LW263 CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE S0LUTIONS MAY 2015
1.
Essay. This is to enable discussion of the nature, purpose and context of duress in the
criminal law. Role + justification for this defence. Critical evaluation of operation and common
law development of this area, with reference to broad range of caselaw and analysis of how
this defence operates: Application and constraints – nature, nexus, test
(subjective/objective), imminence of threats, GRAHAM, HOWE, BOWEN, SAFI with focus on
difficulties faced by the courts and recent developments on limits eg voluntary association
with criminals (Hasan), and not available to murder charge, Howe, Gotts. Brief discussion of
duress of circumstances and possible comparison with necessity (Re A). Critique.
2.
Essay. Critical discussion of attempt with reference to relevant case law. Actus reus of
Attempt s1 CAA 1981 “an act which is more than merely preparatory”- the notion of a
proximity test. Critical discussion of development/interpretation of this notion.
Analysis/critique of extensive caselaw. Gullefer , Jones , Campbell, Attorney-General's
Reference , Geddes , Tosti and White, Toothill, Nash . Impossibility issue– Shivpuri. Stricter
requirements where inchoate crime is on the threshold of substantive criminal offences,
although not committed, and why. Also brief discussion of Mens Rea. Generally, intention
and only intention will do (culpability for what it was sought (ineffectively) to achieve).
Recklessness will not suffice. Mohan, Whybrow, Millard and Vernon.
3.
Essay. Wide-ranging discussion of the importance of consent in relation to sexual offences
with reference to its definition in SOA 2003. Analysis of new legislation and critique thereof.
The problem of definition of consent, s1(1), s 1(2) Reasonable belief in consent - ‘having
regard to all the circumstances’. Evidential and conclusive presumptions with definitions and
critique (ss74-76). Reference to relevant caselaw, including how pre-2003 cases (eg
Morgan) informed the SOA 2003. Good use of examples from caselaw expected with
appropriate analysis eg Braham; Elbekkay; Olugboja; Jheeta; R v B; Cicarelli (s75); Bree;
Dougal; Seedy Tambedou – the problem of drunken consent; Doyle – real and apparent
consent; McNally (a s2 charge) – deception as to gender.
4.
Essay. Wide ranging discussion of the offences against the person - the extent to which they
can be said to be antiquated and in need of reform. Consideration of how the courts have
been imaginative in their interpretation of provisions in order to address this issue.
Good use of relevant caselaw expected. Students may draw from the following: on "GBH",
D.P.P. v. Smith and Janjua, Choudury; on bodily harm (s47, 18 and 20) words alone (or
silence) as an assault, Constanza, Ireland, and psychological harm (as abh and gbh) ChanFook (s47), Burstow (s20). HIV infection as biological gbh, Dica, Konzani; herpes infection as
gbh Golding. What does "inflict" mean (s20)? How may it occur? eg Martin. ‘Occasioning’
meaning causing, Roberts (s47). What does ‘actual ’mean (s47)? Donovan, T v DPP. The
mens rea element "maliciously" – its interpretation as ‘recklessness’, Spratt, Savage &
Parmenter, Venna, Mowatt etc.
Page 1 of 2
LW263 Criminal Law MS
(May 2015)
5.
6.
A problem question on homicide and causation.
a)
Murder? Define and Query whether MR present – oblique intent Nedrick, Woollin
UDA MANSLAUGHTER: If no MR for murder, constructive (UDA) manslaughter? Must
be ‘unlawful’ act (here, s23 OAPA 1861): see eg Mitchell, Goodfellow ,D.P.P. v.
Newbury - objectively dangerous.
CONSENT issue: Cato, Brown
CAUSATION issues: FACTUAL White; LEGAL, the culpable act must be more than a
minimal cause of the consequence - Malcherek and Steel, Pagett, an operative and
substantial cause, but need be neither the sole nor the main cause Benge
Re K’s allergy, P must take the victim (K) as he finds her – Hayward, Blaue
Do intervening events and acts amount to a novus actus interveniens? Poor medical
treatment - Jordan, Smith Cheshire (unlikely)
b)
CAUSATION ISSUE: Does P’s unlawful act of supplying heroin ‘cause’ K’s death? Or
does K’s own act of self injection break the chain of causation? Latif, Kennedy - chain
broken by victim’s own independent act of self injection
c)
M’s liability for Gross negligence manslaughter. Discussion of requirements and
operation of offence with reference to relevant case law, especially, Adomako,
Bateman. Has M breached duty? Does it cause death and is it ‘grossly’ negligent?
A problem question on property offences,& non fatal offences against the person.
Burglary s9 TA 1968. P could be guilty of a s.9(1)(a). Consider whether a barge constitutes a
building – see s.9(4), TA 1968 – “inhabited vehicles and vessels”. When P climbs in through
the window, there is an entry Collins, Brown and Ryan. Must be as trespasser, Collins.
Consider mens rea re entry as a trespasser and with an ulterior intention to steal (s.9 (1) (a)).
Theft, s1 TA 1968. All 5 elements need to be present (appropriation, property, belonging to
another, dishonestly, with the intention to permanently deprive). He steals when he picks up
the laptop and wallet -Thus he will be guilty of a s.9(1)(b) too.
Robbery: s.8, TA 1968. Theft with use of force Dawson. The force must be used at the time
of stealing and in order to do so. Hale, Vinall. Is robbery still ongoing at time of violence? All
5 elements of theft (s1 TA1968) also need to be present) Robinson (unproblematic here).
Assault: common law assault and battery at least (s39, CJA 1988), Collins and Wilcox, Cole
and Turner, Venna - though more likely to be abh (s47 OAPA 1861) Donovan, Spratt.
Unlikely to be gbh.
Page 2 of 2
LW263 Criminal Law MS
(May 2015)