts and principles. You are expected to fill in the detail by researching the law.

You must come prepared for tutorials. You will be expected to contribute to discussion. Attendance is compulsory. If you are unable to attend for good reason please inform me in advance in writing, appending any relevant documentation to your letter. Failure to attend for no good reason will be penalized.


You should also familiarize yourself with the Human Rights Act (1998). As you will no doubt be aware it incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into English law and       takes effect from A October 2000. Its main effect will be procedural though it is likely to have an impact upon interpretation of the substantive criminal law.

Appendix B


A Key Information (cover sheet)

Module Code:
Module Title: Criminal Law
Module Level:

M (U or) Credits: Learning Hours:- -          -208Semester/Term Availability (per site):Full-time: Semester One

Part-time: Semesters One & TwoDuration (per site):Full-time: 50

Part-time: 50Named Programme(s)/Pathways indicate Core or OptionCommon Professional Examination):Estimated Total

Student Numbers Module Summary

(maximum 100 worlds):This module will look at substantive criminal offences as module Summary          constructed by the legislature and judiciary and consider –:maximum 100 words):   how these inter-relate with rules governing criminal defences and capacity. It examines the impact and consistency of legal principle in the legislative and judicial construction and interpretation of criminal law

B          Learning Experience    :

1          Aims of the Module:

To enable students to understand the main principles  of English Law and to apply legal rules to solve legal problems.

2          Learning „outcomes:

(what will students know and be able to do by the end of the module)

Students will be able to:

I .         Critically appraise the rules and principles of criminal low.

2.         Recognize and evaluate the relevant facts of a  criminal low problem.

3.         Demonstrate an ability to apply criminal law -7-.z to a criminal law problem.

4.         Critically analyze the concepts of blame and harm. 5. Undertake independent legal research. 6.   Communicate effectively in writing.

5.         Characteristics of Context

6.         Responsibility

Characteristic of Context * Responsibility Ethical Understanding
Knowledge & Understanding Analysis Synthesis/ Creativity Evaluation











LO4Psycho-motorSelf Appraisal/ Reflection on PracticePlanning &


SolvingCommunication & PresentationInteractive

Group Skills  LO2










1.         General principles of criminal liability.

2.         Fatal and non-fatal offences against the person.

3.         Property offences.

4.         Inchoate offences and accessorial liability.

5.         Excusatory and justificatory defences.

6.         Capacity.

Teaching and learning methods:

Indicate the hours per week/term/semester devoted to each activity and whether the teaching and learning methods are negotiable. Specify mode if appropriate.

Lectures           – 30 hours

Seminars          – 30 hours

Independent study        – 145 hours

5. Assessment:


Type of assessment Number How  many Length Timing When? Weighting Assessor
Coursework 1 2,000 words maximum November





Tutors and External ExaminersExamination13 hours + 15 mins reading timeJanuary






Tutors and External Examiners


b)         Pass requirements: (e.g. `overall pass’ in module or pass in each component)


The criminal law module you will study is a very expansive one, encompassing many offences, defences and ideas. There is therefore little use in setting down the procedure for answering questions – because there isn’t one. Over time. and with experience, you will develop a technique of your own.

There are however general points that I can make at this stage which I hope will assist you in developing an `approach’ to answering questions.

The Exam

•           You will be examined by way of a 2 hour paper; there is an additional 15 minutes for reading.

•           Candidates are allowed to bring into the examination any clean and unmarked copy of an unannotated published collection of Criminal Law statutes.

•           Candidates must answer 3 questions from a choice of 6. All questions carry equal marks. The exam comprises 75 % of your Crime mark.

•           The other 25 % is from an assessed essay about which you will he advised soon.


There are, essentially two types of questions. These are:

•           the essay question


•           the problem question

Sometimes a question will be divided up into two parts (parts (a) and (b)). Part (a) may be an essay question, whilst part (b) is a problem question.

This means that the candidate must strive to develop his/her legal skills to answer both types of questions.


As indicated above, there is no single “ideal type” technique. However, the following may be useful in developing your own technique.

Essay Questions

The question usually consists of a quote on a particular issue within an area of criminal law, followed by the words.

•           “Explain and discuss” or

•           “Discuss” or

•           “To what extent do you agree?”

For example:

In relation to murder it is easy to state what mens rea must be proved but it is much more difficult to explain to the jury how they should apply that rule to the facts of the given case. explain and discuss.

[996, June CPE Crime Exam, No. 2 (a)]

In this species of question, you are required to engage in an academic discussion cent redound the issue disclosed by the quote. Such questions are simply asking whether you agree the quote; if yes, why? and to what extent. If no, why?

Try to structure your answer so that it includes:

a)         An Introduction

Tell the examiner what you believe the question is asking you. You may also wish to mention which issues you will consider in answering the question.

b)         A Discussion of Relevant Issues

Consider 5 or 6 issues within the relevant area of law. For example, in the question above (on the mens rea of murder) the essential issues to discuss would be

-           the mens rea for murder

-           purposive intention

-           inferred intention under the case of Nedrick [1986] and Hancock & Shankland (1986)

-           the old law on inferred intention under MoIoney [1985] and the difficulties that involved.

A Conclusion

Deal with the set question directly. In other words, answer the question. For example, your conclusion to the question above could be either of the following (depending upon how you have developed your argument):

-           “The statement is wholly true given the complexity of the idea of inferred intention. In effect a judge must direct a jury that the defendant intends a result even when he does not intend that result! This is likely to confuse jurors.”

-           “The statement is not an accurate reflection of the law on intention, which, since Hedrick, has become clearer. Juries are now given two types of intention, purposive and inferred, and the latter is seldom relied upon. The concept of inferred intention has been made more ‘user friendly’ by the cases of Hedrick and Hancock and Shankland. “

Neither of these conclusions are the correct answer. You may reach a conclusion somewhere between the two above – as long as it is a logical expression of the argument in your essay, your conclusion is also valid.


These are quite different from essay questions. Whereas the latter invite academic discussion, problem questions are more practical and involve the candidate in giving legal advice’ in relation to a problem scenario. In effect, the candidate is being asked whether the defendant is guilty (eg. of murder, ABH, GBH etc) and/or whether he may rely on and legal defences (eg – Self Defence, Duress, Provocation etc).

Be cautious!! Try not to give a “yes/no” DEFINITRIVE answer. Lawyers seldom do! Quite often, a Defendant

-           may be liable if …..”


-           “on balance may not be liable if ……. or

-           “may have a fair chance of succeeding on the defence of ….. “

The following is a suggested approach to tackling such questions. Again, in time you will develop your own `method’ – the following will help to achieve this.

(a)        Identify the legal issues

i.e.       -           what possible offence(s)

-           any possible defence (s)

(b)        Consider the law on each issue

-           the law may be ambiguous in certain areas. Incorporate this into your answer when you ……

(c)        Apply the law

-           assess whether the defendant(s) would be liable

i.e.       -           is the actus reus fulfilled?

-           is the mens rea fulfilled?

and, if relevant, consider whether his/her defence would succeed.


Actus Reus

White [1910] 2 KB 124

Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273

Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133

Notman [1994] Crim LR 518

Hayward (1908) 21 Cox CC 692

Wall (1802) 28 St Tr 51

Blaue [197511 WLR 1411

Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95

Khan [1998] Crim LR 830

Kennedy [1999] Crim LR 65

Dear [1996) Crim LR 595

Latif [1996] 1 WLR 104

Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279

Malcherek [1981] 1 WLR 690

Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152

Smith (195912 QB 35

Cheshire (199111 WLR 844

Mellor (1996) 2 Cr App R 245

Mens Rea

Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55

Mohan [19761 QB 1

Moloney [1985] AC 905

Nedrick 11986] 1 WLR 1025

Hancock & Shankland [1986] AC 455

Woollin 119991 AC 82

Additional ReadinQ

J. C. Smith, A Comment on Moor’s Case, [2000] Crim LR 41



Constructive Manslaughter

Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23

Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576

Lowe [1973] QB 702

Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981

Slingsby [1995] Crim LR 570

Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152

Church [196611 QB 59

DPP v Newbury [1977] AC 500

Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150 ,

Watson [198911 WLR 684

Ball [1989] Crim LR 730

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8

Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576

Adomako [199511 AC 171

Litchfield [1998] Crim LR 507

Singh [1999] Crim LR 582


Diminished Responsibility

Homicide Act (1957), Section 2

Dunbar (1958] 1 QB 1

Byrne [196012 QB 396

Brown [1993] Crim LR 961

Seers (1984) 79 Cr App R 261

Egan [1992] All ER 470

Lloyd [1967] 1 QB 175

Mitchell [1995] Crim LR 506

Campbell (1986) 84 Cr App R 255

Vinagre (1979) 69 Cr App R 104

Reynolds [1988] Crim LR 679

Ahluwalia [199214 All ER 889

Hobson [ 1998] 1 Cr App R 31

Price (1971) The Times, 22 December 1971, news item

Tandy [198911 WLR 350

Insteal [1992] Crim LR 35

Di Duca (1959) 43 Cr App R 167

O’Connell [1997] Crim LR 683

Gittens 119841 QB 698

Further Reading

•           Mackay, R. D. `The Abnormality of Mind Factor in Diminished Responsibility’ [1999] Crim LR 117.

•           Smith, J. C. [1984] Crim LR 553-4


Duffy [194911 All ER 932

Ibrams (1981) 74 Cr App R 154

Homicide Act (1957), Section 3

Rossiter (1992) 95 Cr App R 326

Cambridge [ 1994] 1 WLR 971

Bullard v The Queen [1957] AC 635

Burgess [1995] Crim LR 425

Dhillon [ 1997] 2 Cr App R 104

Scott [1997] Crim LR 597

Stewart [1995] 4 All ER 999

Acott [ 1996] 4 All ER 443

Acott [199711 WLR 306

DPP v Camplin [1978] AC 705

Doughty (1986) 83 Cr App R 319

Davies [1975] QB 691

Pearson [1992] Crim LR 193

Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889

Humphreys [1995] 4 All ER 1008

Thornton (No 2) 1199611 WLR 1174

DPP v Camplin [1978] AC 705

Bedder v DPP 1195411 WLR 1119

Roberts [1990] Crim LR 122

Newell (1980) 71 Cr App R 331

Morhall [1996] AC 90

Dryden [1995] 4 All ER 987

Luc Thiet Thuan v The Queen [1997] AC 131

Smith [1998] 4 All ER 387

Ali [1989] Crim LR 736

Mancini v DPP [1942] AC 1


Criminal Justice Act (1988). Section 39

Offences Against the Person Act (1861), Sections 47, 20 & 18

Crime & Disorder Act (1998), Section 29

Ireland [1998] AC 147

Constanza [199712 Cr App R 492

Cox [ 1998] Crim LR 810

Smith v Chief Superintendent, Woking Police Station (1983) 76 Cr App R 234 ~ Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod 3

Collins v Wilcox [198413 All ER 374

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [196911 QB 439

Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Wilson [1984] AC 242

Martin (18 81) 8 QBD 54

DPP v K [1990] 1 WLR 1067

Spratt [1990] 1 WLR 1073

Savage [199211 AC 699

Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498

Burrell v Harmer [19671 Crim LR 169

Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23

Richardson [1998) 2 Cr App R 200

Brown [1994] 1 AC 212

Laskey v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 39

A-G Ref (No 6 Of 1980) [198 1 ] QB 715

Wilson [1996] 2 Cr App R 241

Emmet (1999) The Times, 15 October 1999

Education Act 1996, Sections 548 & SSOA, 548(5)

Miller [1954] 2 QB 282

Chan-Fook 1199411 WLR 689

Morris [1998] 1 Cr App R 386

Smith (1837) 8 C & P 173

J. J. C. (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1983] 3 All ER 230

DPP v Smith [19611 AC 290

Saunders [1985] Crim LR 230

Mowatt 1196811 QB 421

Slimmings [1999] Crim LR 69

Mandair [1995] 1 AC 208

Marjoram [2000] Crim LR 372

Further Reading

Hirst, Assault, Battery and Indirect Violence’ [1999] Crim LR 557


Theft Act (1968), Sections 1- 6

Davis (1988) 88 Cr App R 347

Marshall [1998] 2 Cr App R 282

Oxford v Moss (1978) 68 Cr App R 183

Horsmann [1998] QB 531

Preddy 119961 AC 815

Welsh [1974] RTR 478

Woodman [1974] QB 754

Turner (No 2) 1197111 WLR 901

Bonner [1970] 1 WLR 838

Goodwin [ 1996] Crim LR 262

Gilks [1972] 1 WLR 1341

Marshall [1998] 2 Cr App R 282

Clowes (No 2) [1994] 2 All ER 316

Wain [199512 Cr App R 660

Kohn (1979) 69 Cr App R 395

Shadrokh-Cigari [1988] Crim LR 465

Powell v MacRae [1977] Crim LR 571

Hallam [1995] Crim LR 323

Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Levin [ 1997] AC 741

Klineberg [ 1999] 1 Cr App R 427

Floyd v DPP [1999] All ER (D) 1190, unreported in printed form

Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd [1981] Ch 105 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] AC 669

Corcoran v Whent [ 1977] Crim LR 52

Nathan [1997] Crim LR 835

Dobson v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation plc 1199011 QB 274 Walker [1984] Crim LR 112

Edwards v Ddin [ 1976] 1 WLR 942

Wheeler (1991) 92 Cr App R 279

Small (1988) 86 Cr App R 170

Hall [1973] QB 126

Arnold [1997] 4 All ER 1

Lewis v Lethbridge [19871 Crim LR 59

Williams [1995] Crim LR 77


Meech [ 1974] QB 549 Breaks [1998] Crim LR 349

Moynes v Cooper [195611 QB 439

A-G's Ref (No 1 of 1983) [1985) QB 182


Lawrence 119721 AC 626

Morris [19841 AC 320 Gomez 119931 AC 442



Forsyth [1997] 2 Cr App R 299

Naviede [1997] Crim LR 662

Ngan [1998] 1 Cr App R 331

Mazo [1997] 2 Cr App R 518

Kendrick [1997] 2 Cr App R 524

Broom v Crowther (1984) 148 JP 592

Ghosh [19821 QB 1053

Roberts (1985) 84 Cr App R 117

Holden [ 1991 ] Crim LR 478

Boggeln v Williams [1978] 1 WLR 873

McHugh (1993) 97 Cr App R 335 Lloyd [19851 QB 829

Duru [1974] 1 WLR 2

Fernandes [1996] 1 Cr App R 175


Cahill [1993] Crim LR 141

Lavender [ 1994] Crim LR 297

Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299


Theft Act (1968), Sections 15 & 16

Theft Act (1978), Sections 1 & 3

We will consider the following offences:

Obtaining property by deception

Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception

Obtaining services by deception

Making off without payment

The last of these is not, of course, a deception offence but is included here because of its similarity to both theft and the deception offences.

Re London and Globe Finance Corporation Ltd [1903] 1 Ch 728

Goldman [ 1997] Crim LR 894

Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Charles [1977] AC 177

Rozeik [1996] 1 WLR 159

Gee [1999] Crim LR 397

DPP v Stonehouse [1978] AC 55

Williams [1980] Crim LR 589

Silverman (1988) 86 Cr App R 214

Firth (1989) 91 Cr App R 217

Rai (1999) The Times, 10 November 1999

MPC v Charles

Lambie [19821 AC 449

Nabina [ 1999] All ER (D) 733, unreported in printed form; [ 1999] 7 Arch News 2

Collis-Smith [ 1971 ] Crim LR 716

Coady [1996] Crim LR 518

Clucas [1949] 2 KB 226

Miller (1992) 95 Cr App R 421

Doukas 1197811 WLR 372

Gilmartin 119831953

Greenstein [197511 WLR 1353

Ghosh 119821 QB 1053

Clarke [ 1996] Crim LR 824

Gomez [1993] AC 442

Preddy [1996] AC 815

DPP v Turner [1974] AC 537

Waites [1982] Crim LR 369

McNiff [1986] Crim LR 57

Callender [1993] QB 303

Naviede [1997) Crim LR 662

Halai [1983] Crim LR 624

Shortland [1995] Crim LR 893


Criminal Damage Act (1971), Section 1

Roe v Kingerlee [1986] Crim LR 735

Roper v Knott [1898] 1 QB 868

Hardman v Chief Constable of [1986] Crim LR 330

Cox v Riley (1986) 83 Cr App R 54

Whiteley (1991) 93 Cr App R 25

Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell [1982) AC 341

Lawrence 119821 AC 510

Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset v Shimmen (1986) 84 Cr App R 7

Elliot v C [198311 WLR 939

R (Stephen Malcolm) (1984) 79 Cr App R 334

Coles [199511 Cr App R 157

Reid [ 1992] 1 WLR 1118

Merrick [1996] 1 Cr App R 130

Paine [1998] 1 Cr App R 36


DPP (Jamaica) v Bailey [1995] 1 Cr App R 257

Symonds [1998] Crim LR 280

Beckford v The Queen (1988] AC 130

Devlin v Armstrong [ 19711 NI 13 Duffy [1967] 1 QB 63

Julien [1969] 1 WLR 839

Bird [198511 WLR 816

Balogun [1999] All ER (D) 916, unreported in printed form

Palmer v The Queen [1971] AC 814

Shannon (1980) 71 Cr App R 192

Whyte 1198713 All ER 416

Scarlett [199314 All ER 629

Owino [1996] 2 Cr App R 128

DPP v Armstrong-Braun [1999] Crim LR 417

Andronicou v Cyprus (1998) 25 EHRR 491

Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482

Williams 1198713 All ER 411


O’Grady 119871 QB 995

O’ Connor [ 1991 ] Crim LR 135

Dadson (1850) 2 Den CC 35


Duress of Threats

DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] AC 653

Graham 11982] 1 WLR 294

Baker [ 1997] Crim LR 497

Steane [1947] KB 997

Ortiz (1986) 83 Cr App R 173

Howe [19871 AC 417

DPP v Rogers [ 1998] Crim LR 202

Bowen [1997] 1 WLR 372

Home [1994] Crim LR 584

Hegarty [1994] Crim LR 353

Flatt [1996] Crim LR 576

Hurst [1995] 1 Cr App R 82

Hudson [197112 QB 202

Abdul-Hussain [1999] Crim LR 570

Gotts [199212 AC 412

Sharp [19871 QB 853

Shepherd (1987) 86 Cr App R 47

Ali [1995] Crim LR 303

Baker [1999] 2 Cr App R 335

Heath (1999) The Times, 15 October 1999


Dudley (1884) 14 QBD 273

Buckoke v Greater London Council [ 1971 ] Ch 655

F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1990] 2 AC 1

Bourne [1939] 1 KB 687

Perka (1984) 13 DLR r

Dburess of Circumstances

Pommell 1199512 Cr App R 607

Willer (1986) 83 Cr App R 607

Cole [1994] Crim LR 582

Conway [19891 QB 290

DPP v Harris [1995] 1 Cr App R 170

Backshall [199811 WLR 1506

Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652

Rodger [1998] 1 Cr App R 143

DPP v Bell [1992] RTR 335

DPP v Jones [1990] RTR 33

DPP v Davis [1994] Crim LR 600



DPP v Rogers [1998] Crim LR 202

Cairns [199912 Cr App R 137

Adams [1993] crim LR 525

Brooks (1982) 86 Cr Apr R 66

McDavitt [1981] Crim LR 843

Allen [1985] AC 1029


DPP v Morgan (1976] AC 182

S (Satnam) (1983) 78 Cr App R 149



Tolsora (1889) 23 QBD 168

B (A Minor) [1999] 3 WLR 116


Smith [1974] QB 354

A-G’s Ref (No 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91

Hill v Baxter [195811 QB 277

Bailey [198311 WLR 760

Kingston (199512 AC 355

DPP v Beard [1920] AC 479

DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 433


Jaggard v Dickinson (1981] QB 527

Criminal Damage Act (1971), Section 5(2)

Richardson [1999] 1 Cr App R 392

A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963) AC 349


Accessories & Abettors Act (1861), Section 8

Taylor [1998] Crim LR 582

A-G’s Ref (No 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773

Calhaem [1985] QB 808

A-G v Able [ 1984] QB 795

Mohan v The Queen [1967] 2 AC 187

Johnson v Youden [1950] 1 KB 544

Callow v Tillstone (1900) 83 LT 411

Blakely v DPP [1991] Crim LR 663

National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11

DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch (1975] AC 653

Bainbridge 1196011 QB 129

Maxwell [197811 WLR 1363

Anderson 1196612 QB 110

Mahmood [1995] RTR 48

Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] AC 168

Slack [1989] QB 775

Hyde [199111 QB 134

HuiChi Ming [199211 AC 34

Powell [199713 WLR 959

English [1997] 3 WLR 959

Uddin [1999] QB 431

Greatrex [1998] Crim LR 733

Lovesey [1970] 1 QB 352

Wan [1995] Crim LR 296

Perman [1995] Crim LR 736

Stewart [199513 All ER 159; for critical analysis see Smith, J. C. [1995] Crim LR 296 & 422

Bourne (1952) 36 Cr App R 125

Cogan [1976] QB 217

Hui Chi Ming

Jefferson [ 1994] 1 All ER 270

Wilcox v Jeffery [ 1951 ] 1 All ER 464

Beccarra (1975) 62 Cr App R 212

Baker [1994] Crim LR 444.

Rook [1993] WLR 1005

Bentley [1999] Crim LR 330

Mitchell (1999) 163 JP 75

Tyrrell [1894] 1 QB 710

Pickford [1995] QB 203



Race Relations Board v Applin [1973) QB 815

Evans [ 1986] Crim LR 470

Invicta plastics Ltd v Clare [1976] RTR 251

Ransford (1874) 13 Cox CC

Curr [1968] 2 QB 944

DPP v Armstrong [1999] All ER (D) 1228, unreported in printed form

Fitzmaurice [1983] QB 1083

DPP v Nock [1978] AC 979

Pickford [1995] QB 203

Common Law Conspiracy

Criminal Law Conspiracy

Act (1977), Section 5(2)

Shaw v DPP [1962) AC 220

Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd v DPP [1973] AC 435

Statutory Conspiracy

Criminal Law Act (1977), Section 1

Roberts [ 1998] 1 Cr App R 441

Walker [1962] C rim LR 458

Griffiths [1966] 1 QB 589

Barrat [ 1996] Crim LR 495

DPP v Shannon [1975] AC 717

Hollinshead [1985] AC 975

Reed [1982] Crim LR 819

Jackson [ 1985] Crim LR 442

Yip Chieu-Chung v The Queen [199511 AC 111

Anderson [ 1986] AC 27

Churchill v Walton [1967] 2 AC 224

Broad [ 1997] Crim LR 666

Khan 1199011 WLR 813


The Pinochet dictatorship has been in power for almost 20 years. It is now facing considerable problems of rising crime, poverty and drug abuse. Offences against the person, such as rape and murder, have increased by 33% in the last year, while offences against property, such as theft and deception, have increased by a staggering 67%. General Pinochet believes that subversive forces within his country are responsible for the current problems. He has drawn up the following list of proposals which he has been advised is essential to regaining some semblance of social order. However, he wishes to retire soon and is mindful of not upsetting the British government too much since he wishes to spend much of his retirement in what he affectionately calls “The Mother of Freedom, Democracy and Order”. He, therefore, seeks your advice on the following set of proposals:

1.         All government members and agents of the state (eg. police, army, judges) cannot be tried for crimes committed in the course of their duties.

2.         The prosecution will be able to alter the charge laid against a defendant at any point before or during the trial of a defendant.

3.         The maximum penalty for rape will be 6 months imprisonment.

4.         The maximum penalty for murder will be 8 months imprisonment.

5.         A husband cannot be convicted of raping his wife.

6.         All opponents of the Pinochet government can have their sentences for any conviction increased at any point after conviction.

7.         All these rules will have retroactive effect.

8.         There will continue to be jury trials for an,,- offence the Dictator feels warrants it.

9.         In all other cases trial by jury will be abolished.

10.        Only those earning four times the national average income and who voted for Pinochet in the last uncontested “election rehearsal” may serve on a jury­

11.        Freedom of speech will be allowed except where its practice causes harm. The definition of `harm’ will be determined by the Dictator before the trial of defendants transgressing this rule. The maximum punishment will be death, the precise mode to be left to be determined by the defendant.

12.        Defendants will bear the burden of proving their innocence. The aim of this rule is to make the trial process more democratic.

13.        Defendants who wish to be legally represented must seek permission from the Dictator.

14.        The evidence of government witnesses will raise a rebut table presumption in relation to whatever matter they give evidence.

15.        The government will be permitted to use humane forms of torture as punishment and an evidence gathering device.

16.        All citizens must become practising Christians or otherwise face eternal damnation.

17.        The Dictator loves his people but he loves his country more. All citizens must love their Dictator.

Pinochet is hopeful that you find his proposals acceptable. He has tried to ensure that they accord, as far as possible, with the world famous principles of British decency and fairplay.


Divide up into groups of 3-4.

Consider each of the following questions.

Each group will then be asked to provide answers and explain the reasoning.

(a)        Which, if any, of the proposals should the government accept?

(b)        Is the CLA correct in its assumption that the criminal justice system is weighted in favour of the defendant?

If this assumption is correct, is this desirable?

(c)        Distinguish between the standard and burden of proof.

What, if any, changes should be made to these in the context of a criminal trial? AUTOMATISM

1.         What is the distinction between a plea of automatism and one of insanity?

2.         What are the requirements for a successful plea of automatism?

3.         (a)        What is meant by self-induced automatism?

(b)        What consequences follow from a finding that automatism was self-induced?

4.         Jimmy was staying at the Dam Hotel when in the middle of the night he rose, in his pyjamas, left his bedroom and attacked Sinbad, the night porter, whom he encountered in the hotel lounge. Jimmy has been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (contrary to S.47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861).

Consider Jimmy’s criminal liability in each of the following scenarios: (i)   Jimmy was sleep-walking at the time.

(ii)         Jimmy had for the first time taken a prescribed dose of Prozac. It had caused him to act involuntarily.

(iii)        Jimmy was a diabetic who was acting automatically because he had failed to take his insulin.

5.         Explain in what sense is Automatism a defence.


1.         What is the correct approach to determining causation in a criminal trial?

2.         What is meant by “substantial and operating cause” in the context of causation?

3.         Intending to cause gbh, A attacked B with a sharp knife, stabbed him and left B lying bleeding on the pavement. This occurred just outside a large hospital where B was admitted only a matter of minutes later.

Advise A whether he is criminally liable for B’s death.

(i)         if an immediate blood transfusion would have saved B’s life, was offered to B but was refused by B (on religious grounds) who fully appreciated the implications of his refusal;

(ii)         if, after a careful examination had shown to the doctor that B had severe haemorrhage in his lung, the doctor gave B artificial respiration. But for this treatment B would most certainly have survived and recovered;

(iii)        if B dies in a fire caused by a flash of lightning.

(iv)        if because of national cuts in hospital funding, B was neglected for 15 hours before a doctor examined him.

4.         (i)         What is the meaning of “specific” and “basic- intent?

(ii)         What is the significance of this distinction in relation to Intoxication as a defence?

5.         Zebedee met Florence at a party and invited her back to his flat for coffee. He decided he would like to have sex with her. He had been told by some friends, who claimed to know her very well, that

“…the more she screams and fights the more she likes it”.

Zebedee ignored Florence’s genuine and violent protests and had sex with her. Should he be guilty of rape?

6.         Noddy hated Big Ears and decided to kill him. He loaded his gun and went out to find Big Ears. Whilst walking down the lane he saw the most enormous duck he had ever seen in his life and thought it would make a wonderful dinner for him and the Wobbly Man: He shot and killed the duck which turned out to be Big Ears who, unknown to Noddy, was just returning home from Mr Plod’s fancy dress party for which he had dressed up as a duck.

Is Noddy guilty of murder?

Now would your answer differ to each of the above if, at the relevant time, the defendant had consumed­

(i) L.S.D.;

(ii)         Some Valium (prescribed for his girlfriend); (iii)   A Bottle of Wine.

7.         In what sense, if any, is Intoxication a species of the Automatism defence?


1.         Mr. Sifter drives buses for Supernova Travel. liability in the following alternative scenarios:

(i)         Aiming to return home on time, Mr. Sifte: :to the bus depot. Unfortunately, he forgets that his bus Pass under a low iron bridge. The bus crashes into the Should Mr. Sifter be charged with intentional damage?

(ii)         Would Mr. Sifter be liable for causing CRIMINAL DAMAGE – (either intentionally or recklessly) if he had thought about the : bus under the bridge but concluded (albeit erroneous it: was sufficiently high to avoid damage?

(iii)        On one occasion, Mr. Sifter drove his: Bungalow Bill, who was standing at a bus stop. His Bungalow Bill. Unfortunately, Mr. Sifter was unable to into the bus stop killing Bungalow Bill. Mr Sifter was a chance that he may not he able to stop.

Consider Mr. Sifter’s liability for

- Murder

-Gross negligence manslaughter

How would your answer differ if Mr. sifter had been on  cocaine and alcohol?

2.         Lucifer Sam lives with Lucy Diamond in a house they have named “Bike”.

Consider Lucifer’s criminal liability in the following alternative scenarios:

(i)         Lucifer kidnaps the postman as a ties him up, blindfolds him and points a gun at him, telling his (falsely) that it is loaded. He removes the blindfold and pulls the trigger. The postman dies of a heart attack. Assume that the postman was 60 years old and that Lucifer know that he had a week heart.

(ii)         How would your answer differ in 2(i) above of Lucifer did not  know of the postman’s weak heart?

(iii)        How would your answer differ if Lucifer had kidnapped his next door neighbour, a 110 year old woman?

(iv)        Lucifer was fed up with his (council) house, Bike as it was in a very had state of repair. He had repeatedly requested the local authority to rehouse him but nothing bad been done. He thought that if he set fire to the front door he would have to be rehoused. Thinking that Lucy was out picking daisies, he set the front door alight.

The fire spread quickly and Lucy, who was in the house was killed.

3. Ringo, angry at Noel for refusing to allow him a ride in his Rolls Royce, vowed to avenge Noel’s ‘rudeness’. He planned to drop a concrete block onto Noel’s car so as to scare him, and waited for him on a bridge near Abbey Road studios.

As Noel’s car passed under the bridge, Ringo threw the block, hitting the car windscreen and causing Noel to lose control. Unfortunately, Noel ploughed into an innocent bystander, killing him.

Ringo knew that Noel was still a `learner driver’ and liable to over react; he did not however think about the effect on bystanders.

How would your answer be different if Ringo had got into a state of intoxication through the involuntary consumption of LSD (having attended Liam’s wedding reception, where his cake was laced with LSD)?

4.         Grant had received threats from David. Frightened, in case David attacked him, he decided to carry a carving knife with him when he went out. He took a knife from the drawer and his brother, Phil, who knew what was going on, tried to persuade him to leave it at home. Grant refused and Phil tried to take it from him. In the struggle which followed, Phil was stabbed.

In the Queen Vic Hospital, Phil was treated by a newly qualified doctor, who unfortunately administered the wrong anti-dote. Phil died within 20 minutes of the treatment.

Consider Grant’s criminal liability.

5.         Suppose that unknown to the accused in Elliot v C there had been a hedgehog hibernating under the shed which had been horribly burnt in the fire and killed. Assuming that there are such statutory offences, would the accused have been guilty of

(i)         – “maliciously burning a hedgehog”

(ii)         – “recklessly burning a hedgehog”

6.         Mozzer and Liam decided to play football in Gazza’s back garden. Liam was worried that they might damage Gazza’s new greenhouse, which took up at least half of the garden. Mozzer reassured Liam, saying that there should be no problem as the glass on the greenhouse was unbreakable.

Unfortunately both Liam and Mozzer struck the greenhouse. both smashing a pave of glass each.

Discuss Liam and Mozzer’s criminal liability.

How would your answer differ if Liam had failed (due to his low intelligence) to even think about the risk of damage?


1.         What is the significance of the abolition of the `year and a day rule’ by the Law Reform (Year and A Day Rule) Act 1996?

Consider, in particular, the role of the Attorney General.

2.         (a)        What, for the purposes of homicide, is a human being?

(b)        What is homicide? List 6 types of homicide.

3.         What is the effect of R -v- Moloney

R -v- Hancock and Shank land R -v- Nedrick

on the `meaning’ of intention?

4.         How would a judge direct a jury on the meaning of `intention’ in a criminal trial? (Consider also, whether a `Nedrick type direction’ would be given

-           only in murder trials

or         -           in all criminal trials where intention must be proved of the mens rea?

5.         Why does the Criminal Law need the mechanism of inferring intention?

6.         Is the accused guilty of murder in the following situations?

(i)         During a bank robbery, X sprays bullets indiscriminately around the bank. One strikes a metal part of the till, ricochets and kills a customer.

(ii)         X throws a bomb into a crowded public house and at the same time shouts a warning which he hopes will suffice to clear the pub, but which he realises might be too short.

Several customers are killed.

7.         John and Paul were playing about with a revolver which, because the one bullet was not opposite the firing pin, they believed would not be fired if they pulled the trigger. John grabbed the gun and said:

“Happiness is a warm gun. Stick `em up”, to Paul.

Paul just laughed so John pulled the trigger. The chamber on the gun revolved and the bullet was expelled. It hit Paul, seriously injuring him. He was rushed to hospital. Whilst he was being treated he was administered penicillin to which he was allergic. Paul died some days later.

Discuss John’s liability for homicide.


1.         John and Paul were playing cricket in John’s back garden. Paul, who is 13 years old, said to John, “don’t you think there is any chance the ball might go through a window?” John replied, “Possibly, but my aunt will have to pay.” John bowled at Paul who struck the ball towards the next door neighbour’s garden, where it landed on the neighbour’s motor car, smashing the windscreen.

Consider John and Paul’s criminal liability.

2.         Ray and Dave were fooling around with an air rifle. Thinking the air rifle was empty (of pellets) Ray pointed it at Dave and pulled the trigger. Dave’s eye was irreversibly damaged and his expensive sunglasses ruined.

Consider Ray’s criminal liability. How would your advice differ, if at all, if Ray had been only 12 years old?

3.         What is the mens rea for

(a) assault

(b) battery

(c)        assault occasioning actual bodily harm (abh)

(d)        S.20 grievous bodily harm/wounding (gbh – S.20)

(e)        S.18 grievous bodily harm/wounding (gbh – S.20)

4.         What is the difference between

(a)        assault and battery

(b)        battery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (abh)

(c)        abh and gbh (generally)

(d)        gbh and wounding in terms of actus reus?

5.         What is the meaning of the word “maliciously” in S.20 and S.18 of the OAPA 1861?

6.         How many different offences are contained in

- S.47

- S.20

and – S.18?

Explain your answer.

6.         What offences may Jarvis have committed in the following scenarios:

(i)         Knowing he is carrying a deadly sexual disease, Jarvis has sexual intercourse with Kylie, a fan of his.

(ii)         Jarvis agrees to give a lift to a hitch-hiker. Without warning he bursts into an impromptu and out of tune rendition of “Common People” (a well known, popular number by his beat pop outfit). This causes the hitch-hiker (who hates `pop’ music) to jump out of the car, which is travelling at 20 mph. The hitch-hiker suffers several bruises and grazes but is otherwise unscathed.

(iii)        Jarvis again gives a lift to a hitch-hiker. He starts making crude sexual remarks and then brushes his hand across the hitch-hiker’s face. The hitch­hiker, afraid of what she believes are sexual advances, jumps out of the car, which is travelling at 40 mph. She suffers a broken leg and severe bruising around the head.

(iv)        At a Wacko pop-concert Jarvis runs on to the stage, interrupting Wacko’s performance, and stares menacingly at children at the front of the audience. He then turns -his back to the audience and bends over. Several children suffer emotional trauma, while others feel afraid of being attacked by Jarvis

7.         Gary was shopping one day when he saw Liam approaching him. Thinking Liam was leering and scowling and of a generally unwelcoming demeanour because he wished to kill him, Gary launched an immediate attack upon Liam. Liam was knocked to the ground by Gary. Liam, clearly in pain, pleaded with Gary to stop but he continued striking blows to Liam’s head, who was eventually rendered unconscious. Gary, aware of Liam’s state, continued to rain blows upon him.

Liam suffered a broken jaw. a dislocated shoulder and severe bruising to the face, neck, body and legs.

In actual fact, Liam had no intention of attacking Gary. Gary had simply misinterpreted Liam’s habitually aggressive demeanour.

-           Discuss Gary’s criminal liability, if any.

-           How would your answer differ if Gary had been drinking alcohol in the local public house?

-           How would your answer differ if Gary was

-           only 9 years old?

-           only 13 years old?

-           25 years old?

-           How would your answer differ if Gary honestly, but mistakenly, thought that Liam was an orang-utan and therefore a hazard to the public at large?


l.          (i)         To which charge(s) is self-defence a defence?

(ii)         What is the effect of a successful plea of self-defence?

2.         What, in general terms, are the criteria which a jury must consider in determining whether a defendant has a good defence of self-defence?

3.         What verdict must a jury return where they are satisfied that:

(a)        force was used for a legitimate (ie. self-defence) reason and

(b)        the use of force was necessary but

(c)        D used excessive force?

What, in your view, should be the verdict?

4.         When must a judge direct a jury on self-defence?

5.         (i)         In considering whether a sober D acted in self-defence, whose view of the `facts’ must a jury take into account?

(ii)         What is the position where D is voluntarily intoxicated and, because of this, mistakenly believes he is about to be killed by V – whose view of the `facts’ must the jury consider in determining whether D has valid defence of self­defence, if D attacks and seriously injures V?

6.         What factors can a jury take into account in determining whether force was necessary and or (its amount) reasonable)?

7.         Mick and Keef are rock stars. Unfortunately, Mick has a slight speech impediment. ,        Consequently it is sometimes very difficult to understand what he is saying. On one occasion, Mick approached Keef with a decoy gun intending only to frighten Keef as a joke. Mick pointed the gun at Keef and exec asked.

“Have you seen your mother, baby, standing in the shadows?!!”

Unfortunately Keef misinterpreted this “greeting” as a threat to kill his mother and young child. He promptly swung his guitar at Mick strikinz izim on the head and causing severe brain damage.

Consider Keef s criminal liability.

How would your answer differ (it at all) if Keef had been high on a cocaine/ heroin/barbiturate/LSD cocktail?

How would your answer differ (if at ail) if Keef wrongly thought Mick had said, “I am going to blow shadowy holes through your lovely new guitar, baby!?

How would your answer differ (if at all) if having knocked Mick unconscious, Keef pulled out a knife and stabbed Mick several times around the upper region of his body, seriously injuring_ (but not killing) Mick?

How would your answer differ if Keef had understood that Mick was joking but nevertheless wanted an excuse to give Mick a severe beating?

8.         Fab Macca owns a farm in the Mull of Kintyre. He is a vegetarian and believes very strongly that animals must never be killed for human consumption.

Grant is his next door neighbour and runs a factory farm next to Fab Macca’s farm. Grant believes in meat eating and cannot understand Fab Macca’s deeply held convictions.

One day Fab Macca sees Grant running off Fab’s land holding two very large naturally reared free range chickens. Fearing that Grant would kill and eat the delicious chickens Fab Macca took several shots at Grant with his legally owned rifle, killing him.

Consider the Fabster’s criminal liability.

How would your answer differ if the Fab One believed that the chickens were a rare breed and therefore worth more than £1 million?


1.         Joshua, a member of a gang of shoplifters, was threatened by the leader of the gang, Fred, that he would be knifed if he was not prepared to be more aggressive and use violence on shop assistants when the gang went out the next day. Joshua was very frightened of Fred and on the following day whilst out with the gang he held a shop assistant, Marie, whilst Fred hit her with a truncheon causing her serious injury.

Advise Joshua.

2.         Fred was a “runner” for George who was a drug dealer. Fred would sell small amounts of cannabis for George, arrange contacts etc. On one occasion, George asked Fred to transport a consignment of heroin to a customer. Fred initially refused whereupon George threatened him with violence. Fred reluctantly agreed to transport the heroin. He was caught in possession and has been charged with an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.


3.         Charles threatened Roger that unless Roger beat up Amanda then he, Charles, would beat up Roger’s sister, Pumice. Roger beat up Amanda in response to this threat.

4.         Steve threatened Harry that unless Harry beat up Ivy then he, Steve would smash Harry’s television set. Harry beat up Ivy in response to this threat.

What is the relationship between duress of threats and duress of circumstances?



(A) Dishonesty

Discuss the criminal liability of the following parties:­

1.         John was paid in cash every Friday afternoon at 3 pm. One Friday, at lunchtime, he was invited to the pub by some friends but did not have any cash on him. He decided to borrow some from the office petty cash box (which was used to buy tea, coffee, etc) and replace it when he was paid that afternoon. He knew that everybody at work did this from time to time and their boss turned a blind eye to the practice.

2.         What difference, if any, would it have made if, in the light of the above facts John’s boss had expressly forbidden the borrowing of money from the petty cash box for personal use.

3.         Susan found a £5 note in the street. She decided not to hand it in at the police station as she assumed tat- nobody would bother to claim it.

4.         Alfred found a Barclay card in the street which was still valid. He could not be bothered to do anything about it so threw it into a dustbin.

5.         Sarah did not have enough money on her to pay the taxi driver when she got home late one night. She went into her flat which she shared with another girl, Emma, intending to ask Emma if she could borrow the necessary £5. Emma was asleep but her purse was on the table. Sarah took f5 from Emma’s purse thinking that Emma would not mind as she would pay her back as soon as she went to the bank. She paid the taxi driver. The next morning, Emma was furious and said that she would never have agreed to Sarah taking the money.

6.         Nigel went to his local greengrocer to buy some fruit. On the wall was a large notice which stated: -

“Tasting of fruit forbidden”

He picked up four apples and took a bite of one whilst he was waiting in the queue to pay for them. He had seen the notice but did not think that it would matter as he intended to pay for the fruit in any event.

7.         Fred owes Charlie f50. Despite frequent requests, Fred refuses to pay. Charlie, pushes Fred and, believing himself entitled, takes Fred’s watch in satisfaction of the debt.

(B)        Intention to Permanently Deprive

1.         Samantha borrowed Rachel’s personal stereo player without permission. She returned the player when the batteries were practically exhausted. Rachel would not have consented to Samantha’s borrowing of the player.

Discuss Samantha’s criminal liability.

2.         Mark took Henry’s cat. He hoped and believed that Henry would assume the cat had strayed and that he would offer a reward to anyone finding it. He intended to return the cat to Henry after a few days even if no reward was offered.

Discuss Mark’s criminal liability.

Would your answer differ if Mark had planned to let the cat go free were no offer of reward made for its return?

3.         Dick took Fob’s watch and pawned it. He intended to redeem and return it to Fob the following week.

Discuss Dick’s criminal liability.


Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Have the parties in the following cases committed theft?

1.         Frud, knowing the golf club objected, trespassed on the golf course and collected all the lost golf balls intending to keep them.

2.         Moke, a collector of coins dishonestly took a fistful of coins from the pocket of a fellow numismatist. When he examined them he found they are his own coins previously stolen from him. -

3.         George drove into a garage. He filled his car with petrol intending to pay for it. As there was a long queue of customers waiting to pay he drove off without paying.

4.         Bill drove into a garage. He filled his car with petrol intending to make off without paying for it. Having done so he drove off. Has he committed theft?

5.         Tracish ordered a meal in a restaurant intending to pay for it. Having eaten the meal she decided, dishonestly to leave without paying. She left the restaurant.

6.         Prance, a customer in a supermarket, had a quantity of apples and tomatoes weighed, bagged, priced and handed to her by a store assistant. She was expected to pay at the exit of the store but left with the goods and without paying.

7.         Dick wrote to Flick falsely representing that he urgently needed a bottle of brandy for the medical treatment of his sick mother. Flick called at Dick’s house in his absence and leaves the brandy. Dick drinks the brandy an hour later.

8.         Cor chose a pair of shoes from a rack of shoes marked at £6.99 per pair. One shoe was marked at £6.99 and the other at £4.99. Without concealing either label she took the shoes to the cashier hoping to be charged the lower price – which she was. She paid the £4.99, placed the shoes in her shopping bag and left the store.

9.         Willy went to Stanley Gibbons, a coin collectors shop, and purchased some obsolete Yugoslav dinar for £7.00. He then went to a bureau de change and cashed them in for £107.

10.        In R v Lawrence and Dobson v General Accident was the property, at the time of the alleged appropriations, property “belonging to another”?


Keef (K) will be charged with either maliciously inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (S.20 O.A.P.A. 1861) or Causing Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) with intent (S.18 O.A.P.A 1861). His liability will ultimately depend upon whether his defence of Self-Defence is accepted by the jury.

Keef has caused Mick severe brain damage.

This amounts to Grievous Bodily Harm (which in Smith (1961) is defined as “really serious” bodily harm). Whether K is charged with S.20 or S,18 O.A.P.A depends upon whether he was merely reckless (in the Cunningham sense) as to some harm occurring or whether he intended to cause Mick serious bodily harm. From the facts here K fears that his mother and child will be killed by M. One could assume that he therefore used the force he did deliberately so as to stop M – in order words it is arguable that K intended to do serious bodily harm to M. A charge would therefore be brought under S.18 as K would possess both the actus reus (GBI-) and mens rea (intent to do GBH) for this offence.

The facts of course are unclear. It is by no means certain that K intended GBH – it is arguable that he may have intended to cause lesser harm (ABH perhaps). In that event K could be charged with the lesser offence under S.20 where according to Mowatt (1968) D is guilty if he either intends some (albeit minor) harm or is reckless as to its occurrence (that is, he foresees that it may occur – Cunningham 1957). Thus, depending upon how one interprets the facts K could be charged with either S.18 or S.20 – the maximum punishments for these, if found guilty, are life imprisonment and 5 years respectively

K could argue that he has a good defence of Defence of Another (a common law defence). This is an excusasory defence which renders the use of force lawful. K would bear the evidential burden of proving that he acted in defence of another, that force was necessary and its amount reasonable. The Prosecution would then bear the Legal Burden of proving beyond all reasonable doubt that force was not used to protect another or that it was not necessary or that its amount was not reasonable (Anderson 19951.

In order for K’s defence to succeed the jury must be satisfied of all of the following:

(a)        that force was used in defence of another

(b)        that, in view of the facts K honestly believed existed, the use of force was necessary (in order to defend another)

(c)        that the amount of force used by K was reasonable compared with the amount of force K honestly believed was going to be used against his mother and child.

In relation to the first issue, force was used for a legitimate reason – defence of K’s mother and child. Furthermore, K’s defence is not defeated merely because he launched a pre­emptive attack. Beckford (19881 is clear on this point – “(one) does not have to wait for (the) assailant to strike the first blow… circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike”. However, pre-emptive force is only permitted so long as a defendant fears that an attack is imminent Beckford). The facts of the question are unclear – K will fail on this first issue (that force was used to defend another) if he believed that the threat to his mother and child was not imminent and would follow sometime in the future. However, if he honestly (albeit mistakenly – Williams (1983)) believed that the threat would be carried out immediately, he will succeed on this first issue.

In relation to the second issue the jury would consider whether force was necessary in order to prevent M killing K’s mother and child. Thus, they would consider the issue of necessity from the facts K honestly believed existed even if his view is an unreasonably mistaken one (Williams 1983).Thus, the fact that M presented no threat whatsoever to K’s mother and child is irrelevant. The jury would also need to bear in mind the split second of time K had within which to decide upon his course of action (Palmer 1971).

On the facts here, it is likely that the jury would err in K’s favour – force is clearly necessary to protect others from death.

The final issue is again considered with K’s perception of the facts forming an integral part of the analysis. The test for reasonableness of force was stated in Scarlet (1993) (and recently revised in Nimrod Owing (199511:

“was the degree of force used plainly more than was called for by the circumstances as D believed them to be?”

Thus, force is unreasonable if it clearly outweighs the amount of force threatened by the aggressor. Palmer (1971) is also helpful here in pointing out that the court does not use jeweler’s scales in deciding whether the amount of force is reasonable.

K honestly believed (albeit mistakenly) that his mother and child would be killed by M. His response of causing serious injury to M is, when compared to the threat of death, arguably reasonable in that the force – by K is not more than the force believed to be threatened by M.

In conclusion, K would be charged with either S.18 or S.20 O.A.P.A. 1861. He could raise the common law defence of Defence of Another and would probably succeed. That is, he has a legitimate reason for using force, it was in the circumstances (he believed existed) necessary and its amount was reasonable.

One would answer differently in the alternative scenarios in that:


In relation to the charge, S.20 is more appropriate. Since S.18 is a crime of specific intent and 5.20 basic intent, and since intoxicated mistake is a defence in relation to S.18, but not S.20, Keef s liability for S.18 would be difficult to establish (Majewski I977). Where a defendant is voluntarily intoxicated one assesses the issues of necessity and reasonableness of force in the light of facts a reasonable sober person would have perceived (O’Cnady 1987, O’Connor 1992). Thus, if Keef misinterpreted Mick’s statement only because he was in a state of intoxicated consciousness, the jury would probably consider that:

-           force was not necessary in view of the fact that Mick had presented no threat to Keef

-            since Mick presented no threat, the use of any force against him by Keef was automatically excessive and therefore unreasonable.

In short, if Keef was voluntarily intoxicated, his defence would most likely fail.

If the intoxication was involuntary, and Keef mistakenly thought that Mick had threatened his mother and child, the jury would proceed to assess the issues in line with Williams and Scarlet. That is, they would consider the issues of necessity and reasonableness in the light of circumstances believed by Keef to exist. The jury’s conclusions, would therefore be the same as explained above in the substantive answer.


Keef could argue a defence under S.5(2)b Criminal Damage At 1971 (defence of property). He would be judged according to his honest view of the facts (Williams 1983) in relation to the key issues. On Keef’s view of the facts, force may not be a necessity – there are alternatives. It is however arguable that since Mick is holding a gun and Keef his guitar, the threat of damage to Keefs property is so imminent that force is necessary to prevent damage. However, Keef is likely to fail _on his defence in relation to the issue of reasonableness of force. The amount of force used by Keef is plainly more than the threat he had apprehended (Scarlet 1993). Furthermore, Smith and Hogan are of the view that deadly force can never be reasonable when used in protection of property. The Australian case of McKay (1957) similarly provides persuasive authority for the proposition that killing another in order to protect property is never reasonable. Of course, the facts here do not involve death but by analogy one can extrapolate the principle in McKay (from death) to serious bodily injury. Thus, in conclusion. Keef is unlikely to succeed on his defence and would be guilty of either S.18 or S.20 of O. A.P.A. 1861.


The answer would proceed as in the substantive response above except that in this scenario Keef’s defence would fail as soon as he stabbed Mick. Up to that point force used to ameliorate the threat Mick had presented (to Keef’s mother and child) is (as above) arguably both necessary and (its amount) reasonable.

Had a charge of either S.47, S.20 or 5.18 O.A.P.A. followed, Keef would have had a good defence of Defence of Another. However, Keef s stabbing of Mick alters the legal position. Firstly, Keef would be charged with wounding either with intent (S.18) or maliciously (S.2O). Moriarty v Brookes (1834) establishes a break in the (outer and inner) skin (simultaneously) to be a wound.

Secondly, Keef’s defence of Defence of Another is unlikely to succeed. According to Palmer (1971) force used in revenge is not lawful; moreover Shannon clearly excludes force used in angry retaliation or out of pure aggression. Although the question does not explain Keef’s motive for stabbing Mick one can reasonably assume that such force is impermissible either because:

- it falls outside the genus of defences where force is used to de, fend (oneself, or another, or property etc)


- it is unnecessary, and or excessive and therefore unreasonable.

Severe Beating

Keef would be charged with S.18 GBH with intent. He would have no defence in law. NOTE:

In all of the answers above, Keef’s position is stated in relation to the law. Whether he can prove a prima facie case of defence of another, and whether the Prosecution discharge the Legal Burden are matters of evidence beyond_ the scope of this answer, and more importantly, academic discipline. (In other words, do not worry about whether Keef or the Prosecution can prove the defence or its converse).


Hand in date:       Full-time: 10.12.97

Part-time: Mid-Feb `98

Word Limit:       1,500 (you will be penalised for exceeding the word limit)

Mr. Kite and Mr. Sifter line together in a house they have named “village Green”. Mercutio is a lodger who has been living with them for almost 2 years. About a year ago Mercutio took to acting very strangely. He refused to eat and only left his room (late in the day) to go out to buy cigarettes and alcohol. When asked why he was starving himself, Mercutio replied.

“It’s a crazy situation when there’s nothing in life that is worth living for except cigarettes and alcohol.”

Messrs Kite and Sifter nevertheless tried to persuade Mercutio to eat full meals. Indeed they contacted the Samaritans help-line, who told them that they could only help Mercutio if he himself phoned the Samaritans. Messrs Kite and Sifter forgot to tell him to do so. They also contacted the police who advised them to contact Mercutio’s doctor and social services (for `meals on wheels’ ). Again they forgot to inform Mercutio of this. Around this time they also took to leaving food outside Mercutio’s door and on several occasions even offered to help him wash himself All such offers of help were declined.

Three months later Mercutio’s condition had worsened. He was emaciated and covered with body sores, some of which were infected, and his room emanated a very strong odour of human excrement. :’WO months later (about a month ago from now) Mercutio’s condition became critical such that he stopped leaving his room. Mr. Kite and Mr. Sifter had, up to this point, continued to make (albeit ineffective) attempts to feed Mercutio. However, on learning that Mercutio had recently won the lottery and had £7 million in cash stored under his bed, they stopped even trying to feed him. They also told Mercutio’s brother, Gripper, who had enquired about his welfare, that he was fine and in good health. Indeed Messrs Kite and Sifter were rather hoping that Mercutio would die so that they could `inherit’ the £7 million.

Mercutio passed away last night. He was suffering from severe depression and died from a combination of alcohol abuse (which had destroyed his liver). Severe infection and starvation (he weighed only 4 stone 8 pounds).

(a)        Consider the criminal liability of Mr. Kite and Mr. Sifter.    (70 marks)

(b)        How would your answer differ if neither Kite nor Sifter wished Mercutio to die?

(30 marks)


School of Law


PRLM 202


Date: MONDAY 20 JANUARY 1997        Time Allowed: TWO HOURS


During reading time, candidates are not permitted to write anything in the examination answer book but may make notes on the separate coloured sheet designated for this purpose. Anything written on the coloured sheet forms no part of the examination answer.

Instructions to candidates:

Candidates are allowed to bring into the examination any clean and unmarked copy of an unannotated published collection of Criminal Law statutes.

Six questions set.

Answer any THREE questions.

Where a question is separated into two parts, (a) and (b), an equal number of marks is allocated to each part.

1.         “Mistake will not always provide the basis of a good defence to a criminal charge.”To what extent do you agree?

2          (a)        Distinguish between sane and insane automatism. What is the reason for this distinction?

(b) Ringo is a long distance lorry driver. One evening he drove to a motorway services area. As he entered the restaurant he pushed open a door with a glass panel in it with such force that he knocked over Kevin who had been standing on the other side of the door. Kevin fell against a table and sustained bruising and concussion. The door smashed against the wall and the glass panel shattered.

Consider Ringo’s liability for Criminal Damage (S 1(1) CDA 1971) and for the assult occasioning actual bodily harm (S 47 OAPA 1861) on the following alternative assumptions:

(i)         lm-go had been driving for 8 continuous hours and had consequently fallen into a trance like state. Ringo admits seeing Kevin a split second before the door hit him.

(ii)         Ringo had taken insulin to overcome his diabetes, but unfortunately had not eaten after taking his medication. He suffered a complete blackout and has no recollection of the incident with the door.

3.         (a)   Mr. Pleasant lives in Dead End Street.  Mr. Pleasant dislikes his next door neighbour, David Watts, because he is generally well liked and respected. Intending only to frighten, Mr. Pleasant broke into David Watt’s house one night wearing a glowing skeleton mask, pointed a toy gun at him, and said . very calmly “you are dead”. David Watts had a heart attack and died.

Consider Mr. Pleasants criminal liability in each of the following alternative scenarios.

(i)         Mr. Pleasant knew that David Watts had a very weak heart and was very easily frightened.

(ii)         Mr Pleasant knew that David Watts was 109 years old.

(b)        Assume that David Watts did not die immediately, but was taken instead to Penny Lane General Hospital in a critical condition.

Consider Mr Pleasant’s criminal liability in each of the following alternative scenarios:

(i)         David Watts refused medical treatment as a protest at perceived government cuts in funding to the NHS. He died as a result of a second heart attack which would have been prevented by prompt medical treatment.

(ii)         The doctors were unable to treat David Watts because, in their opinion, he was in such as state of trauma that any treatment by them would certainly have induced a fatal heart attack. David Watts nevertheless died as a result of a second heart attack which, as in b (i) above would not have occurred had he been treated.

4.         (i)         Jarvis is a well known pop star.

Consider his criminal liability in each of the following alternative scenarios: (i)       Knowing he is carrying a deadly sexual disease, Jarvis has sexual intercourse with Kylie, a fan of his. The disease is very easily transmitted from one person to another and Jarvis knows this. In fact, Kylie is now infected with this disease.

(ii)                     Jarvis gives a lift to a female hitch-hiker. He starts making crude sexual remarks and then brushes his hand across the hitch-hiker’s face. The hitch-hiker, afraid of what she believes are crude sexual advances, jumps out of the car which is travelling at 40 mph. She suffers severe bruising around her head and body and some unsightly grazing to her face.

(iii)        at a Wacko pop concert Jarvis runs on stage interrupting Wacko’s performance, and stares menacingly at children at the front of the audience. Several children suffer emotional trauma, while others feel afraid of being attacked by Jarvis.

(b)        In 4 (iii) above assume Jarvis acted as he did having been told to do so by  the Anti-Kacko Jacko League (AWJL), a violent terrorist organisation, and that the League had threatened him with serious personal violence if he failed.

Would your answer differ if the League’s threat had been to damage Jarvis’s new car?

5.         (a)        “‘with the intention of permanently depriving…’ [S I (1) Theft Act 1968] does not always require proof that the defendant’s purpose was to permanently deprive the owner of his property.” Explain and discuss.

(b)        George, a famous pop star, has spent 30 years meditating in the foothills of the Himalayas with his spiritual guru, the Maharishi. During that time George purged himself of materialist beliefs and now believes that all property is owned commonly. Thus, while in India he would wander onto the property of strangers and help himself to their food. George has recently arrived back from India. Consider his criminal liability in each of the following scenarios:

(i)         At Heathrow Airport George helps himself to expensive perfume and silk ties. He is stopped just as he leaves the shop, and asked what he thinks he is doing, to which George replies:

“Hey man, don’t give me no heavy Karma bro’, this is God’s creation man”, and then casually walks off:

(ii)                     George decides to hold a charity event to raise money for a Transcendental Meditation retreat which the Maharishi wishes to build in Peckham, London. After the charity event. George decides to buy a new Sitar with the proceeds of the money he has raised. Furthermore, he believes the Maharishi is wealthy enough to finance the TM Retreat privately, and so does not intend to pass the money on to the Maharishi.

6.         Noel was shopping one day when he saw Liam approaching aim. Thinking Liam was leering and scowling and of a generally unwelcoming demeanour because he wished to kill him. Noel launched an immediate attack upon Liam. Liam was knocked to the ground by Noel. Liam, clearly in pain, pleaded with Noel to stop but he continued striking blows to Liam’s head, who was eventually rendered unconscious. Noel, aware of Liam’s state, continued to rain blows upon him.

Liam suffered a broken jaw, a dislocated shoulder and severe bruising to the face, neck, body and legs.

In actual fact, Liam had no intention of attacking Noel. Noel had simply misinterpreted Liam’s habitually aggressive demeanour.

-           Discuss Noel’s criminal liability, if any.

-           How would you answer differ if Noel had been drinking alcohol in the local .,

public house?   -


School of Law


PRIM 202


Date: TUESDAY 10 JUNE 1997  Time Allowed: TWO HOURS PLUS IS


During reading time, candidates are not permitted to write anything in the examination answer book but may make notes on the separate coloured sheet designated for this purpose. Anything written on the coloured sheet forms no part of the examination answer.

Instructions tc cand:dates:

Candidates are allowed to bring into the examination any clean and unmarked copy of an unannotated published collection of Criminal Law statutes.

Six questions set.

All questions cam. equal marks. Please answer THREE

Where a question is separated into two parts, (a) and (b), an equal number of marks is allocated to each part

1.         Atticus saw what he believed to be a thug attacking Boo, a physically and mentally disabled local man. In fact the `thug’ was a plain clothes policeman who was trying s~ to arrest Boo on suspicion of theft from Daytona Dream Superstore. Atticus went to the assistance of Boo. He pulled the policeman off, causing him serious injury.

Consider Atticus’s criminal liability.

Would your answer differ if Atticus had been drunk?

How would your answer differ if Atticus had continued to punch and kick the “\,policeman despite knowing him to be unconscious?

2.         “The law does not have a consistent approach to the issue of mistake in determining ~ criminal liability”. Discuss.

3.         Suki was bored and short of money. He decided to break into a local old person’s home, knowing that most of its residents were very wealthy and very old.

On entering the building (via a back window), Suki was approached by a `resident’,

David, who, being suspicious, proceeded to question him. Suki pushed David, who a slipped and banged his head against a door.

David, now in a state of unconsciousness, was rushed to Strawberry Fields Hospital where, after a 2 hour wait, he was given the wrong medical treatment, died within 20 minutes of the treatment.

Consider Suki’s criminal liability on the following alternative assumptions:

(i)         David was a 25 year old security guard.

(ii)         David was a 101 year old resident of the home.

4          Aubade, a member of a gang of shoplifters, was told by his gang leader, Pacino, to be more violent in future, “… or else I’ll kill your wife.”

This horrified Aubade who was essentially a peaceful man.

The following day Aubade and Pacino entered the “Castle Superstore’. Aubade placed some items in his coat pocket whereupon he was stopped by Beefy, a security guard, who asked Aubade to accompany him to the back of the store. Aubade, recalling what Pacino had said, pushed Beefy to the floor and kicked him in the face -_  several times, causing severe bruising, four broken teeth and partial blindness in one eye. Aubade is emotionally unstable, has a low intelligence quotient (IQ) and has been suffering from depression.

Consider Aubade’s criminal liability under the Offences Against the Person Act (1861).

5.         “ Nico was driving from London to Scotland. She gave a lift to a hitch-hiker, Candy. After 7 hours of continuous driving, Nico suddenly pulled out a gun and pointed it at Candy. Fearing for her life, Candy jumped out of the car, which was travelling at around 30 miles per hour. Candy sustained severe bruising on the arms and head, but was otherwise unscathed.

Consider Nico’s criminal liability in the following alternative circumstances:

(a)Nico was a diabetic and had failed to take her required dose of insulin. She has no recollection of the incident with the gun.

(b)        Nico had been driving for 7 continuous hours and had consequently fallen into a trance like state. She has no recollection of the incident with the gun.

6.         Consider the criminal liability of Liam, Normo, Wasim and Opel in the following scenarios:

(a)        Liam gave` Noel £500 in order to purchase 8 grammes of cocaine for him ~ i.e. for Liam). Noel spent the money on a new stereo system for his car.

(b)        Normo found a wallet, containing £50, in the street. He kept the money but :~ed in the wallet to the local police station.

(c)        Wasim borrowed Avtar’s Manchester United Football Club season ticket -without permission. The ticket entitled Avtar to attend at 40 Manchester united football matches. Wasim intended to return the ticket half way through the football season.

(d)        Opel. a taxi driver, drove Prudence to a party. The fare was £1. Prudence, thinking she was offering a £5 note (and who did not understand English), offered a :.10 note. Opel kept the whole of this amount.


School of Law



Date: WEDNESDAY 21 JANUARY 1998                                                  Time Allowed: TWO HOURS PLUS


During reading time, candidates are not permitted to write anything in the examination answer book but may make notes on the separate coloured sheet designated for this purpose. Anything written on the coloured sheet forms no part of the examination answer. Instructions to candidates:


Candidates are allowed to bring into the examination any clean and unmarked copy of an unannotated published collection of Criminal Law statutes.

Six questions set.

Answer THREE questions.

All questions carry equal marks.

Where a question is separated into two parts, (a) and (b), an equal number of marks is allocated to each part.

1.         One fine spring morning Cheeky went for a walk in the local park. Whilst walking down the cobble stoned lane he saw the most enormous duck he had ever seen in his life and “ thought it would make a wonderful dinner for him and his special friend, Mr Wobbly

He shot and killed the duck. Unfortunately, it turned out to be Mr Wobbly Man who, unknown to Cheeky, was just returning home from a fancy dress parry for which he had dressed up as a duck.

Consider Cheeky’s criminal liability in the following alternative scenarios:

(i)         he was sober    -

(ii)         be had voluntarily consumed a single tab of LSD, a hallucinatory drug

(ii)         he had voluntarily taken some valium

(iv)       he had just consumed a cake which unknown to him contained large quantities of marijuana, a hallucinatory drug

Cobain saw what he believed to be a thug attacking Richey, a boy aged 10. In fact the t” was Sergeant Pepper, a plain clothes policeman, who was trying to arrest Richey on suspicion of theft from `Harts The Grocer’.

Cobain went to the assistance of Richey, who was now so seriously injured that he became unconscious. He pulled sergeant Pepper off Richey causing him serious injury.

(i)         Cobain’s criminal liability.

(ii)         How would you answer differ if at all, if after having pulled him off Richey,  Cobain realized that he had caused Sergeant Pepper to become unconscious but carried on beating him  regardless.

3.         Assume that section 1 of the Dog Preservation Act 1998 provides: “It is an offence recklessly to endanger the life of a dog.”

Suki owns Bonehead, a rather energetic poodle. His house has a front garden which gives on to a very busy highway. The front gate bears a notice which reads:

Please close the gate at all times. Beware of the dog.”

Vikram, who is 13 years old, visited Suki’s house in order to deliver a free newspaper Ty’            and left the front gate open. Shortly afterwards Bonehead bounded through the open gate and was run over by a passing car.

Consider Vikram’s liability, if any, under section 1 of the Dog Preservation Act 1998 if.

(i)         he had read the notice but decided that compliance was inconvenient,

(ii)         he had read the notice but decided that Sukhi was being over-cautious,

(iii)        he was illiterate,

(iv)        in section 1 the word “maliciously” was used instead of “recklessly” and Vikram had not n6tiZed the notice.

4.         Consider the criminal lia6ility of Noel, Reni, Digsy and Opel in the following scenarios:

(i)         Liam gave Noel £5,000 for Noel’s Anti-Gun League (a charity). Noel has spent the £5,000 on a new guitar.

(ii)         Reni found a wallet containing £200 in the street. He kept the money and threw the wallet into a bin.

(iii)        Opel, a taxi driver, drove Prudence to a party. The fare was £5. Prudence offered Opel a ;E50 note, mistakenly thinking it was a :..,3 note. Opel realised the mistake but kept the money nonetheless.

(iv)        Gripper picked some flowers which were growing in the countryside in order to sell them at his market stall. He also picked some apples and strawberries which he ate to satisfy his hunger.

5.         Please answer either (a) or (b).

(a) (1)    “To prove that the Defendant intended to deprive the owner permanently, the prosecution does not have to show that the Defendant intended that the owner should never get the property back” Explain and discuss.

(ii) Critically analyse the House of Lords decision in Gomez [1992] 3 WLR 1067.

(b)        Jarvis gave a lift in his car to Angeline, a female hitch-hiker. After a few minutes he started to make crude sexual remarks and then brushed his hand slowly across her face. He then pulled out a gun and demanded that Angeline submit to his desires, upon which she jumped out of the car. Unfortunately, Angeline sustained serious injuries and was admitted to Hospital. Consider Jarvis’s liability for constructive manslaughter if­

(i)         Angeline died within one minute of being admitted to hospital.

(ii)         Angeline makes a miraculous recovery but dies a week later, as a result of an allergic reaction to treatment administered by the doctors.

(iii)        Angeline dies as a result of a tumour which could not be operated upon because of the injuries resulting from her leap from the car.

(iv)        Angeline dies while in hospital as a result of a gas explosion caused by a fault in the gas mains.

John. Paul, George and Ringo were small time criminals. John and Paul were planning revenge on George who had recently given information to the police about John and Paul’s criminal activities.

Paul anted to give George “a taste of his own medicine” and give information to the police about George but John suggested that they vandalise George’s brand new car with a couple of crowbars which they could borrow from Ringo. Paul was a little concerned about this as he knew of John’s violent tendencies. He was worried that if George caught them vandalising the car and tried to stop them John might “go over the top” and hurt George. John reassured Paul and said that if George caught them they should just run away. Still a little concerned Paul agreed.

They borrowed the crowbars from Ringo without telling him what they intended to do with them. He assumed that they were to be used for breaking up stolen goods.

John and Paul caused a considerable amount of damage to George’s car but, unfortunately, were seen by George who tried to stop them. Paul ran away but John lost his temper and attacked George with a crowbar causing him serious injury.

Discuss the criminal liability of John, Paul and Ringo.


School of Law




During reading time, candidates are not permitted to write anything in the examination answer book but may make notes on the separate coloured sheet designated for this purpose. Anything written on the coloured sheet forms no part of the examination answer.

Instructions to candidates:

Answer any THREE out of SIX questions.


Extracts from Criminal Law Statutes

1.         Answer EITHER

(a)        unfortunate effect of Gomez [1992] was to render otiose the second part of the Theft Act 1968 and to relegate the issue of consent to a matter of mens rea to what  extend to you agree?

OR       .

Distinguish between sane and insane automatism.

2.       “Strict liability crimes are needed to prevent social chaos.” Discuss.

3.         Waseem was a member of the `United Nations Golf Club’. On one occasion he was attacked by a gang of youths and subjected to racist taunts. He was also told that his friend, Avtar (who wears a turban), “had better watch it.”

Several days later Waseem’s friend, Rakesh, was also attacked and warned that, “the turban head has had it.”

Several days later Waseem and Avtar were playing a round of golf when suddenly they saw a gang of skinheads drive into the car park. One of them, Kev, approached Avtar -        and pulled out a knife with an eight inch blade. Waseem, remembering the earlier incidents involving Rakesh and himself, leapt in front of Avtar and struck Kev on the head with a golf club.

Key fell to t; e floor, having sustained serious head injuries.

(a)        Consider Waseem’s criminal liability.

(b)        How would your answer differ, if at all, if Kev was in fact a member of the local Anti -Racist League and had come to offer protection to Avtar and Waseem?

(c)        How would your answer differ, if at all, if Waseem had continued to strike Kev with the golf club, knowing that Kev had in fact become unconscious?

4.         John, Paul and George are members of an animal liberation gang. Until recently, their activities included releasing animals from captivity and picketing butchers’ shops. However, John and Paul have become quite disillusioned with their lack of success and blame this on George’s reluctance to accept violence as part of their  agenda.

John and Paul have therefore decided to over rule George. When he protests they tell him that he must now help them to bomb a local butcher’s shop, “The Humane Butcher.” George protests that people may get hurt, but John and Paul retort that if he does not help they will kill him. George reluctantly agrees.

John and Paul plant a bomb at the shop and within five minutes it explodes, causing extensive damage. George drives them away to safety.

(i)         Consider John, Paul and George’s criminal liability.

(ii)         How would your answer differ, if at all, if, instead of threatening George with death, John and Paul had threatened to bomb George’s Rolls Royce motor car?-

(iii)        How would your answer differ, if at all, if Himmler, the owner of the shop, had sustained minor bruising as a result of the explosion?

5.         Cecil Pratt is a member of Parliament for the Regurgative Parry, a loose collection of old and middle aged people who wish to enforce what they call `Victorian Values’ within society.

Consider whether Cecil is liable for theft in the following alternative scenarios:

(i)         The Ealing branch of the Regurgative Parry hold a charity fete. It raises £8,000 which the party give to Cecil for use in campaigning against abortion and homosexuality. Cecil uses the money to buy a fur coat for Percival (his old `friend’ from Eton). The remainder is given to Purity, Cecil’s mistress, for use in obtaining an abortion.

(ii)         Cecil’s party leader, William Jaded, owes him f50 but mistakenly pays him £500. William does not realise his mistake. Cecil does, and quickly spends the excess money.

(iii)        Cecil borrows £10 from Percival’s purse and uses it to pay for a taxi. Cecil knows Percival would not mind as they are very close friends.

(iv)        Cecil takes a newspaper from his local newsagent without paying for it. He intends to return it by the end of the day.

6.         Robert and Colin work together but unfortunately they dislike each other intensely. 0~- Robert’s criminal liability on the following alternative assumptions:

(i)To Robert decides to kill Colin. “Whilst in Colin’s flat he inflicts several wounds on what appears to be a body lying in bed. In fact, the body -was a wax replica of Colin, not the human version.

(ii)Robert, standing on a bridge, throws a brick on to Colin’s car as he is having under the bridge. Colin crashes the car and is seriously injured. In -­hospital, Colin is given the wrong medical treatment and dies as a result.

(iii)Robert stabs Colin to death, honestly believing him to be a wax dummy. Robert had voluntarily consumed a hallucinatory drug, LSD, moments before, which caused him to mistake Colin for a dummy.

This entry was posted in Criminal Law. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Comment