Crime Subsidiary Issues - E

Front 1

Chrastny

Back 1

Husband and wife cannot conspire together unless they are also conspiring with others.

Front 2

Walker

Back 2

Conspiracy: agreement

Must have gone beyond mere negotiation

Front 3

Anderson

Back 3

Conspiracy: mens rea

Mens rea established if "the defendant intended to play a part in the agreed course of conduct"

NB: not followed (McPhillps, Edwards, Ashton), which all said the intention must be to carry out the plan

Front 4

Gullefer

Back 4

Criminal attempts

"it begins when the merely preparatory acts come to an end and the defendant embarks upon the crime proper. When that is will depend ... upon the facts in any particular case"

Front 5

Whybrow

Back 5

Criminal attempt

For murder, you must intent to kill

Front 6

Campbell

Back 6

NOT more than merely preparatory

In crash helmet, gloves, had imitation gun and a threatening note, but had NOT actually gone into the post office he was arrested outside of

Front 7

Geddes

Back 7

NOT more than merely preparatory

Entered boys toilet with large knife, some rope, and masking tape. Didn't do anything though despite opportunity.

Front 8

Jones

Back 8

MORE than merely preparatory

Obtaining, shortening and loading gun, putting on disguise, going to school = preparatory

Getting into gar, pointing gun at victim = up to jury to decide if more than preparatory

Front 9

Tostii

Back 9

MORE than merely preparatory

Defendant had driven to farm, hid oxygen cutting equipment, and was examining the lock on the door to decide how to break in

Front 10

R v Kingston

Back 10

Involuntary intoxication: defendant mislead as to what they are taking

Defence is available if, without intoxication, Mens Rea would not have formed

but "drunken intent is still intent"

Front 11

Majewski

Back 11

Courts view is that consumption of alcohol is a "reckless course of conduct" and therefore that is enough to establish a reckless mens rea & therefore meets the requirements of a basic intent mens rea

Front 12

Murder: specific or basic?

Back 12

specific

Front 13

Theft: specific or basic?

Back 13

specific

Front 14

Robbery:: specific or basic?

Back 14

specific

Front 15

section9(1)(a) burglary: specific or basic?

Back 15

specific

Front 16

rape & sexual touching: specific or basic?

Back 16

basic

Front 17

Mistake due to voluntary intoxication

Back 17

if the defendant's mistaken belief was due to his voluntary intoxication, he will not be able to relief on that belief

R v O'Grady, R v O'Conner

Front 18

R v Graham

Back 18

Test for duress. Jury should consider:

1) Whether or not the defendant was compelled to act as he did because, on the basis of the circumstances as he honestly believed them to be, he thought his life was in immediate danger. (Subjective test)

2) Would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the defendant's characteristics have responded in the same way to the threats? (Objective test)


The jury should be directed to disregard any evidence of the defendant's intoxicated state when assessing whether he acted under duress, although he may be permitted to raise intoxication as a separate defence in its own right.

Front 19

R v Abbot

Back 19

Duress & proportionality

the greater the crime forced to commit, the greater the threat must be to excuse it

Front 20

R v Cole

Back 20

Duress

must be a nexus between the threat and the offence

Front 21

Abdul-Hussain

Back 21

Evasive action (duress)

Courts have been prepared to look at circumstances the defendant found himself in in cases where there has been a delay between the threat and the crime

Hijacked a plan to escape returning to Iraq, where they would have been tortured and executed

Front 22

R v Sharp

Back 22

Duress: gang membership

Can't use duress if you voluntarily join a criminal organisation which you know might put pressure on you to commit an offence

Front 23

R v Shepherd

Back 23

Duress: gang membership

If you join a gang that you would not expect to commit a certain type of crime (e.g. very violent) the defence of duress might be available

Front 24

R v Hasan (criminal association)

Back 24

"the defence of duress is excluded when as a result of the accused's voluntary association with others engaged in criminal activity he foresaw or ought reasonably to have foreseen the risk of being subjected to any compulsion by threats of violence"

Front 25

Beckford

Back 25

Making the first move can still be self-defence

Front 26

Test for self defence

Back 26

1) Was it necessary to use force (R v Oatridge)
2) was the level of force used reasonable? (R v Owino, R v Shannon)

Front 27

R v Williams

Back 27

Defendant may take the facts as he believed them to be when determining whether he felt force was necessary

This is so even if the defendant's mistake was unreasonable

Front 28

Browne v U.S.

Back 28

"detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife"

Front 29

R v Palmer

Back 29

If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken