Workshop 3 - multiple choice question and scenario questions PDF

Preview

Summary

multiple choice question and scenario questions...

Description

Unit 3

Workshop 3

W/C 29.10.18 + 05.11.18

Workshop Prepar Preparation ation Essential Readin Reading: g: Read the relevant chapters from either:  Monaghan, Criminal Law Directions (2018) 5th Ed (Ch.2) Case law:  Woollin [1999] 1 A.C. 82 The above case is listed on the Unit 3 reading list. You will need to log into Westlaw here using your UWE login details. Learning how to use the library resources is crucial; more guidance is available via the FfL B.L.I.S tutorials.

Core & Further R Reading: eading: You may also need to read from the core and further reading listed within the Unit 3 Reading List, in order to be able to answer the questions below. Prepare answers to the all of the tasks below and bring your notes to the workshop. Be prepared to share and discuss your views on the issues raised.

Socrative Socrative:: Within this workshop we will be using an online teaching tool called Socrative. Prior to attending your workshop, please download the tool (or App) onto your laptop, tablet or mobile phone and register as a student user: www.socrative.com Skills & Knowledge: It is important to fully prepare for each workshop as it has been designed to ensure that you develop the skills and knowledge that you will need in order to successfully complete the end of Semester 1 assessment in January. The January examination will contain three sections: a multiple choice section, a short answer question section and a problem question section. The last lecture of Semester 1 will focus on the January examination and will provide you with information and guidance.

Task 1: Multiple Choice Questions Each question has only one correct answer. Which of the following cases is an authority for the propositi proposition on that strict liability offen offences ces are compatible with the presumption of innocence? a) b) c) d)

Kumar [2005] Barnfather v IIslington slington Education Authority [2003] – child not going to school B (A Minor) v DPP [2000] K [2002]

1| Page

Unit 3

Workshop 3

W/C 29.10.18 + 05.11.18

Which of the following statemen statements ts is the best fit in relation to the current situation of the law? a) The case of R v G [2003] is the leading authority on recklessness and confirms that a defendant will be held to an objective test of recklessness in relation to the act, regardless of their own appreciation of the situation b) The case of R v G [2003] is the leading authority on recklessness and confirms that a defendant will be held to an objective test of recklessness only in relation to criminal damage. c) The case of R v G [2003] is the leading au authority thority on recklessness and confirms that a defendant must hav a subjective appreciation that what they are doing is have e dangerous or harmf harmful. ul. d) The case of R v G [2003] is the leading authority on recklessness and confirms that a subjective test of recklessness will only be used in circumstances related to arson.

Which of the following cases rela relating ting to intention is the authority ffor or the proposition that for a jury to find intention, a def defendant endant must have a subjective ap appreciation preciation that the outcome is a virtual certainty?- 98% 98%,, the trial judge said it must be more than likely a) b) c) d)

Hyam [1975] Woollin [1999] Mathews & Alleyne [2003] Nedrick [1986]

If a defendant aims a gun at victim 1 and pulls the trigger but hits victim 2, which of the following statements is the m most ost accurate? a) Whether the mens rea would transfer from V1 to V2 would depend on whether the defendant was reckless as to the presence of V2. b) The case of Pembliton provides that any intention aimed at V1 will not have legal relevance with regard to V2. c) It would be necessary for the mens rea to transfer twice and this is not allowed, as per AG’s Ref (No.3 of 1994){1998]. d) The concept of tr transferred ansferred malice would mean that the intention originally focused on V1 would tr transfer ansfer to V2, as per Latimer.

2| Page

Unit 3

Workshop 3

W/C 29.10.18 + 05.11.18

Task 2: Short Answer Questions Guidance:  Each SAQ should be addressed as if it is a ‘mini essay.’  An answer to an SAQ does not require an introduction or conclusion.  Your answer to an SAQ should be written in full English prose, well-articulated and concise.  You should make (at least) one good point for each mark available.  A good point is one that is: o relevant to the question o factually accurate o o

backed up with authority (case law or statute) where applicable or an example that demonstrates knowledge and understanding

Using the guidance above above,, prepare answers to the foll following owing questions. K Keep eep in mind the advice about what a ‘good point’ is. 1) Using case law to support your points, explain the difference between direct and indirect intention and indicate the current legal ‘test’ for both: Direct intent is the aim or purpose of an act, and that the consequences of that act were desired, but not necessarily foreseen as certain. The outcome of the act in which the defendant intends, as per the case of Molony (1985) A.C 905, should be left to the good sense of the jury to decide if in fact the outcome was the intent of the defence, and is usually based on a objective view of the facts presented in the case, as per the case of Chandler (1964) A.C. 763, in which the purpose, of whatever the act may be, was intentional/ set out to achieve desired result, left to the jury, objective as per chandler – the reasonable test. Motive and intention are not the same thing as per the case of Gillick 1) Although indirect intention has been far more problematic and subjected to a greater deal of scrutiny. Direct intention is generally accepted as having the ordinary dictionary meaning and has been found within case law to be separate and distinct from motive/motivation as per Gillick. The case of Chandler 1964 confirms that the wording used is immaterial, it is the objective view of the main aim or purpose and in Maloney intention should be left to the good sense of the jury and further explanation ought to be avoided. Indirect intention is linked with the idea of foresight and whilst the outcome may not be desired if it can be viewed as a necessary consequence or aim of the purpose then indirect intention may be found overtime case law had explored the nature of intention and the concept has been developed, the current leading authority on indirect intention is Woolin 1999 this HoL case redefined the wording and model direction that was first encountered in Nedrick. The Woolin test states that the issue of intention is always a question for the jury and they must be satisfied that the outcome was a virtual certainty and the defendant subjectively appreciated this risk. Only when these parameters are satisfied has the above test been met and the jury may find the intention.

3| Page

Unit 3

Workshop 3

W/C 29.10.18 + 05.11.18

Direct intention test 1) Intention should be left to good sense of the ju jury ry – Moloney Jury should make decision on objective view o the facts, as per Chandler Indirect intention is closely linked to the idea of foresight. And while an outcome may not be desired, if that outcome could be viewed as a necessary consequence of the anal purpose, then indirect intention may be found. The current leading authority is Woolin [1999], this case will find the wording and modern direct in, that was first encountered in Nedrick, 1996. The test states that intention is alwa always ys a question for the jury and that the jury must be satisfied tha thatt the outcome is a virtual certainty subjectively are and the defendant subjectiv ely appreciated that only when the jury ar e satisfied that both limbs of this test hav e been met, they may find indirect intention. have

Indirect intent/ oblique intent is when the consequences of a defendant’s actions are virtually certain to occur along with the defendant’s appreciation that they are so thus is not the defendants aim or purpose that defines oblique intent, but the fact that the outcome was a direct result of their action and that they appreciate this. The legal test for this comes from the case of Nedrick (1868) 1 W.L.R 1025, (5 points) Task 3: Short Answer Questions Prepare an answer to the ffollowing ollowing question: (Within the workshop workshop,, your preparation of the answer to this question will fform orm the basis of a group task) The case of Cunningham 1957 involved an offence against the person and found that the case in this was subjective being that the defendant had to appreciate what they were doing could lead to some harm and recklessly continued anyways. However, in Parker 1977 this involved the criminal damage of a phone box and it was found that the test was objective it was obvious damage was inevitable and he defendant couldn’t escape liability by saying he had not appreciated that damage would occur. Caldwell 1982 set an objective standard for recklessness this then subsequently resulted in a number of cases involving criminal damage where the defendant was convicted although they were reasons why them may not meet the standards of the reasonable man test. Elliot 1983 is one example, here a 14yr old school girl of low intelligence set fire to a tool share it was found that she did not appreciate what she was doing but was still held to the standard of a reasonable prudent man. R and G 2003 put an end to this problem, the case involved two young boys who without any appreciation of the situation built a camp fire and caused up to 1million pounds worth of damage. The case reached the HoL where the finally settled in favour of subjective recklessness now being used in all cases of recklessness. (5 points) Critical Legal Thinking Skills: 4| Page

Unit 3

Workshop 3

W/C 29.10.18 + 05.11.18

It is difficult to practice answering problem questions properly until after we have covered some offences within lectures. For this reason, there will be a lecture at the mid-point of Semester 1 that will focus on how to structure an answer to a problem question, and workshop 4 & 5 will primarily be based on problem questions and how to answer effectively. In the meantime, it is important to start to ‘think like a lawyer’ so when you read problem scenarios, try to do the following:  Identify the law(s) that you consider important to the problem  Consider how the law applies to the person(s)  Back up your points with relevant case law  If possible, form a conclusion Task 4: Problem Questions Scenario A: Simon is in the construction industry and has just embarked upon his biggest development project to date; the demolition of a dozen properties and the building of a luxury block of apartments, complete with gym and swimming pool. He hopes that the project will enable him to employ his younger brother, Harry, who is a rather aimless and hapless 17-year-old, who seems to have no ambition other than to have sex with his older [married] girlfriend. A routine health and safety inspection of the project site (after the demolition of the buildings) reveals the dead body of a man and Simon is horrified to discover that his new project has now become a crime scene and that work will have to stop to allow investigation. Simon has placed the financial well-being of his construction business on the line for this new project and so is now worried that the police investigation will drag on and, ultimately, force him out of business. When Simon discovers that the body is that of James, he realises that this must be something to do with his brother and goes completely ‘mad’ because, not only does it seem that Harry might have killed James, but he also chose to conceal the body in a way that might now force Simon out of business. He jumps in his car and goes looking for his brother, finally tracking him down at India’s house, where he is playing the role of dutiful ‘friend’ and comforting India in her hour of need! The two brothers have a violent argument that deteriorates into a physical altercation. During the shouting and fighting Simon mistakenly hits India, who has inadvertently got in the way of a punch that was aimed at Harry. Despite receiving a nasty blow to the head, India realises that Simon is accusing Harry of killing James, and, suddenly understands that this might be the case. She phones the police and notifies the investigating officer of what has happened, but whilst she is doing this, Harry runs from the house. Later on that evening, Harry (who has been sat hidden in the bushes, watching India’s house) decides to take his revenge. When India leaves the house in order to walk to her friend Charlotte’s house, he buys a can of petrol from the local petrol station and pours it through the letter box and sets light to it. As he walks away he notices that there is a strange car on the driveway but he thinks nothing more of it and leaves the house to go up in flames, thinking that he has taken his revenge on India for informing on him to the police.

5| Page

Unit 3

Workshop 3

W/C 29.10.18 + 05.11.18

Unfortunately the ‘strange car’ belongs to Roger (an old university friend) who is staying the night at India’s house on a quick ‘stopover’ because he has to fly from a local airport early the next morning. Roger has taken a mild sleeping tablet to ensure that he gets a good night’s sleep before the early start the next day and so does not wake up when the smoke alarm sounds. Roger dies in the ensuing house fire. Should Harry be charged with murder or manslaughter? 1) Always start with murder – intentional death of another Specific intention as he planned it so harry could be liable for murder Nedrick, Hyman 2) Actus Reus Causation, Factual causation ‘But for’ the actions of Harry Rodger wouldn’t have died Actus reus and mens rea to be guilty of a crime. We have the actus reus but not the mens rea. Defendant must be the operating and substantial cause of death Both legal and factual cause of death Mens rea – intention to kill or intention to cause GBH Direct intent- is it his main aim or purpose to kill? And the jury would find its not his main aim as his intention is to scare Indirect intention- virtually certain from the case of Woolin Can’t be virtually certain because there’s a car on the drive that it doesn’t belong to them Chances are if there’s a car on the drive then someone’s home, but this is not virtually certain

3) Transferred Malice as he was meant to get revenge for India calling the police however instead Roger died. However, you can’t apply it because it’s from property damage to murder, not the same outcome. His main aim/purpose was to harm the house, to get revenge for India calling the police. No direct intent. From the case of Latimer and Pemblington

4) Indirect intent? – No. Therefore, we can’t find him guilty of murder but RECKLESS – guilty of MANSLAUGHTER. Does he subjectively realise the act of arson may hurt someone? No We Can’t transfer the malice because it’s from property damage to murder – not the same outcome (as per Latimer, the harm needs to be the same) Pembleton, the harm is different) So, recklessness and manslaughter

(always start with murder and work your way down/backwards)

6| Page

Unit 3

Workshop 3

W/C 29.10.18 + 05.11.18

Because we have not yet covered the offences of murder and manslaughter it is not possible for you to answer this problem question entirely, so, within this answer you should focus on the mens rea element. HOWEVER HOWEVER, please use this opportunity to ‘think like a lawyer’ and try to approach this in a structured, coherent way (as outlined at the bottom of page 3). Some of the information has been provided for you, this is so the format is more understandable.

Identif Identify y the Law:  We haven’t actually covered murder/manslaughter yet but whether a defendant has ‘intention’ makes the difference between a murder conviction or a manslaughter conviction!  Do Harry’s actions amount to intention? Identif Identify y the Offence:  What offence should be the starting point?  Because Roger has died, the starting place should be whether this is murder.  Murder is an offence of specific intent and a very basic definition is the ‘intentional causing of death’ Offence: A Actus ctus Reus  This would usually involve working through all of the elements that make up the actus reus to decide whether Harry has performed the actus reus of murder.  Can a causal link between Harry’s actions and Roger’s death be demonstrated?  Remember that you need to summarise the law and then apply it, with supporting case law, to the facts of the scenario  Is it possible to demonstrate that Harry has performed the actus reus of murder? If yes, then continue. Offence: Men Menss Rea You shou should ld now have a go at completing the rrest est of this answer answer..

When completing the above task, what should you be thinking about?  What is the mens rea for murder?  How would I briefly summarise the law on this type of mens rea?  Are there legal tests that should be used?  What facts in the scenario are relevant to Harry’s state of mind?  Are there any cases that are relevant to scenario?  When the facts of the scenario are applied to the law, can the mens rea of murder be demonstrated?  If yes, what is the possible outcome?  If no, what is the possible outcome?

7| Page...