Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) Criminal Law Flashcards

24 sample cards from the Criminal Law deck

Sampled from the end of the deck, so these are different cards from the ones shown on the syllabus page.

1. What is the modern test for dishonesty in theft?

   The objective test in Ivey v Genting Casinos (confirmed for criminal law by R v Barton & Booth): ascertain D's actual knowledge/belief as to the facts, then decide whether D's conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. (This replaced the second limb of R v Ghosh.)

2. Name the three situations under s.2(1) Theft Act 1968 where D is NOT dishonest.

   A belief that: (a) D has a legal right to deprive the other; (b) the other would have consented if they knew; or (c) the owner cannot be found by taking reasonable steps. Also, willingness to pay does not preclude dishonesty (s.2(2)).

3. State the definition and elements of robbery (s.8 Theft Act 1968).

   Robbery is theft where, immediately before or at the time of stealing and in order to steal, D uses force on a person or puts/seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. There must be a complete theft plus force used to steal.

4. State the two forms of burglary under s.9(1)(a) and s.9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968.

   s.9(1)(a): entering a building/part as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict GBH, or do unlawful damage. s.9(1)(b): having entered as a trespasser, stealing/attempting to steal, or inflicting/attempting GBH. The intent timing differs: at entry for (a), after entry for (b).

5. What are the elements of handling stolen goods (s.22 Theft Act 1968)?

   Dishonestly receiving stolen goods, or dishonestly undertaking/assisting in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation (or arranging to do so), by or for another, knowing or believing the goods to be stolen. It must be otherwise than in the course of stealing.

6. What is the difference between 'knowing' and 'believing' goods are stolen for handling?

   'Knowing' means D has actual, firsthand certainty the goods are stolen. 'Believing' is less — D's mind, on the information available, accepts the goods are probably stolen even without certainty. Mere suspicion is insufficient (R v Hall).

7. Name the three ways of committing fraud under the Fraud Act 2006.

   Section 2: fraud by false representation; section 3: fraud by failing to disclose information where there is a legal duty; section 4: fraud by abuse of position. Each requires dishonesty and an intent to make a gain or cause a loss.

8. State the elements of fraud by false representation (s.2 Fraud Act 2006).

   D dishonestly makes a false (untrue/misleading) representation, knowing it is or might be false, intending thereby to make a gain for himself/another or cause loss/risk of loss to another. The offence is complete on making the representation; no gain or victim reliance is needed.

9. State the elements of making off without payment (s.3 Theft Act 1978).

   D, knowing that payment on the spot is required or expected, dishonestly makes off from the spot without having paid, with intent to avoid payment of the amount due. 'On the spot' covers e.g. petrol, restaurant meals, taxi fares.

10. State the basic offence of criminal damage (s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971).

    D, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages property belonging to another, intending to do so or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged.

11. What is aggravated criminal damage (s.1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971) and how does it differ from the basic offence?

    Destroying/damaging property (which may be D's own) intending or being reckless as to endangering the life of another by the damage. It does not require the property to belong to another, requires the additional life-endangerment element, and carries life imprisonment.

12. What lawful excuses are provided by s.5 Criminal Damage Act 1971?

    D has a lawful excuse if he honestly believed (a) the owner had or would have consented, or (b) the damage was necessary to protect his or another's property in immediate need of protection and the means were reasonable. The belief need only be honest, even if unreasonable (Jaggard v Dickinson).

13. Name the three inchoate offences and their statutory sources.

    Attempt (Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s.1), conspiracy (Criminal Law Act 1977, s.1, plus common law conspiracies), and encouraging or assisting crime (Serious Crime Act 2007, ss.44–46, which replaced incitement).

14. State the actus reus and mens rea of a criminal attempt (s.1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981).

    Actus reus: D does an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence (R v Gullefer). Mens rea: an intention to commit the full offence (R v Whybrow — attempted murder requires intent to kill, not merely GBH).

15. Can a person be liable for attempting the impossible?

    Yes. Under s.1(2)–(3) Criminal Attempts Act 1981, D may be guilty of attempt even where commission of the full offence is impossible, judged on the facts as D believed them to be (R v Shivpuri).

16. State the elements of statutory conspiracy (s.1 Criminal Law Act 1977).

    An agreement between two or more persons to pursue a course of conduct that will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of an offence if carried out as intended. There must be agreement plus intention that the offence be committed.

17. How does insanity operate as a defence (the M'Naghten Rules)?

    It is presumed D is sane. To establish insanity D must prove that at the time, by reason of a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind, he did not know the nature and quality of his act, or did not know it was wrong. The verdict is 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.

18. Distinguish insane automatism from non-insane automatism.

    Insane automatism arises from an internal cause/disease of the mind (e.g. epilepsy, diabetes — hyperglycaemia) → special verdict. Non-insane automatism arises from an external cause (e.g. a blow, insulin — hypoglycaemia) → complete acquittal.

19. How does voluntary intoxication affect liability, distinguishing specific and basic intent crimes?

    Voluntary intoxication may negate the mens rea of a specific intent crime (e.g. murder), reducing it to the basic intent equivalent (DPP v Majewski). It is no defence to a basic intent crime, because becoming voluntarily intoxicated is itself reckless.

20. What is the relevance of a child's age to criminal capacity in England and Wales?

    The age of criminal responsibility is 10 (s.50 Children and Young Persons Act 1933). A child under 10 cannot be criminally liable. The rebuttable presumption of doli incapax for children aged 10–13 was abolished by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

21. Is duress of circumstances/necessity a defence to murder?

    No. Duress (by threats or of circumstances) is never a defence to murder or attempted murder (R v Howe; R v Gotts). Necessity also could not justify killing an innocent person in R v Dudley and Stephens.

22. State the two-stage (Graham) test for the defence of duress by threats.

    (1) Subjective: was D compelled to act because he reasonably believed he faced death or serious injury? (2) Objective: would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing D's characteristics have responded in the same way? (R v Graham; R v Hasan).

23. Distinguish principals, joint principals, and accessories (secondary parties).

    A principal directly commits the actus reus with the required mens rea. Joint principals each satisfy the actus reus together. An accessory (secondary party) aids, abets, counsels or procures the offence (s.8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861) but does not commit the principal offence.

24. What is the current law on accessory liability following R v Jogee (2016)?

    R v Jogee abolished 'parasitic accessory liability'. To be liable as an accessory, D must intend to assist or encourage the principal's offence and must intend the principal to act with the required mens rea. Foresight of the crime is only evidence of intent, not a substitute for it.

What this deck covers

Criminal Law flashcards FAQ