Criminal Law

LW508

2017-18

MODULE OUTLINE AND SEMINAR GUIDE

This module outline contains information without which you will not be
able to participate effectively in the module it is essential that you
familiarise yourself with its content at the start of the course.

Module co-convenor: Johanne Thompson

Eliot N3N6, Tel: 01227 8(16379)
J.M.Thompson@kent.ac.uk

Number of credits: 30

Contact hours per week: 2 lectures

1 seminar

Expected student study hours per week: 12 hours

CONTENTS

PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. TEACHING STAFF 3

3. LEARNING OUTCOMES 4

4. TEACHING ARRANGEMENTS 5

5. TEACHING SCHEDULE 6

6. READING 7

7. ASSESSMENT METHODS AND CRITERIA 9

8. ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE 12

9. WEEKLY SEMINAR WORK 13

2
 1. INTRODUCTION

Welcome to the LW508 Criminal Law module!

This course aims to introduce many of the core principles of criminal law and to aid you
to think critically about the subject, contextualising it and recognising its place in and
impact on society. This year we will also guide you through some of the more topical
aspects of criminal law though we cannot even begin to cover all the criminal offences
which exist in England and Wales.

Curriculum Synopsis
Introduction to the concept of crime, the structure of criminal justice and the general
principles of liability
Harm and the boundaries of criminal law
Murder: the problem of causation and omissions and intent to kill
Defences to murder: loss of control and diminished responsibility
General defences: self-defence, insanity, automatism and others
Manslaughter: unlawful act, recklessness and gross negligence
Non-fatal offences against the person
Sexual offences
Property offences: Theft Act 1968, the Fraud Act 2006 and criminal damage
Inchoate offences: conspiracy, attempts, Serious Crime Act 2007
Accessorial Liability: Joint enterprise and Accessories and Abettors Act 1861

2. TEACHING STAFF (LECTURERS)

Staff Member Email Address

Dermot Walsh D.P.Walsh@kent.ac.uk
Lisa Dickson L.M.Dickson@kent.ac.uk
Flora Renz F.Renz@kent.ac.uk
Antonia Porter A.D.Porter-28@kent.ac.uk
Johanne Thompson J.M.Thompson@kent.ac.uk

Details of teaching staff/emails/office hours will be communicated on Moodle.

3
 3. LEARNING OUTCOMES

Learning outcomes:
Subject specific learning outcomes:

Students who successfully complete this module will:

Have a sound grounding in the concepts, principles and rules of criminal
offences; in particular, the law relating to murder/manslaughter, non-fatal
offences, defences, property offences, inchoate offences and accessorial
liability;
Have a good understanding of the wider debate in respect of the place of
criminal law in the social context, the definitions of harm and the boundaries of
criminal law;
Be able to engage in practical application of their knowledge, through
consideration of criminal law problem questions, and encourage critical debate
of the issues raised;
Have a clear understanding of the concepts, principles and rules of criminal law
considered in this module;
Have knowledge of the major theoretical debates in the criminal law field;
Have the ability to analyse given situations and apply legal principles and case
law to assess criminal liability and any defences;
On presentation of case facts, be able to identify relevant legal rules, principles
and case and statute law applicable for analysis and critique of the facts;
Be able to discuss the major areas of criminal law, making appropriate
reference to legal and academic source authorities;
Be able to evaluate the operation of the criminal law in the social context; and
Have the ability to engage in reasoned and informed discussion on the major
areas of criminal law both orally, and in writing.

Generic learning outcomes:

To introduce students to the application of law to case facts and the use of case
precedent to justify assessment of criminal liability;
To provide the opportunity to students to develop research and presentation
skills through class presentations;
To have the ability to undertake legal research;
To have the skills necessary to present, orally and in writing, legal argument;
To recognise potential alternative conclusions for particular situations, and
provide supporting reasons for them;
To identify and retrieve up-to-date information, using paper and electronic
sources;
To use the relevant legal terminology with care and accuracy; and
To present and evaluate information in a numerical or statistical form.

4
 4. TEACHING ARRANGEMENTS

There will be two lectures per week during the first two terms (excluding reading
& writing weeks). These lectures are available to students on the criminal law
Moodle page. Power-points used in lectures throughout the course are also
available on the Moodle page, generally in advance of the lecture and students
may find it useful to print these out before the lecture.

In certain weeks, there are lectures included on topics of current debate

within Criminal Law these are for interest and discussion and to
broaden your consideration and understanding of the subject. These
topics are marked in the lecture timetable with 3 asterisks (***) and will
NOT be examined.

There is one seminar per week during the first two terms (excluding reading &
writing weeks). Seminars are a crucial element of our learning and teaching
strategy and are designed to ensure that all students who come prepared
benefit from attendance. Seminar attendance is COMPULSORY, is monitored
and performance in seminars is used by staff in preparing references. Students
are expected to prepare fully for seminars and to contribute to discussions. As
a last resort, seminar leaders have the discretion to ask a student to leave a
seminar if, in their view, the student's presence is impeding the learning
experience of other students in the seminar. In some circumstances this may
include students who fail to meet the requirement to prepare.

Additional help with your work

There are podcasts of lectures on academic skills on the KLS Skills Hub Moodle page,
and other sessions will be run by the Skills Hub throughout the year. These can help you
to get the best out of your classes and assessments.

Note: KLS also has 'Skills Hub weekly drop-in hours where students can go to ask for
guidance on study-related issues. More details (including opening times) can be found
on the Skills Hub Moodle page.

You are welcome to discuss your understanding of the module content with seminar
leaders during their office hours. However, seminar leaders will not read/correct any draft
work or plans.

The Student Learning Advisory Service also offers workshops, online study guides, and
one-to-one appointments to help with study skills, including essay writing and referencing:
http://www.kent.ac.uk/uelt/about/slas.html

5
 5. TEACHING SCHEDULE

Monday Lecture Friday Lecture Seminar LW508

Week 1: Induction Week no lectures or seminars for LW508

Week 2 Introduction (LD) Visibility of Women in the CJS 1. Intro

and R v Jogee
(Felicity Gerry QC) Guest ***
Week 3 Morality & Harm (JT) AR Causation (FR) 2. Criminal Justice
System
Week 4 AR Omissions (FR) Mens Rea (FR) 3. Morality & Harm

Week 5 READING WEEK

Week 6 Homicide 1 Murder Homicide 2 - DR (DW) 4. AR

(DW) Causation/Omissions
Week 7 Homicide 3 LOC (DW) Homicide 4 GN/Reckless 5. Mens Rea &
MS (DW) Causation
Week 8 Homicide 5 UAM (DW) Terrorism (DW) *** 6. Murder AR & MR

Week 9 Skills 1: Case Notes (JT) Defences - 1 (DW) 7. Murder Partial

Defences
Week 10 Defences - 2 (DW) Defences 3 (DW) 8. Case Note

Week 11 Transgender (FR)*** Drop In (JT, LD & FR) 9. MS

Week 12 WRITING WEEK

WINTER BREAK

Week 13 OAPA Ass/Batt (JT) OAPA S.47/20/18 (JT) 10. Unseen PQ

Week 14 OAPA Reforms (JT) Oral Presentations (JT) 11. OAPA - offences

Week 15 Sexual Offences (JT) Sexual offences (JT) 12. OAPA essay reforms

Week 16 Sexual abuse (AP)*** Public Order (DW) 13. Sexual offences

Week 17 READING WEEK

Week 18 Theft 1 (LD) Theft 2 (LD) 14. Exam Q unseen PQ

Week 19 Theft 3 (LD) Robbery & Burglary (FR) 15. Theft

Week 20 Criminal Damage (FR) Fraud (FR) 16. Robbery / Burglary

Week 21 Fraud (FR) Cybercrime (LD) *** 17. Criminal Damage

Week 22 Inchoate Offences (FR) Accessorial Liability - Joint 18. Theft/Fraud

Enterprise (FR)
Week 23 Revision (JT) Drop in (JT, LD & FR) 19. Inchoate Offences

Week 24 WRITING WEEK

6
Reading & Writing Weeks:

The Reading week is the same for all modules but Writing weeks can differ so make
sure you are aware of the writing week for each of your modules and do not assume
they are the same. These are the dates for LW508:

Autumn Term: Reading week: 23rd October 27th October 2017 (week 5)
Writing week: 11th December 15th December 2017 (week 12)

Spring Term: Reading week: 12th February 16th February 2018 (week 17)
Writing week: 2nd April 6th April 2018 (week 24)

6. READING

Suggested for student purchase:

The following text is required for the course and you weekly reading will be taken from this
book

Herring, J Criminal Law, Texts, Cases & Materials 7th edition, OUP, 2016

You should also purchase a Statute book for Criminal Law (if you do not buy the
bundle) you will be able to take this statute book into the examination provided
you have not annotated the book.

In previous years, the Blackwells bookshop on campus has done bundle option for
purchase of the textbook with a statute book which would save a bit of money worth
checking to see if they are doing the same thing this year. If buying separately, please
buy the statute book as early as possible as Blackwells will not re-order near the exam
period.

Recommended text:

The Library will have copies of other textbooks to allow you to read more broadly and it
always worth having a look at another authors viewpoint on a particular area of law.

Ashworth, Andrew and Horder, Jeremy (2016) Principles of Criminal Law, (8th
Edition, Oxford University Press)
Ormerod, David, (2015) Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law, (14th edition, Oxford
University Press)
Padfield, Nicola, (2016) Criminal Law, (10th edition Oxford University Press)
Wilson, William, (2017) Criminal Law, (6th Edition, Pearson)

However, these are only a selection of textbooks there are many more. Wider reading
is essential for assessments.

7
Information Technology

Information technology is used in a variety of ways in KLS, and you should familiarise yourself
with the pages for undergraduates on the KLS website.

i) The module web page in Moodle at https://moodle.kent.ac.uk/:

This enables you not only to read all the course handouts, including lecture outlines and
seminar worksheets, reading materials and assessment details, but also to download them. In
addition to handouts, the page will contain a selection of web links, audio files of the lectures,
announcements, and links to further resources.

ii) Electronic legal resources:

Journal articles, law reports and legislation - with the same text formatting as the originals -
can be obtained via the Internet - see Lawlinks (http://www.kent.ac.uk/lawlinks/) for the
gateway to these web resources. There are self-help tutorials built in to the library website to
help you do this, or the law library staff can help you: Theresa Thurston will be the main point
of contact for law library enquiries.
Note that searching the Internet (e.g. with Google) will not pick up the datasets in which most
electronic versions of primary and secondary legal sources are held. Sites like Wikipedia are
not authoritative sources of legal information and at best provide only a starting point for your
research.

8
 7. ASSESSMENT METHODS AND CRITERIA

LW508 is assessed by both assessment methods throughout the year:

coursework (10% + 10%) and an exam (80%) in the summer term.

The Form of Coursework

Coursework forms 20% of the module grade and is comprised of 2 separate

assessments which are equally weighted at 10% of the module mark.

Assessment 1: CASE NOTE (10%)

Assessment 1 is due to be submitted by 2pm on Friday 15th December 2017.

You need only submit this assessment on Turnitin you do NOT need to submit
hardcopy as well.

The first piece of coursework is a case note of 1500 words.

The subject of the case-note is:

Attorney Generals (AG) Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1996] 2 All ER 10.

Assessment 2: ORAL PRESENTATION GROUP WORK (10%)

Assessment 2 will take place during Spring term. You will be provided with the timing
of your group presentation early in Spring term, and it will be in the period week 19-
week 23.

The second assessment is a group presentation where students prepare arguments

in support of a proposition about the criminal law before a judge (seminar leader).

Important note: As part of the assessment students are required to present at least
one slide (or an A4 handout) making use of statistical data. The statistics must be
used to further the arguments made about the proposition under debate. (See
information sheet on Moodle headed Statistical data in oral assessments). This is a
crucial element for marking your presentation and must be adhered to.

These assessments will be videoed.

Assessment 3: EXAM (80%)

The examination in summer term.

The examination forms 80% of the module grade.

The examination takes the form of a three-hour unseen paper.
Towards the end of Spring term information about the examination will be put
up on the Moodle page.

9
 Candidates are provided with a case list of the cases covered in the course and
you are permitted to take a statute book into the exam provided that it has not
been annotated
The examination takes the form of two sections A and B. You must answer
one question in section A and two questions in section B.
Section A takes the form of a case note (from a choice which will be put up on
Moodle during Spring term). All students must choose a case note from the list
and prepare a critical case note to be written in the examination
Section B takes the form of three problem questions and three essay questions
and students must answer their choice of two questions.

School and University policy on avoiding plagiarism

What is plagiarism?
Plagiarism is a form of academic misconduct. Plagiarism may be committed in a
number of ways, including:
Copying another person's work or ideas. This includes copying from other
students and from published or unpublished material such as books, internet
sources, paper mills, or similar
Submitting previously submitted or assessed work of your own without
attribution
Submitting work solicited from (or written by) others
Failing to adequately reference your sources
Plagiarism and duplication of material, as defined below, are cited in the regulations
as examples of breaches of General Regulation V.3:
Plagiarism: Reproducing in any work submitted for assessment or review (for
example, examination answers, essays, project reports, dissertations or
theses) any material derived from work authored by another without clearly
acknowledging the source
Duplication of material: Reproducing in any submitted work any substantial
amount of material used by that student in other work for assessment, either at
this University or elsewhere, without acknowledging that such work has been
so submitted
If you use someone else's work, you must acknowledge your original source or
sources:
in the body of your work (in-text referencing or citation) AND
linking your citations to your list of works cited (also reference list or
bibliography).
In this module, material which you must acknowledge includes but is not limited to:
exact words (written or spoken) *Note that exact words must be placed in
quotation marks. See the OSCOLA reference style guide on the Skills Hub
Moodle page for details
summarised or paraphrased text

10
 ideas or concepts
theories
opinion or analysis
More information is available in the Law Student Guide and at the Academic Integrity
website: www.kent.ac.uk/ai.

Word limits & marking

Ensure that you understand word limits (the word count includes quotations and footnotes).
Exceeding or substantially falling short of word limits will result in a penalty (see KLSs Word
Count Policy, available in the Law Student Guide on Moodle).

You should also familiarise yourself with the categorical marking scheme. The Universitys
guidance can be found (by scrolling down the page to Changes to the Universitys Marking
Scale) at http://www.kent.ac.uk/teaching/qa/guidance/changesclassificationug.html.

Deadlines and Extensions

Please note that assessment deadlines are strictly enforced (see the Deadlines and Extensions
section in the Law Student Guide). This means that if you submit an assessment late, it will not
count unless:

a) there is a good reason for the lateness and

b) the work is handed in before others work is returned or the assessment is discussed in
seminars and

c) an extension has been approved by the relevant Stage Chief Examiner (see below).

Staff will not accept coursework submitted after the deadline except in concessionary
circumstances and as authorised by the chief examiner for the appropriate Stage. Concessions
applications requesting an extension for coursework must be submitted using the appropriate Late
Coursework Submission Form (available at the Student Advice Office or the Law Student Guide
on Moodle). Individual seminar leaders cannot grant extensions. Concessions applications will
be considered only if submitted with a clear and concise account of the concessionary
circumstances and the impact on the students studies and with all necessary documentary
evidence.

11
 8. ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE

Assessment Format Question Submission Mark and % of final

no. Release Date Feedback mark
Date Returned

1 Case note Week 1 15.12.17 22.01.18 10%

Weeks 19-23 in the

2 Group Presentation Week 12 spring End April 10%
term

Collecting your feedback

Please note that seminar leaders will mark your written work (assessment 1) online
via Turnitin, so your feedback will be available to view there. You will always have
feedback available on your written assessments, which is found on Turnitin.

Please read your feedback as this will be helpful for your case note in the exam and
all assessments in other modules. Feedback is a useful tool for future personal and
academic development so read it!

You will have a copy of the seminar leaders report on your group oral presentation
(assessment 2) after all the presentations are completed.

If you have questions at any point in the year there are a variety of ways in which these
may be answered. First and foremost, questions can be put to your seminar leader in
class; this is particularly helpful, as it gives us the chance to discuss any points that may
arise.
Secondly, questions can be asked in lectures where time permits. Alternatively, you
may email the relevant lecturer (where the question is topic specific) or the module
convenor (where the question is about the organisation of the module). This may be
answered either by email or in class, dependent on what is deemed appropriate. Staff
also have office hours where you may approach them and ask questions.

12
 9. WEEKLY SEMINAR WORK:

REQUIRED READING AND SEMINAR PREP WORK

Topic areas includes REQUIRED and some additional BACKGROUND reading. The
former is essential for your understanding of lectures and participation in seminars;
the latter provides greater depth which will be helpful in seminars and for assessment
purposes. You are strongly encouraged to undertake independent research.

Week-by-Week Synopsis

Week 1: Induction

No lectures or seminars for LW508.

Criminal Justice System

Week 2 - Seminar 1: Introducing the Criminal Justice System

Required Reading:

Herring pp 1 - 19 (up to 6.2 The Harm Principle)

Pre-seminar Activity

Find some examples from the recent news of interesting actions by the institutions playing
a role in criminal law e.g. police, prisons, or a recent case decision that you find
interesting for discussion in class.

For the seminar:

Firstly, this will be an introductory seminar meeting to discuss administrative matters.

In the remaining time, you will discuss purposes of criminal law, its sources, and how it
has developed.

Questions

1. What do you understand by the term criminal law?

2. What institutions play a role in enforcing criminal law?
3. What are the sources of criminal law?
4. Thinking ahead to the following seminar what sort of actions should be
criminalised

13
Week 3 - Seminar 2: Criminal Justice System

In this seminar, you will have the first chance of reading the case for your first
assessment. However, the discussion for the seminar will be based on the way the
case progresses through the courts, identifying the different courts in the Criminal
Justice System (not the civil court structure in this module). This is crucial not only for
your understanding how judicial precedent works, but is useful for the English Legal
System module (LW327) and the MCT (due in week 8).

Required reading

AGs Ref (No.3 of 1994) (1996) 2 All ER 10

The defendant stabbed his pregnant girlfriend in the face,
abdomen and back when she was 22-24 weeks pregnant. 17 days
after the incident the woman went into premature labour and
gave birth to a live baby. The baby died 121 days later due to the
premature birth. The defendant was charged with wounding and
GBH on the mother and convicted for which he received a
sentence of 4 years. On the death of the baby he was also
charged with murder and manslaughter. The trial judge held that
he could not be convicted of murder or manslaughter since at the
time of the attack the foetus was not in law classed as a human
being and thus the mens rea aimed at the mother could not be
transferred to the foetus as it would constitute a different
offence. The Attorney General referred the following point of law:

"1.1 Subject to the proof by the prosecution of the requisite

intent in either case: whether the crimes of murder or
manslaughter can be committed where unlawful injury is
deliberately inflicted:

(i) to a child in utero

(ii) to a mother carrying a child in utero

where the child is subsequently born alive, enjoys an existence

independent of the mother, thereafter dies and the injuries
inflicted while in utero either caused or made a substantial
contribution to the death.

14
"1.2 Whether the fact that the death of the child is caused solely
as a consequence of injury to the mother rather than as a
consequence of direct injury to the foetus can negative any
liability for murder or manslaughter in the circumstances set out
in question 1.1."

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision in relation to murder.

The defendant appealed to the House of Lords

Held:

The appellant's actions could not amount to murder for the

reasons given by the trial judge. However, his actions could
amount to constructive manslaughter. There was no requirement
that the foetus be classed as a human being provided causation
was proved. The attack on the mother was an unlawful act which
caused the death of the baby. There is no requirement under
constructive manslaughter that the unlawful act is aimed at the
actual victim or that the unlawful act was directed at a human
being.

Wilson, S. et al, English Legal System, (2016) (OUP, 2nd Edition), pp 35 54 (2.4
Criminal law and civil law terminology, differences, and themes & 2.5 Classification of
the courts).

Additional reading

Wilson, S. et al, English Legal System, (2016) (OUP, 2nd Edition)

Chapter 12 The Criminal Process: the suspect and the police

Chapter 13 The Criminal Process: pre-trial and the trial

For the seminar:

1. Explain the hierarchical structure in the criminal justice system. (Here you
need to understand the terms judicial precedent, ratio, obiter, binding,
persuasive, distinguishing etc). What is the role of each court? How does the
common law operate in England and Wales?

15
Ratio: Essential for the law
Obiter: Not
Binding: Sets new precedent with legal obligation
Persuasive: Not
Distinguishing: In law, to distinguish a case means a court decides the holding or legal
reasoning of a precedent case will not apply due to materially different facts between the
two cases.

2. Explain the decisions from each court in AGs Ref (No.3 of 1994) (1996) 2 All
ER 10 what was the ratio in each decision and who made it?

16
 3. Find at least 2 articles/journals/cases that this case was discussed or had an
impact on?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/premature-babys-death-not-murder-
but-manslaughter-1233310.html

Week 4 Seminar 3: Morality, Harm and Criminalisation

Which Principles or Concerns Determine Which Conduct Should be

Criminalised?

Required Reading:

Herring pp 19 (from 6.2 The Harm Principle) 41 (up to 10 Criminal Law and the Human
Rights Act 1998 and p 70 (Concluding Thoughts).

R v Brown (1993) 2 All E.R 75; [1994]1 A C 212 (HL) [contrast Lord Templemans speech
with that of Lord Mustill]

Additional Reading:

Herring pp 41 (remainder) 69

Cases

Except where indicated you need to read these cases in their entirety for discussion

Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498

Wilson (1996) Crim. L.R, 573; [1997] QB 47
Emmett, The Times, October 15, 1999
Barnes [2005] 1 WLR 910
Laskey, Jaggard & Brown v UK (1997) 24 E.H.R.R. 39
ADT v UK (2000) 9 B.H.R.C. 112

For the seminar:

For discussion find some examples of acts that you think should be criminalised
that are not, or perhaps some actions that are criminalised that you think ought
not to be you need to provide good solid argument as to why you think your
position is correct.

17
1. What is harm and how does the criminal law view harm how do you think the
criminal law should view harm?

2. Thinking about the case of Brown - how does the Criminal Law view the ideas of
harm, morality and the public interest?

WEEK 5 IS READING WEEK

You should take the opportunity to catch up with the additional readings from
Herring specified above.

Please note: there is a lot of material to read for the upcoming weeks for actus
reus and mens rea.

Use reading week wisely!

___________________________________________________________________

Offences against People

Actus Reus and Mens Rea

This is the beginning where we focus on the substantive criminal law. We will explore the
elements which are needed to prove criminal liability by the prosecution. The Latin
maxim, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, is fundamental to criminal liability. It
means an act does not make a man guilty of a crime unless his mind be also guilty.

Criminal offences are made up of 2 main elements: actus reus (AR) and mens rea (MR).
Actus Reus, literally translated, means guilty act. Mens Rea, literally translated, means
guilty mind. You will come across these terms throughout this module when examining
criminal offences, therefore, you must understand these principles fully.

Week 6 - Seminar 4: Actus reus Causation and Omission

This seminar introduces the important ideas of actus reus and causation and how they
are applied in the courts.

18
Furthermore, this seminar will seek to analyse the circumstances in which a failure to act
may give rise to criminal liability.

Required Reading:

Causation Herring pp 71 - 72 and 87 - 103 (up to Part II)

Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279

Omission Herring pp 73 - 86
Evans (Gemma) [2009] EWCA Crim 65

Additional Reading

Causation Herring pp 103 (remainder) - 110 (part) and 119 end

Omission Herring pp 110 (remainder) - 118

Causation

White [1910] 2 KB 124

Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273
Kimsey [1996] Crim LR de minimis principle
Blaue (1975) 3 All ER 446
Jordan (1956) 40 Crim App R 152
Malcherek; Steele (1981) 2 All E.R 422
Roberts (1972) Crim LR 27
Williams and Davies (1992) 95 Cr App R 1
Lewis [2010] EWCA Crim 151
Smith (1959) 2 All ER 193; [1959] 2 QB 35
AGs Ref (No.3 of 1994) (1996) 2 All ER 10
Kennedy (No. 2) [2007] UKHL 38

Omissions

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) 1 All ER 821; [1983] 2 WLR 316
Fagan (1968) 3 All ER 442; [1969] 1 QB 439
Lowe (1973) 1 All ER 805
Miller (1983) 1 All ER 978; [1983] 2 AC 161
Stone and Dobinson (1977) 2 All ER 341; [1977] QB 354
Smith [1879] Crim LR 251
Gibbons and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134
Ruffell [2003] EWCA Crim 122
Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37
Dytham [1979] QB 722
A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment) (No. 1) [2001] 2 WLR 480
(also for defences of self-defence and necessity)

19
BACKGROUND

Gardner, S., Causation in Homicide, (1992) 108 LQR 24 - 26

Virgo, G., Constructing manslaughter in drug abuse cases (2003) CLJ 62(1) 12 - 14
Heaton, Dealing in death, (2003) Crim L R Aug 497 - 509
Ormerod, D. and Fortson, Drug Suppliers as Manslaughterers (again), [2005] Crim L R
819
Elliot, C. and De Than, C. (2006) Prosecuting the Drug Dealer When a Drug User Dies:
R v Kennedy (No 2) Modern Law Review 69: 986
Ashworth, A. The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions, (1989) 105 LQR 424
Baker, D. Omissions Liability for Homicide Offences; Reconciling R v Kennedy with R v
Evans, (2010) 74 JCL 310
Elliot, C. Liability for Manslaughter by Omission: Dont Let the Baby Drown! (2010) 74
JCL 163
Williams, G. Criminal Omissions The Conventional View, (1991) 107 LQR 86

The Law Commission document on murder is LC304 Murder, Manslaughter and

Infanticide 2006 and you can find it easily by searching using the Law Library.

For the seminar:

Consider the following for chains of causation or omissions:

A and B are fighting and B is knocked to the ground bleeding and unconscious.
A leaves the scene. When B regains consciousness, he goes to the hospital
where he is told he needs a blood transfusion. Because of his religious beliefs, he
refuses this and goes home, where he slips into a coma and dies.

A stabs B, his pregnant girlfriend. B recovers from her wounds but her baby is
delivered prematurely. Doctors say the baby is fit and well. The baby dies and it
is discovered that the baby was injured in utero by the stab wound.

Toyah stabbed John in the arm whilst they were arguing in the street. Toyah ran
off. His injury was not serious but he needed stitches, so a passerby took John
to hospital in his car, but on the way, the car crashed and John sustained a head
injury, from which he dies.

Lily decides to kill her partner, Betty. She takes a shotgun and loads it. She waits
until Betty goes bed and falls asleep. Lily goes into the bedroom and shoots Betty
in the head. Unknown to her, Betty dies from a drug overdose 20 minutes before
she shot her.

A is a lifeguard on duty on a crowded beach and swimmers alert him to B

struggling in the water calling for help. As A swims out he recognises B as the
man who punched him in a pub. A starts swimming back to shore and a wave
from a passing motor launch engulfs B and he drowns.

20
 A is walking past a lake when he sees B drowning. He drags B to the shore and
sees that breathing has stopped, but he is afraid that if he gives mouth-to-mouth
resuscitation he will catch a disease. He immediately calls an ambulance but
when they arrive B is dead.

A intends to poison her husband B. She is serving him with a poisoned casserole
when C, her 5-year old daughter comes in and B gives her a spoon of casserole.
A throws a pan at C to try to stop her eating it but it hits B, who dies from the blow.
C dies from the poison.

Week 7 - Seminar 5: Mens rea (including transferred malice &

coincidence of AR & MR)

By addressing mens rea in respect of homicide offences, this seminar builds upon the
previous two seminars concerning the actus reus. It is, however, crucial to be aware that
the mens rea for murder is different from those for attempted murder.

Required Reading:

Herring pp 132 - 154 (part); 162 - 169 (part)

R v JF [2015] EWCA Crim 351

Additional Reading

Herring pp 169 (remainder) - 210

Cases
Mohan [1976] QB 1
R v G and another [2003] UKHL 50
Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
AGs Ref (No3 of 1994) (1996) 2All E.R 10 (can be used for causation too)
Smith (1960) 3 All ER 161; [1961] AC 290
Hyam v DPP [1975] 1 AC 55
Moloney (1985) AC 905
Hancock and Shankland [1986] AC 455
Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025
Woollin (1998) Crim LR 890; [1999] 1 AC 82
Matthews and Alleyne [2003] 2 Cr App R 30

Other cases dealing with the concept of AR & MR

Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359
Mitchell [1983] QB 741 (can be used for but for test too)
Gnango [2011] UKSC 59
Pembliton (1874) 2 CCR 119
Thabo Meli [1954] 1 WLR 288
Fagan (1968) 3 All ER 442; [1969] 1 QB 439

Background

21
Mens Rea: R v Woollin, (1997) Crim LR 519 - 520
Simester, A. & Chan, Intention Thus Far, (1997) Crim LR 704 - 719
Norrie, A., After Woollin, (1999) Crim LR 532
Tadros, The Homicide Ladder (2006) MLR 601
Coffey, G., Codifying the Meaning of Intention in the Criminal Law, (2009) 73 JCL 394
Kaverny, M.C., Inferring Intention from Foresight, (2004) 120 LQR 81
Pedain, A., Intention & the Terrorist Example, (2003) Crim LR Sept 579 - 593

For the seminar:

Consider the following legal problem only in terms of Kens mentes reae (the
plural of mens rea): -

Ken's furniture manufacturing business is in severe financial trouble and Ken

himself is on the verge of bankruptcy. One lunch time, Ken is going to the pub
and is securing the premises when he notices smoke coming from the storage
area. The workmen often take their tea breaks there and Ken's first thought is that
one of them had been careless with a cigarette. His second thought is that a fire
would come in handy and that the insurance payments would solve his immediate
financial problems. Accordingly, he shouts to make sure no workmen are on the
premises and then locks the door before going off to the pub as he intended. He
takes no steps to extinguish the fire.

Almost immediately he remembers that his elderly secretary, Norma, is upstairs

in the office catching up on some paperwork for the VAT returns. He feels that he
cannot warn her without revealing his plan to defraud the insurance company. He
carries on to the pub.

The fire catches hold. Norma smells the smoke and tries to leave. The office fire
escape door has been locked by mistake. Rather than phone the fire brigade and
wait for rescue, Norma chooses to go down the main stairs although she can see
that this is very dangerous. Halfway down, she suffers a massive heart attack
from an inherent defect that neither she nor her doctor were aware of and dies.
Ken is charged with her murder.

Discuss Ken's criminal liability:

a) On the facts as stated above;

(if time permits)

b) As above but Ken decides before leaving that he will wait fifteen minutes and
then call the fire brigade, believing they will arrive in time to save Norma.

c) If Ken starts the fire not realising Norma is in the building.

22
Week 8 - Seminar 6 - Homicide 1 murder: actus reus and mens rea

Homicide is an umbrella term which encompasses both lawful and unlawful killings.
Lawful if it was justified ie in self-defence. Unlawful acts include offences of murder,
manslaughter, death by dangerous driving and infanticide. It the first two that we will
be focusing on in this module. Murder is the most serious offence; manslaughter the
less serious offence of homicide. We will be dealing with murder this week.

Required Reading:

Herring pp 231 - 236 (up to Loss of Control)

Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396

Additional Reading:

Herring pp 280 - 290 (up to section 18)

Cases
Woollin (1998) Crim LR 890; [1999] 1 AC 82
Malcharek; Steel [1981] 1 WLR 690
Enoch (1830) 5 C & P 539
DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 (on the definition of GBH only)
Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846

Background

Law Commission Report, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide, (Law Com. No 304),
Nov 2006
Ashworth, A, Principles, Pragmatism and the Law Commissions Recommendations
on Homicide Law Reform, [2007] Crim LR 333

For the seminar:

1. What is the difference between intention and recklessness? Explain your answer
using relevant cases.

1. Explain the differences between the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity.

Explain your answer using relevant cases.

2. Prepare an answer for the following scenario:

Ruth had been in an on-off relationship with David for about two years. He was physically
violent to, and emotionally abusive of her for most of that time. About six weeks after
Ruth and David broke up for the last time, she asked her friend Esmond for a gun, and
he supplies it to her. Esmond did not ask why she wanted it, but he was aware of the
nature of her relationship with David.

Two days later Ruth waited for David to emerge from a public house where he had been
drinking with friends. When he came out of the public house she simply called out his
name and, when he turned towards her, shot at him three or four times. David was hit at

23
least twice, but he managed to crawl behind a parked car. Ruth walked around the car
and shot him again at close range. She then surrendered the gun and herself to an off-
duty police officer who happened to be drinking in the same public house.

An ambulance was called to the scene. The paramedics examined David and formed
the mistaken view that he was dead. They took him to the hospital where the emergency
staff discovered that David was still alive. However, despite their best efforts to stabilize
him, David died. The pathologist later reported that David had died from multiple gunshot
wounds, but noted that had he been given oxygen by the paramedics there was an
outside chance that he might have survived.

Advise Ruth as to her liability in respect of Davids death.

Week 9 - Seminar 7: Homicide 2 murder and the partial defences

(voluntary manslaughter)

There are 2 different types of manslaughter: voluntary MS and involuntary MS. You
need to distinguish between the both. This week, we will be looking at voluntary MS
to determine whether this is applicable in a scenario, you need to establish an
intention to kill or cause GBH (the mens rea for murder). If MR for murder is present,
then D can put forward a special or partial defence: loss of control and/or diminished
responsibility. If MR is absent for murder, then D may be charged of involuntary MS.

Here, we will be looking at loss of control and diminished responsibility. Suicide pact
will not be discussed.

Required Reading:

Herring pp 236 (remainder) - 267

Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2 (loss of control)
Mark Golds [2014] EWCA Crim 748 (diminished responsibility)

Notes from the reading:

Loss of self-control requirements:
He lost self control
This was caused by a qualifying trigger
A person of the defendants age and sex with a anormal degree of tolerance and
self restraint would have reacted the same way

This is found in section 54 of the Coronors and Justice act 2009

Additional Reading:

Herring pp 297 - 313

24
The main cases for the 2 partial defences are listed below it is sufficient for you
to read about the main ones in the textbook. You do not need to read the cases in
their entirety.

a) Loss of control

Mustafa Gurpinar v R [2015] EWCA Crim 178

The Court of Appeal considered the defence of loss of control in the appeals of two
young offenders (G and K) who appealed against their convictions for murder. Both
appeals were refused.
Details
G, aged 14 at the time of the offence, had stabbed another 14-year-old boy during
a fight. K, 17 at the time, had stabbed a 24-year-old man during a clash between
two groups of young men in a shopping centre.
This judgment explored the extent of the new partial defence of loss of control
(section 54 and 55 Coroners and Justice Act (CJA) 2009), which replaced the
defence of provocation (with effect from 4 October 2010).
The judgment suggests the evidential hurdle is a relatively high one. The three
principal elements of the defence under section 54(1) CJA are: (a) the killing had
to have resulted from the defendants loss of self-control; (b) the loss of self-control
had a qualifying trigger; and (c) a person of the defendants sex and age, with a
normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the
defendant might have reacted in a similar way. The components had to be
analysed sequentially and separately; if a component was absent, the defence
failed (R. v Clinton (Jon-Jacques) [2012] EWCA Crim 2).
In Gs case, there was independent witness evidence that G might have been in
fear of violence. However, the court found there was no evidence that such fear
had resulted in a loss of self-control. In Ks case, the trial judge had found there
was evidence of a qualifying trigger but there was no loss of self-control. The Court
of Appeal found no reason to disagree with the judges analytical assessment.
Commentary
The judgment suggests the evidential hurdle for young defendants seeking to rely
on this defence is a high one. On one view, the court was reluctant to allow the
defence of loss of control to be used in situations where young people carry or
use knives for their own protection.

Dawes; Bowyer; Hatter [2013] EWCA Crim 322

R v Dawes, [2013] WLR(D) 130 Court of Appeal

The defendant, Mark Dawes went to his estranged wifes house and found her asleep on the sofa
with Graham Pethard. He awoke him and started punching him in the face and hitting him with a
bottle. According to the defendant, Pethard took the bottle off him and attacked him. The defendant
then grabbed a knife from the kitchen and fatally stabbed him in the neck. At trial he raised the
defence of self-defence which was not accepted by the jury. The judge held that the defence of loss
of control could not be put to the jury under s.55(6)(a) as he had incited the violence. He was
convicted of murder and appealed contending the defence of loss of control should have been put
to the jury on the grounds that the case of R v Johnson 1989 was still good law and had survived
the legislative provision.

25
Held:

S.55(6)(a) did not overrule R v Johnson. On the facts there was insufficient evidence that it was
Dawes purpose to provide him with an excuse or opportunity to use violence. However, the judge
was correct for not leaving the loss of control defence to the jury as there was insufficient evidence
that he had lost his control

Lord Chief Justice:

There was some debate about the continuing authority, if any, of Johnson [1989] 89 Cr. App. R
148, decided in the context of the former provocation defence. In that case the court rejected the
submission "that the mere fact that a defendant caused a reaction in others, which in turn led him
to lose his self-control, should result in the issue of provocation being outside a jury's consideration".
In our judgment, for the purposes of the loss of control defence, the impact ofJohnson is now
diminished, but not wholly extinguished by the new statutory provisions. One may wonder (and the
judge would have to consider) how often a defendant who is out to incite violence could be said to
"fear" serious violence; often he may be welcoming it. Similarly, one may wonder how such a
defendant may have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged if he successfully incites someone
else to use violence towards him. Those are legitimate issues for consideration, but as a matter of
statutory construction, the mere fact that in some general way the defendant was behaving badly
and looking for and provoking trouble does not of itself lead to the disapplication of the qualifying
triggers based on s.55(3)(4) and (5) unless his actions were intended to provide him with the excuse
or opportunity to use violence. As Johnson no longer fully reflects the appropriate principle, further
reference to it is inappropriate. The relevant principle is identified in the present judgment.

Jewell [2014] EWCA Crim 414

Workman [2014] EWCA 575
Ibrams & Grepgory (1981) 74 Cr App R 154

Old Law
Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932
AG for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23
Mohammed (Faqir) [2005] EWCA Crim 1880
Camplin (1978) A.C. 705
Smith (Morgan) [2001] 1 AC 146
Amelash [2013] 1 Cr App R 33
Morhall (1995) 3 All ER 659; [1996] AC 90
Luc Thiet Thuan (1996) 2 All E.R 1033; [1997] AC 131
Ahluwalia (1993) 96 Cr App R 133
Thornton (1993) 96 Cr App R 112
Thornton (No.2) (1996) 2 All ER 1023
Humphreys (1995) 4 All ER 1008

Clough, A., Loss of Self-control as a Defence: The Key to Replacing Provocation

(2010) 74 JCL 118
Fitz-Gibbon, K., Replacing Provocation in England and Wales: Examining the
Partial Defence of Loss of Control, 92013) 40 Journal of Law and Society 280
Morgan, C. Loss of Control: Back to the Good Old Days, (2013) 77 JCL 119

b) Diminished Responsibility

Byrne (1960) 3 All ER 1; [1060] 2 QB 396

26
 Lloyd (1966) 1 All ER 107; 1 QB 175
Tandy (1988) Crim LR 308; (1991) M.L.R. 869
Gittens (1984) QB 698
Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10
Wood [2008] EWCA Crim 1305
Dowds [2012] 1 WLR 2576
Hobson [1998] 1 Cr App R 31 (battered wife syndrome)
Ahluwalia (1993) 96 Cr App R 133 (depression)
Smith [1982] Crim LR 531 (PMS)
Vinagre (1997) 69 Cr App R 104 (morbid jealousy)
Golds [2016] UKSC 61

Mackay, R., The Abnormality of Mind Factor in Diminished Responsibility [1999] Crim
LR 117
Law Commission, Partial Defences to Murder, (Law Com. No. 290, 2004)

Background reading
Some useful Ministry of Justice publications on reforms to murder, manslaughter and
infanticide Law Com. No. 304, 2006 (as above) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
11232946 BBC short discussion of Kier Starmers (DPP) proposals to change murder
to murder 1 and murder 2.

An interesting case from 2011 which saw a man charged for murder of a man who dies 7
years after attack abolition of year and a day rule - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
england-beds-bucks-herts-15242182

Two useful articles which considered the new version of the defences created by the
2009 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 are

Norrie, A. The Coroners & Justice Act 2009 Partial Defences to Murder (1)
Loss of Control, (2010) Crim LR (4) 275

Mackay, R.D. The Coroners & Justice Act 2009 Partial Defences to Murder
(2) The New Diminished Responsibility Plea, (2010) Crim LR (4) 290

For the seminar:

Make sure that you understand how the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 has amended
the law on loss of self-control (formerly provocation) and diminished responsibility.
Prepare an answer to the following problem question: -

Mary has been married to Michael for 5 years. Michael was previously married
and has a 9-year-old child, Max, with his ex-wife. Michael began violently and
emotionally abusing Mary soon after they were married. Michael and Mary are
both heavily dependent on alcohol.

27
 In October 2014 Michael was imprisoned for his part in an assault at the local
pub. In March 2015, he is released from prison. On the day of his release he
returns to their apartment at 10am. Mary has been dreading his return. He
immediately commences drinking alcohol. At lunchtime he phones his ex-wife,
belligerently demanding to see his son that weekend. His ex-wife shouts down
the phone, You are not seeing your son when you are like this. Phone me when
you are sober, and hangs up.

Michael is fuming and takes it out on Mary. He complains about the apartment
being messy and questions why Mary didnt make more of an effort for his
return. He taunts her about not being good enough, saying, You havent even
put on make-up for my return, I should go to Suzie down the road for some real
fun. When Mary brings him lunch he complains that it is cold and throws it at
the wall, narrowly missing her head.

Later that afternoon when Michael is heavily intoxicated he accuses Mary of

having an affair with a neighbour, John. He becomes increasingly irate,
screaming, If I find out its true I will kill you, I swear. As he says this he pushes
her forcefully. She falls against the mantelpiece and is knocked unconscious.
When she comes to, she remains sitting on the ground for some time, terrified
to move.

When she sees that Michael is now asleep on the couch she goes to the
kitchen, grabs a large knife, returns to the living room and stabs him 12 times.
When she stops shaking and crying, some twenty minutes later, she phones
the emergency services however by the time they arrive Michael is already
dead.

Consider the liability of Mary and any defences she may have.

Week 10 - Seminar 8: Case Note R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844;

(1991) 93 Cr App R 93

This is another chance to discuss the structure and technique for writing a case note.
This is your opportunity to familiarise yourself with FIJI again as you used this structure
for your Introduction to Obligations assessment. Using this seminar and your Feedback
from your Obs assessment will help improve your technique and writing skills for your
first criminal assessment.

A case note question will also be a compulsory question for the summer exam.

Required Reading:

R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844; (1991) 93 Cr App R 93

Norrie, A., A Critique of Criminal Causation, (1991) 54 MLR 685

28
Sannard, J., Criminal Causation and the Careless Doctor, (1992) MLR 577

For the seminar:

Prepare a short case note on this case with 2 other articles (not including those
above)

You need to submit your case note into the Moodle box prior to the
seminar.

Be prepared to discuss this in seminar to your peers.

The case of Cheshire is often cited by judges explaining causation, it is useful to

discuss its implications and what it adds to our understanding of the topic.

Week 11 - Seminar 9: Homicide 4 involuntary manslaughter:

Unlawful Act Manslaughter, Gross Negligence Manslaughter and
Reckless Manslaughter.
Required Reading:

Herring pp 235 - 236 (part up to Loss of Control); pp 268 279

Church [1966] 1 QB 59 (UAM)
Adomako [1994] 3 All E.R 79; [1995] 1 AC 171 (Gross Negligence MS)

Additional Reading:

Herring pp 290 (part) - 296

a) Unlawful Act (constructive manslaughter)

Larkin (1944) 29 Cr App R 18

DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 550
Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981; 2 All ER 1282
Watson [1989] 1 WLR 684
Bristow [2013] EWCA Crim 1540
Kennedy (No. 2) [2007] UKHL 38; [2007] 4 All ER 1083
Goodfellow (1986) Crim LR 468; (1986) 83 Cr App R 23
R v JF [2015] EWCA Crim 351

Slapper, G., On Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter. Law

Commission Report No. 237, (1996) 146 NLJ 342
Mitchell, B., More thoughts about Unlawful and Dangerous Act Manslaughter and the
One-Punch Killer, [2009] Crim LR 502

b) Gross Negligence MS and Reckless MS

29
 Wacker [2002] EWCA Crim 1944
Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650
Bateman (1925) All E.R 45
Misra [2003] EWCA Crim 2375
Lidar (unreported 11 Nov 1999) reckless MS

Elliott, C., Liability for Manslaughter by Omission: Don't Let the Baby Drown!
Journal of Criminal Law (2010) 74(2) 163
Herring, J. & Palser, E., The Duty of Care in Gross Negligence Manslaughter, [2007]
Crim LR 24
Williams, G., Gross Negligence Manslaughter and the Duty of Care in Drugs Cases:
R v Evans, [2009] Crim LR 631

For background interest:

c) Blame, recklessness and corporate manslaughter.

Herring pp 747 764

Woodley, M., Bargaining over Corporate Manslaughter What Price a Life? (2013) 77
JCL 33

For the seminar manslaughter

1. Prepare an answer to the following legal problem:

Dr Veda and Dr Solo are both surgeons at Alderan Hospital. One night they are
performing a routine operation on a patient, Leia Skywalker. During the course of the
operation Dr Veda, the consultant surgeon, inadvertently cuts through a major artery but
fails to notice this before sewing up the wound. When this has been completed his junior,
Dr Solo, notices a dramatic fall in blood pressure registering on the monitor. Dr Veda tells
him there is nothing to worry about. Ms Skywalker dies and the surgeons realise what
has happened.

Dr Veda asks Dr Solo to remain silent about his error, but Dr Solo refuses and leaves
the operating theatre on his way to inform the Hospital Administrator. A distraught Dr
Veda follows him trying to plead his case. An argument ensues and Dr Veda pushes Dr
Solo who falls against 68-year old Mrs Wookie who is just leaving the premises after a
successful hip operation. Mrs Wookie falls through the plate glass doors and dies.

Discuss the criminal liability of the parties and any defences they may have.

WEEK 12 is WRITING WEEK no lectures or seminars.

Over the vacation, you should catch up with the additional readings
from Herring as indicated above this will consolidate your
knowledge of the offences and develop your understanding of the

30
key theoretical debates and issues surrounding homicide offences
and defences.

There will be an unseen problem question given to you in week 13,

so please make sure that you understand all the principles so far.

Happy holidays!

WELCOME BACK

Week 13 - Seminar 10: Insanity and automatism

Part of answering problem questions is identifying whether the defendant has a

defence for committing the offence. A general defence is one which a defendant may
plead in relation to any criminal offence. A special defence may only be pleaded in
relation to specific offences. For example, D may plead that they have a partial
defence to murder, such as loss of control and/or diminished responsibility.

31
In this seminar, we will consider the general defences that D might seek to rely upon
in order to escape liability - here, we will focus on insanity and automatism (which may
overlap DR if D is charged with murder).

However, you must know the other general defences too, such as intoxication, duress,
necessity, self-defence and prevention of a crime.

Required Reading:

Herring pp 671 - 683

Hennessy (1989) Cr App R 10 CA; [1989] 1 WLR 287
Quick [1973] 3 All ER 347 CA; [1973] QB 910
Bailey [1983] 1 WLR 760

Additional Reading:

Herring pp 716 - 723

(a) insanity (known also as insane automatism)

M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 C & F 200 (Special)
Clarke [1972] 1 All ER 219 CA
Windle [1952] 2 All ER 1 CA; [1952] 2 QB 826
Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399
Sullivan [1983] 2 All ER 673 HL; [1984] AC 156
Burgess [1991] 2 All ER 769 CA; [1991] 2 QB 92

(b) automatism (known also as non-insane automatism

Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277
Bratty v AG for NI [1963] 3 All ER 523; [1963] AC 386
R v T [1990] Crim LR 256
Broome -v- Perkins [1987] Crim LR 271; (1987) 85 Cr App R 321
A G's Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91
A Gs Reference (No.4 of 2000) [2001] EWCA Crim 780

For the seminar:

Prepare an answer the following unseen problem question.

32
Week 14 - Seminar 11: Non-fatal Offences Against the Person

Here, we will be moving on and looking at non-fatal offences. There are many
offences under this heading but we will be concentrating on 5 offences for this module.
They are wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent, maliciously
wounding or inflicting GBH, assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), assault and
battery.

One concept to think about whilst studying OAP is consent this will involve the
exceptions that we considered at the beginning of this module in the case of Brown.
Im sure you will remember that case!

Required Reading:

Herring pp 314 - 371

Savage; Parmenter (1991) 4 All ER 698; [1992] 1 AC 699

Additional reading:

Herring pp 372 406

Jefferson, M., Offences Against the Person: Into the 21st Century, (2012) 76 JCL 472
Padfield, N., Reform of Offences Against the Person, [2015] Crim LR 175
Reed, A., Offences Against the Person: The Need for Reform, (1995) 59 JCL 187
Ryan, S. Reckless Transmission of HIV: Knowledge and Culpability, [2006] Crim LR 981
Withey, C., Biological GBH: Overruling Clarence? (2003) 153 NLJ 1698

Other sources

CPS Charging Standards:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#P48_148

Law Commission Report, Reform of Offences Against the Person, (Law Com. No. 361
2015)

Cases

Assault and Battery

Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981; 2 All ER 1282
Logdon v DPP [1976] Crim LR 121
Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3
Constanza [1997] 2 Cr App R 942
Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) 76 Cr App R 234
Fagan (1968) 3 All ER 442; [1969] 1 QB 439
Venna [1976] 1 QB 421
Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1171
Ireland; Burstow [1998] AC 147

33
 DPP v K [1990] 1 WLR 1067
Thomas (1985) 81 Cr App R 331
Haystead v CC of Derbyshire [2000] 2 Cr App R 339

S. 47 - ABH
Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95
Chan-Fook [1994] 2 All ER 552; [1994] 1 WLR 689
T v DPP [2003] EWHC 266 (Admin)
DPP v Smith [2006] 1 WLR 1571

S.20 and s.18 GBH (and GBH with Intent)

JCC (A Minor) v Eisenhower (1984) 78 Cr App R 48; [1984] QB 331
DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 HL
Saunders [1985] Crim LR 230
Clarence (1889) 22 QB 23
Dica [2004] QB 1257
Konzani [2005] EWCA Crim 706
Golding [2014] EWCA Crim 889
Mowatt [1967] 3 WLR 1191
Mandair [1994] 2 All ER 715
Belfon [1976] 3 All ER 46

For the seminar:

In the first half of this seminar, we will examine how the three main offences in the
OAPA 1861 are structured, alongside common assault and battery. We can also
explore problems created by the statutory wording and how the courts have attempted
to overcome them in the light of changing social norms by looking at a typical essay
question.

1. The non-fatal offences against the person are conventionally divided into four
categories. How are they distinguished from each other?

In the second half of the seminar, make sure you read the scenario before the
seminar. Identify the offences in the scenario and any issues that may arise and
be prepared to explain your reasons.

Harry and Ron, two PT instructors, are on their way to watch a charity football match
organised by their local pub. In their rush to catch the bus to the match, they push
other passengers in the queue, causing them to lose their balance. When they arrive
at the football stadium, Harry and Ron start chanting abusive songs, scaring
Hermione, who is sat in the row behind.

During the match, one of the football players goes to tackle the centre forward. He
misses the ball, so he kicks the centre forward in the head in anger, knocking him
unconscious.

34
After the match, Harry and Ron go to the pub where they become embroiled in an
argument Malfoy, who is a rival PT instructor. Malfoy throws his drink over Harry, but
the glass slips out of his hand and breaks, cutting Ron. Later that evening, Ron sends
Malfoy an Instagram picture of himself holding a knife with a message which reads,
this isnt over.

Discuss the criminal liability of the parties.

Week 15 - Seminar 12: OAPA Essay Review Session

For the Seminar:

Please prepare an essay plan for the following question (one A4 page ONLY) and
submit into the box set up on Moodle under the OAPA box. Please ensure that you
use resources to support your points.

The provisions of the OAPA 1861 are out of date and no longer
correspond with the application of the law in practice. To what extent do
you agree with this statement? Discuss with reference to case law.

Week 16 - Seminar 13: Sexual offences

This seminar will discuss the legislation and case law on sexual offences, with
particular reference to the offence of rape, assault by penetration, sexual assault and
intentionally causing a person to engage in sexual activity.

There are a number of important cases relating to the law of sexual offences and you
need to research and identify which are the important cases. This can be done by using
your core text book and listening to the lectures. This will also help to develop your skills
on research and independent learning.

Required Reading

Herring pp 407 - 443

Bree (2007) EWCA Crim 804
McNally [2013] EWCA Crim 1051

Additional Reading

Herring pp 453 494

Background

Rumney, P. and Fenton, R., Intoxicated Consent in Rape: Bree and Juror Decision-
Making (2008) 71 MLR 279
Temkin, J. and Ashworth, A., The Sexual Offences Act 2003: Rape, Sexual Assaults and
the Problem of Consent, [2004] Crim LR 328

35
Herring, J., Mistaken Sex, [2005] Crim LR 511
Laird, K., Rapist or Rogue? Deception, Consent and the Sexual Offences Act 2003,
[2014] Crim LR 492
Wallerstein, S., A Drunken Consent is Still Consent Or is it? A Critical Analysis of the
Law on a Drunken Consent to Sex following Bree, (2009) 71 JCL 54

For the seminar:

1. You should prepare a list of the important cases relating to the law of rape and
the precedent they provide perhaps starting back in 1991 with the case of R v
R (1984) Cr App R 334.

2. Discuss the offences and the elements that need to be proved.

a) Martina has a shoe fetish. She strokes Carries shoes. Is Martina guilty of any
offence?

b) Ben persuades Patricia to have sexual intercourse with him by persuading her
that he is a famous footballer. Is Ben guilty of rape?

c) Beth and Morgan go out on a girls night out. Joseph places a sedative in
Morgans drink. Neil sees this and rescues Morgan from Joseph. Neil then
takes Morgan home and has sex with her including oral sex. Discuss Neils
liability.

d) Jeff has sexual intercourse with Kevin, who is extremely intoxicated at the time.
Discuss Jeffs liability.

WEEK 17 IS READING WEEK

NO LECTURES OR SEMINARS: USE THE TIME TO CATCH UP ON ANY
ADDITIONAL READINGS THAT YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY UNDERTAKEN OR
READING FOR FUTURE SEMINARS.

Please revisit OAPA and sexual offences for the next seminar.

Please note that there is a lot of required reading for Inchoate Offences and
Accessorial Liability so make use of your reading week!

36
Week 18 - Seminar 14: Exam Q - Unseen PQ covering OAPA and
Sexual Offences

For the seminar:

Over the last 3 seminars, we have covered OAPA and sexual offences. In preparation
for this seminar, you need to make sure that you have read and listened to any lectures
you may have missed. Use this week to make sure that you understand how the
offences work and what issues may arise from the facts. This is typical question that
will be asked in the exam so this is good practice.

In the seminar, you will be attempting to answer the following unseen problem question
taken from an exam paper.

Week 19 Seminar 15: Property Offences: Theft

Theft is one of the many offences against the person which is found under the Theft
Act 1968. We will also examine robbery, burglary and criminal damage (which is found
in the Criminal Damage Act 1971). The offence of fraud is found in the Fraud Act
2006.

The provisions of the Theft Act 1968 have been subject to much judicial analysis and
interpretation, resulting in a vase mass of complicated case law which is argued to be
in urgent need of reform.

Required Reading:

Herring 495 - 524 (part up to Robbery)

Additional Reading:

Herring 531 - 554 (part)

Smith, J.C., Case Commentary to Ghosh, [1982] Crim LR 608

Shute, S., Appropriation and the Law of Theft [2002] Crim.L.R. 445
Heaton, R., Deceiving Without Thieving? [2001] Crim LR 712
Toczek, L., To Appropriate or Not to Appropriate, that is the Question, [2000] 150 NLJ
1857

Cases

There are hundreds of cases decided under the Theft Act 1968. The cases shown below
represent a selection of the more interesting ones which need to be known at least at a
case-name/principle level.

The relevant statutory provision is indicated for each component part of the crime of theft.

37
1. Appropriation s3 TA 1968

Lawrence v MPC [1972] AC 626

Morris; Anderton v Burnside [1983] 2 All ER 448; [1984] AC 320
Gomez [1993] AC 442
Hinks [2001] AC 241; [2000] 4 All ER 833

2. Property s4 TA 1968

Kohn (1979) 69 Cr.App.R. 395

Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App R 183; [1979] Crim LR 119
Kelly & Lindsay [1998] 3 All ER 74

3. Belonging to Another s5 TA 1968

Turner (No 2) (1971 55 Cr App R 336

Marshall; Coombes; Eren [1998] 2 Cr. App. R. 282
Davidge v Bunnett [1984] Crim LR 297 - s5(3) TA 1968
Gilks [1972] 3 All ER 280 - s5(4) TA 1968
Hall [1973] QB126
AGs Ref (No.1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182

4. Dishonestly s2 TA 1968

Feely [1973] QB 530

Ghosh [1982] QB 1053
Horlock (Amy), Horlock (Christine) [2004] EWCA Crim 327

5. Intention to permanently deprive s6 TA 1968

Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299

Lloyd [1985] QB 829
DPP v SJ, PI & RC [2002] EWHC 291 (Admin)
Raphael [2008] EWCA Crim 2014
Lavender [1994] Crim LR 297
Marshall; Coombes; Eren [1998] 2 Cr. App. R. 282
Vinall [2012] 1 Cr App R 29
Zerei [2012] EWCA Crim 1114
Waters [2015] EWCA Crim 402
Easom [1971] 2 QB 315

For the seminar:

This seminar will deal with the following:

a) The elements of theft

b) Problems which arise
c) How to approach a problem question involving questions of theft

Students should prepare the problems by:

38
 a) Identifying if all five elements of theft are present
b) Identifying any tricky customers
c) Identifying cases relevant to the facts.

1. A borrows a book from B on the understanding it is to be returned with 2

weeks. The 2 weeks pass and A does not return the book. On the 15th day
B bumps into A in Blackwells book shop to discover A selling the borrowed
book to the shop.

a. Would your answer to question 1 change in any material way if you knew
that A made the decision to sell the book one week after he borrowed the
book from B?
b. Would your answer to question 1 change in any material way if you knew
that A made the decision to sell the book before he borrowed the book
from B?

2. C borrows a season ticket from D that is still valid for 4 more football matches.
D allows C to borrow the card for one match only. C returns the card, in perfect
condition, the day after the last football match for which the card is valid.

a. Would your answer to question 2 alter in any material way if C returned the
card when there was still one match left for which the card was valid?

Week 20 - Seminar 16: Robbery (s.8 TA 1968) & Burglary (s.9 TA 1968)

Robbery and burglary are more serious offences that not only seek to protect property
and economic interests but also provide protection to the well-being of the individual.
For instance, robbery requires the use or threat of force and burglary may include the
infliction of GBH or attempted GBH.

Robbery can be found in s.8 of TA 1968 and burglary can be found under s.9(1)(a)
and s.9(1)(b). You need to be aware of the difference between the two offences under
burglary.

Required Reading:

Herring Robbery 524 (part) - 526 (part)

Burglary 586 594 (part)

Additional Reading:

Herring 554 (part) - 556 and 599 - 600 and 606

Background

Ashworth, A., Robbery Reassessed, [2001] Crim LR 851

39
Laird, K., Conceptualising the Interpretation of Dwelling in Section 9 of the Theft Act
1968, [2013] Crim LR 656

Cases

(a) Robbery

Robinson [1977] Crim LR 173

Vinall [2012] 1 Cr App R 29
Zerei [2012] EWCA Crim 1114
Dawson and James (1977) 64 Cr App R 179
Hale (1978) 68 Cr App R 415
B & R v DPP [2007] EWHC 739 (admin)
Corcoran (1980) 71 Cr App R 104
Clouden [1987] Crim LR 56
Codsi [2009] EWCA Crim 1618

(b) Burglary

Collins [1972] 2 All ER 1105

Brown [1985] Crim LR 212
Jones & Smith [1976] 3 All ER 54
Ryan [1996] Crim LR 320
Walkington [1976] 1 WLR 672

For the seminar:

Prepare answers for the following questions:

1. What is required for robbery to differentiate it from theft?

2. Explain the differences between the 2 offences for burglary.

Consider whether the parties may be guilty of s.9(1)(a) or s.9(1)(b) of the Theft Act in the
following scenarios:

a) While climbing through the downstairs toilet window of a house in order to

spray graffiti on the walls on his rival, Don is caught with one leg on the inner
windowsill and one leg outside.

b) David, an electrician, is given permission to enter Fayes house in order to

fix a light. Whilst he is in the house, David sees an expensive bracelet that
he knows his girlfriend would love. So, he puts it in his bag so that he can
give it to his girlfriend for her birthday.

Discuss whether F is liable for robbery:

c) E advertised his car for sale. F turned up as a potential buyer but assaulted E,
took the car and the next day phoned E to offer to return it if E paid him 500.

40
Prepare a solution for the following problem question:

d) Arthur has recently been dismissed from the employment of Lord Botham.
He is very unhappy as he believes that he is owed 500 salary by Lord
Botham who disagrees. Arthur knows that Lord Botham is going away on
business for a week so Arthur asks Lord Bothams butler, Charlie, to disable
the alarm system while Lord Botham is away. Charlie is unhappy working
for Lord Botham so agrees to help. He tells Arthur where Lord Bothams
safe is located and the combination to open the safe.

The evening Lord Botham leaves, Charlie turns off the alarm and goes
home. Meanwhile, Arthur breaks into the house and goes to the safe
intending to take 500. Unfortunately for Arthur, Lord Botham had changed
the combination to the safe and he is unable to open it. In a fury, Arthur
looks around the room and sees a bracelet belonging to Lady Botham on
the dresser. He decides that it is probably worth about 250 and so decides
to take it. He then finds 250 cash in Lord Bothams study and takes that
to make up the 500 he believes he is owed.

He climbs out of the window and runs down the long sweeping drive but
accidentally runs into the housekeeper, Denise, who is returning to work for
the evening. Arthur panics and punches Denise to the ground and runs
away. Denise lies in the driveway until she is found an hour later. The
police called and Denise identifies Arthur as the person who punched her.

Discuss the liability of the parties involved and any defences they may have.

Week 21 - Seminar 17: Criminal Damage

There are three offences of destroying or damaging property under the Criminal
Damage Act 1971 there is simple and an aggravated form of criminal damage, and
then there is arson. You need to understand the elements of each to decide which
relevant offence is to be charged.

Required Reading:

Herring pp 607 616 (up to section 4)

Morphitis v Salmon [1990] Crim LR 48
Steer [1986] 1 WLR 1286

Additional Reading:

Herring pp 621 624

Background Reading

Edwards, I., Banksys Graffiti: A Not-so-simple Case of Criminal Damage? (2009) 73

JCL 345

41
Elliott, D.W., Endangering Life by Destroying or Damaging Property, [1997] Crim LR
382

Cases:
Gayford v Chouler [1898] 1 QB 316
A (a juvenile) v R [1978] Crim LR 689
Roe v Kingerlee [1986] Crim LR 735
Hardman v CC of Avon & Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330
Cox v Riley (1986) 83 Cr App R 54
Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 2384
Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] QB 527
Hill; Hall [1989] Crim LR 136
Kellner [2003] EWCA Crim 3525
Smith [1974] QB 354
Merrick [1996] 1 Cr App R 130
Dudley [1989] Crim LR 57
Asquith, Webster and Seamans; Warwick (1995) 1 Cr App R 492
Wenton [2010] EWCA Crim 2361

For the seminar:

Prepare the following questions:

1. What constitutes damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971? Cite
authorities to support your answer.

Prepare an answer to the following:

2. Fred was attending Kung Fu lessons. He decided to show off his skills to his
friends after going down the pub one night. He told his friends that he could
kick towards the laundrette window and exercise enough control to stop just
before the glass. Unfortunately, he did not stop just before the glass and
completely shattered the whole window.

3. Mark was walking home late one night after watching a football match where
his team lost. He passed a bus shelter and took a can of spray paint out of his
pocket and painted Rovers Rule! on it. He then kicked in the side of the bus
shelter causing extensive damage.

4. Charlotte was incensed that a cosmetic company in her town was using animals
in testing their products. In protest, she sprayed Murdered animals make your
lipstick. She then decides to take it further and set fire to the head office. She
sees the light on in the reception but does not see anyone at the desk.
Unbeknown to Charlotte, Pete, the night security guard, is having a nap on the
sofa opposite the reception desk. She throws a petrol bomb through the
window towards the reception area which explodes and the building catches
fire. Pete escapes but suffers severe burns.

Discuss the liability of Charlotte.

42
Week 22 - Seminar 18: Fraud

This seminar explores the offence of fraud, which was created by the Fraud Act 2006.
The Act replaced the complicated deception offences (found in the Theft Acts of 1968
and 1978) and although it has vastly improved the law, the subject of fraud has been,
and is, subject to criticism. We will also be looking at s.3(1) Theft Act 1978 making
off without payment which is an offence of dishonesty which involves D obtaining
goods or services but failing to pay for them.

Required reading:

Herring 557 - 576

Additional reading:

Herring 577 - 585

Collins, J. Fraud by abuse of position: Theorising section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 [2011]
Crim. L.R. 7, 513-523
Withey, C., The Fraud Act 2006 - some early observations and comparisons with the
former law, (2007) 71 JCL 220
Ormerod, D., The Fraud Act 2006--Criminalising Lying? [2007] Crim LR 193

Cases:

(a) old cases on the nature of deception

Silverman (1988) 86 Cr App R 213

Ray [1973] 3 All ER 131; [1974] AC 370
Charles [1976] 1 All ER 659
Lambie [1981] 2 All ER 776; 3 WLR 88

(b) cases under the Fraud Act 2006

Ghosh [1982] QB 1053

Cornelius [2012] EWCA Crim 500
Idrees v DPP [2011] EWHC 624 (Admin)
Gilbert [2012] EWCA Crim 2392
Twaite [2010] EWCA Crim 2973
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Dennison [2011] EWHC 291 (Admin)
Gayle [2008] EWCA Crim 1344
Augunas [2013] EWCA Crim 2046
Valujevs [2014] EWCA Crim 2888
Barnard (1837) 7 C & P 784
OLeary [2013] EWCA Crim 1371

43
For the seminar:

Prepare a response to the following question:

William and Trudy are twins who want to spend a year travelling the world
before going to University, but do not have the money to do so. The send an
email to their Great Aunt Valerie asking her for 1500 in order to pay for an
operation for William. Unfortunately, although Great Aunt Valerie does have an
email account she rarely uses it and so does not see the email. They also
discover that their father, John, has received a new credit card in the post so
they take it and start ordering useful equipment for their trip totalling 500.
Trudy knows that her mother, Shirley, secretly saves 2 coins in a jar for
emergencies, so she takes a quarter of the coins totalling 60 hoping her
mother will not immediately notice they have disappeared. William then takes
his mothers debit card from her handbag and books 2 round the world airline
tickets over the internet costing 1000. Before the purchase of the tickets
Shirleys bank account is 200 in credit but she does have a 500 overdraft
facility.

Once the tickets and goods have arrived the twins head off for the airport and
sit in the airport restaurant waiting for their flight to be called. They both order
meals but while they are eating they notice 3 policemen searching through the
departure lounge obviously looking for someone. Worried that the police are
looking for them they quietly sneak out of the restaurant before finishing their
meal and proceed straight to the departure gate.

The police are indeed looking for the twins and arrest them as they try to board
the plane.

Discuss the criminal liability of William and Trudy.

Week 23 - Seminar 19: Inchoate Offences & Accessorial Liability

Up to now, we have concentrated on the commission of a full offence. However,

criminal liability does not depend on the completion of the full offence, but a D who
encourages or assists, conspires or attempts to commit an offence can be held
criminally liable under the principle of inchoate liability.

Plus, we will be looking at the law relating to accessorial liability or parties to crime. It
is important to know who is the principal and who is the secondary party (also known
as the accessory). We will look briefly at liability under s.8 Accessories and Abettors
Act 1861, the Serious Crime Act 2007 and the doctrine of joint enterprise. Please
note, that the law relating to joint enterprise has been considerably altered since Jogee
[2016).

44
Required Reading:

Herring Inchoate Offences pp 765 - 809 (up to Part II Theory)

Accessorial Liability pp 830 863 (up to Part II Accessories)

Additional Reading:

Herring Inchoate Offences pp 809 829

Accessories and Theory pp 864 889

Spencer, J.R., & Virgo, G., Encouraging and assisting crime: Legislate in haste, repent
at leisure (2008) 9 Archbold News 7
Mirfield, P., Intention and Criminal Attempts, [2015] Crim LR 142
Krebs, B. Joint Criminal Enterprise, (2010) 73 MLR 578
Virgo, G., Joint Enterprise Liability is Dead: Long Live Accessorial Liability, [2012] Crim
LR 850
Ormerod, D. & Laird, K., Jogee: not the end of a legal saga but the start of one? [2016]
Crim LR 8 543

For reaction to post-Jogee, http://www.2harecourt.com/training-and-knowledge/joint-

enterprise-after-jogee-lewis-macdonald/

https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/the-world-post-jogee

The cases below need only be known in outline and it will be sufficient in this
instance to summarise the cases from textbooks and lecture notes.

(a) Attempts S.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412

Geddes (1996) Crim LR 894 C/A
Griffin [1993] Crim LR 515
Pace [2014] EWCA Crim 186
Whybrow (1951) 35 Cr App R 141
Khan [1990] 1 WLR 815
DPP v Stonehouse [1978] AC 55
Tosti [1997] Crim LR 746
Campbell (1991) 93 Cr App R 350
Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476
AG's Ref (No 1 of 1992) [1993] 2 All E.R 190; (1993) 96 Cr. App. Rep. 298
Gullefer [1990] 1 WLR 1063
Jones [1990] 1 WLR 1057
Shivpuri [1985] 1 All ER 143; [1987] AC 1 (over-turning Anderton v Ryan [1985]
AC 560)

(b) Statutory Conspiracy s.1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977

Shillam [2013] EWCA Crim 160

Mehta [2012] EWCA Crim 2824
Kenning, Fenwick & Blackshaw [2008] EWCA Crim 1534

45
 Anderson (1985) 2 All ER 961
Saik [2006] UKHL 18
Goddard & Another [2012] EWCA Crim 1756
Siracusa (1990) 90 Cr App R 340
Yip Chiu Cheung v R [1994] 1 AC 111
Taylor [2002] Crim LR 205

(c) Encouragement and assistance Serious Crime Act 2007 ss.44-46

Blackshaw; R v Sutcliffe [2011] EWCA Crim 2312

Sadique [2013] EWCA Crim 1150

(e) Complicity and Accessorial Liability

Chan Wing-Siu [1985] AC 168

Powell & Daniels; English [1997] 4 All ER 545 H/L
Jogee [2016] UKSC 8
Johnson [2016] EWCA Crim 1613
Grant-Murray & Henry [2017] EWCA Crim 1228

For the seminar:

Prepare an answer for the following scenario:

Jane, Ravi and Monika are sitting in Seans kitchen one morning, chatting about how
great it would be to pull off a big diamond heist which would allow them to emigrate to
a tropical island and retire. Ravi suggests they go to the Tower of London to steal the
Crown Jewels. The others immediately agree to carry out the plan in two days time,
except Sean, who says, you guys go ahead you can borrow my van if you like, but
Im staying at home. Monika, who is a pacifist, says, Im in, as long as we dont hurt
anyone. The next day, Jane is knocked off her bike by a passing truck and ends up
in hospital with a broken leg.

The following day Ravi and Monika begin to execute the plan. They arrive at the Tower
of London just before closing time, park Seans van outside, buy tickets, and enter.
The two agree to hide in different places and come out after all the visitors have gone.
After the Tower has closed to visitors, Ravi and Monika, who had been hiding in the
toilets, come out and go to the room where the Crown Jewels are displayed. When
they get to the display case and open it, picking up the Imperial Crown they notice that
in fact its a fake made of plastic.

Disappointed they throw it away and make for the exit. At the exit, Ravi and Monika
encounter the night security guard, Mirko. With a swift kick, Monika floors Mirko and
grabs his swipe card. With this they are able to leave the Tower and drive off in the
van. Mirko suffers a large bruise on his head. When they drive off, Ravi says to Monika,
did you have to do that? I thought you were a pacifist!

Advise Jane, Ravi, Monika and Sean regarding their criminal liability.

46