Home > Criminal Law
Criminal Law
- Sort by
- Mark
- Question
- Year
- Words
- Date submitted
Question: Andrew is at a restaurant with his partner Billy. Carla the waiter spills soup over Billy. Andrew is furious and tries to slap Carla, but Carla steps back out of the way. As Carla steps back, Billy trips her up, and Carla falls to the floor, hitting her head hard on the table as she falls down. While Carla is lying on the floor, Andrew kicks her, breaking her ribs and causing internal injury. Andrew and Billy then walk away. It is five minutes before Carla is found by another waiter. An ambulance is called, but by the time it arrives, Carla is dead.
Advise Andrew and Billy.
Answer: Carla: Spilling soup upon someone could be considered as battery. This is defined in s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as intentionally or recklessly inflicting unlawful personal violence upon the victim....
Details: - Mark: 78% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1223 | References: No | Date written: November, 2016 | Date submitted: December 06, 2017 | Coursework ID: 1040
Question: CASE NOTE: Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] 1 AC 53
Answer: Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire case placed public bodies under a ‘microscope’. It was evident to the court that a principle must be found while simultaneously striking a balance between...
Details: - Mark: 75% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1000 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: February 18, 2015 | Coursework ID: 905
Question: BA Hons Law 2nd Year - Course Unit - Criminal Law - With reference to the rationale of the defence and its parameters consider critically the courts’ unwillingness to accept duress as a defence to murder.
Answer: It has long been a principle of English law that duress cannot be a defence to murder. According to Blackstone, a person under duress “ought rather to die himself than escape by...
Details: - Mark: 75% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1819 | References: No | Date written: October, 2009 | Date submitted: January 18, 2010 | Coursework ID: 583
Question: Does English law recognise a general defence of necessity?
Answer: The general defence of necessity, in English law, recognises that there may be situations of such an overwhelming urgency, that a defendant maybe excused breaking the law. There have been very few...
Details: - Mark: 73% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2172 | References: No | Date written: May, 2009 | Date submitted: December 02, 2009 | Coursework ID: 582
Question: Problem Question
D put his hand into E’s pocket to see if to see if there was something worth stealing. In fact the pocket was empty. D removed a tin of salmon from F’s basket in G’s self-service store and put it in his own basket. He paid for it at the checkout. There he noted that the checkout assistant had failed to swipe several items. D paid the sum requested knowing that he had not paid for every item. In the store garage he filled up with petrol before discovering that he had failed to bring sufficient cash. He went to explain to the attendant but he was not at his post. D went back to his car and drove off intending to send a cheque for the petrol. However, he failed subsequently to send a cheque for the petrol.
Advise D of his criminal liability.
Answer: In advising D of his criminal liability, this question requires an identification of the various issues that have arisen from the actions taken by D. Firstly, D put his hand into E’s...
Details: - Mark: 72% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1132 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: December 19, 2013 | Coursework ID: 811
Question: "By using the phrase ‘substantial risk’, the [trial] judge blurred the line between intention and recklessness." (Woolin (1998) per lord Steyn ) Critically assess this statement.
Answer: Intention and recklessness are the two most important fault elements used in the criminal law and the main debate here is with accessing the blurring of lines between intention and recklessness which...
Details: - Mark: 72% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1308 | References: No | Date written: May, 2008 | Date submitted: December 19, 2013 | Coursework ID: 810
Question: In what circumstances will a mistake relieve a defendant of criminal liability?
Answer: In certain circumstances a mistake may operate as valid defense against criminal liability because, although the defendant has committed the actus reus of the offense, the defendant may honestly believe in a...
Details: - Mark: 71% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2518 | References: No | Date written: April, 2009 | Date submitted: November 04, 2009 | Coursework ID: 584
Question: “In spite of the many policy failures we have recounted, we remain convinced that diversion and decarceration are desirable and achievable goals”.
Critically evaluate the effectiveness of community forms of punishment in the context of these stated goals.
Answer: The simple truth is that prisons do not work, either as effective punishment or as a means of ensuring the safety and stability of the community. Of the primary functions of prison...
Details: - Mark: 71% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2550 | References: Yes | Date written: April, 2004 | Date submitted: October 13, 2008 | Coursework ID: 28
Question: Alan decides to protest against NHS reforms by placing a firebomb in his local hospital. He spends some time working on the bomb to ensure that there will be a delay before it is detonated, so that he can phone in a warning and allow time to evacuate the hospital. Having hidden the bomb in the hospital, he then decides not to ring the police to warn them about the bomb.
The firebomb goes off. Evan is badly burnt in the fire. He is taken to a neighbouring hospital and requires a blood transfusion. Evan has an intense fear of blood, for which he was receiving psychiatric care before the bombing. He refuses the blood transfusion, and dies.
Doris, a member of staff is present when the fire starts. Doris runs away, leaving behind a young child, Toby, who she was treating, because she can’t be bothered to carry him. Toby is severely injured in the blaze. He is kept on life support, unconscious, for six months before doctors decide to discontinue life support, whereupon he dies.
Advise Alan and Doris on their liability for murder. Mark 70%
Answer: To determine their liability for murder, the prosecution needs to establish whether Alan and Doris had the actus reus and mens rea for murder and that these coincided in time. The actus...
Details: - Mark: 70% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1431 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2016 | Date submitted: April 19, 2017 | Coursework ID: 1020
Question: Criminal Law Case Study
Case study and question NOT included.
Answer: William could be charged as accomplice to Uma and Vema contrary to s8 of the Accessories & Abettors Act 1861. By driving Uma and Vema to the scene of the crime he...
Details: - Mark: 70% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1402 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: November 05, 2012 | Coursework ID: 756