Skip to document
Welcome to StudocuSign in to access the best study resources
Guest user
0followers
Upload
HomeMy LibraryAsk AI
  • You don't have any recent items yet.
My Library
  • You don't have any courses yet.
  • You don't have any books yet.
  • You don't have any Studylists yet.

Revision session - sdfdfsdfs

sdfdfsdfs
Course

Law (bit110)

94 Documents
Students shared 94 documents in this course
Academic year: 2020/2021
Uploaded by:
Anonymous Student
This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
Univerzitet u Sarajevu

Recommended for you

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Students also viewed

Related documents

Preview text

‘It is better that people be made criminally liable for risky conduct in order to prevent them committing a crime than that the law waits until it is too late and the harm has been done before people are made liable for their conduct. For this reason the scope of the offence of criminal attempt needs to be much wider than the courts have allowed.’

Discuss.

Rationale of attempt law

‘Embarking on the crime proper’ – Geddes under inclusivity

Objectivist vs subjectivist rationale

(use criteria of q – narrow scope, waiting too late)

  1. Discuss what current scope of attempt is a. ‘Embark on crime proper’ (Guellefer) b. S81(1) Criminal Attempts Act c. Is it too narrow?
  2. Does it wait until it is too late? a. Geddes b. Campbell c. Confrontation problem, acquitted - too close to execution, ‘wait until it is too late’, if law can’t intervene it’s taking too much risk that harm will occur – better to intervene earlier d. BUT views purpose of law as one of prevention of harm i. SUBJECTIVIST RATIONALE (even at expense of interfering w/ autonomy) ii. Vs objectivist rationale – wait until act is manifestly criminally wrong iii. Consider own opinion – Law Commission or balance drawn (right/wrong), or should be more subjectivist/objectivist iv. Could argue no need to make attempt more subjectivist – in practice, pre-emptive offences do that work anyways (e. trespass w/ intent to commit sexual offence brought in to deal w/ Geddes)

(s8 of Aiders & Abettors Act – accomplice will be tried as principal).

Theft, robbery (theft w/ force), burglary. Must have AR & MR. Always discuss all elements

For a first – could get it w/o discussing pen & paper, but have to be really clear on all other points.

PHIL – robbery

JILL – joint principals- robbery, fraud by false misrepresentation, theft of water

  1. Intending to permanently deprive – s(6), treating it as her own regardless of other’s rights (£100 offer
    • almost selling Phil’s own car back to Phil)
  2. Theft of water – appropriates property, dishonest (not her own hotel room, entered by fraud, complimentary meant to be ) a. TEST FOR DISHONESTY: refer to Ivey (recent authority)
  3. Pen – appropriation but no intention to permanently deprive – steals ink though?
  4. Paper (presumably took list of groceries w/ her)

PHIL & JILL - burglary

  1. Walking into hotel w/ intention to steal (s9(1)(a)) – Jones & Smith
  2. Further evidence – go straight to 3rd floor – restricted areas (rooms)
  3. Fraud relevant to Jill’s burglary

ONLY INCLUDE FACTS of cases when subtler points of liability arise – i. when considering whether ratio of precedents

COMPLICITY – post-Jogee, accomplices engaged in joint enterprise (embark on crime together) vs ordinary complicity (giving knife)

a Even when overlap w/ formative, be wary of copying & pasting when not relevant to q – running risk that you’re answering q on diff topic

Was this document helpful?

Revision session - sdfdfsdfs

Course: Law (bit110)

94 Documents
Students shared 94 documents in this course

University: Univerzitet u Sarajevu

Was this document helpful?
‘It is better that people be made criminally liable for risky conduct in order to prevent them committing a crime
than that the law waits until it is too late and the harm has been done before people are made liable for their
conduct. For this reason the scope of the offence of criminal attempt needs to be much wider than the courts
have allowed.’
Discuss.
Rationale of attempt law
‘Embarking on the crime proper’ – Geddes under inclusivity
Objectivist vs subjectivist rationale
(use criteria of q – narrow scope, waiting too late)
1. Discuss what current scope of attempt is
a. ‘Embark on crime proper’ (Guellefer)
b. S81(1) Criminal Attempts Act
c. Is it too narrow?
2. Does it wait until it is too late?
a. Geddes
b. Campbell
c. Confrontation problem, acquitted - too close to execution, ‘wait until it is too late’, if law
can’t intervene it’s taking too much risk that harm will occur – better to intervene earlier
d. BUT views purpose of law as one of prevention of harm
i. SUBJECTIVIST RATIONALE (even at expense of interfering w/ autonomy)
ii. Vs objectivist rationale – wait until act is manifestly criminally wrong
iii. Consider own opinion – Law Commission or balance drawn (right/wrong), or should
be more subjectivist/objectivist
iv. Could argue no need to make attempt more subjectivist – in practice, pre-emptive
offences do that work anyways (e.g. trespass w/ intent to commit sexual offence
brought in to deal w/ Geddes)
(s8 of Aiders & Abettors Act – accomplice will be tried as principal).
Theft, robbery (theft w/ force), burglary. Must have AR & MR. Always discuss all elements

Students also viewed

Related documents