DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on Inchoate Offences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

REPORT INCHOATE OFFENCES (LRC 99 - 2010) © COPYRIGHT Law Reform Commission FIRST PUBLISHED November 2010 ISSN 1393-3132 LAW REFORM COMMISSION‟S ROLE The Law Reform Commission is an independent statutory body established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1975. The Commission‟s principal role is to keep the law under review and to make proposals for reform, in particular by recommending the enactment of legislation to clarify and modernise the law. Since it was established, the Commission has published 160 documents (Consultation Papers and Reports) containing proposals for law reform and these are all available at www.lawreform.ie. Most of these proposals have led to reforming legislation. The Commission‟s role is carried out primarily under a Programme of Law Reform. Its Third Programme of Law Reform 2008-2014 was prepared by the Commission following broad consultation and discussion. In accordance with the 1975 Act, it was approved by the Government in December 2007 and placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Commission also works on specific matters referred to it by the Attorney General under the 1975 Act. Since 2006, the Commission‟s role includes two other areas of activity, Statute Law Restatement and the Legislation Directory. Statute Law Restatement involves the administrative consolidation of all amendments to an Act into a single text, making legislation more accessible. Under the Statute Law (Restatement) Act 2002, where this text is certified by the Attorney General it can be relied on as evidence of the law in question. The Legislation Directory - previously called the Chronological Tables of the Statutes - is a searchable annotated guide to legislative changes, available at www.irishstatutebook.ie. After the Commission took over responsibility for this important resource, it decided to change the name to Legislation Directory to indicate its function more clearly. ii MEMBERSHIP The Law Reform Commission consists of a President, one full-time Commissioner and three part-time Commissioners. The Commissioners at present are: President: Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness Former Judge of the Supreme Court Full-time Commissioner: Patricia T. Rickard-Clarke, Solicitor Part-time Commissioner: Professor Finbarr McAuley Part-time Commissioner: Marian Shanley, Solicitor Part-time Commissioner: Mr Justice Donal O‟Donnell, Judge of the Supreme Court iii LAW REFORM RESEARCH STAFF Director of Research: Raymond Byrne BCL, LLM, (NUI), Barrister-at-Law Legal Researchers: Dannie Hanna BCL (NUI), LLM (Cantab) Helen Kehoe BCL (Law with French Law) (NUI), LLM (Dub), Solicitor Donna Lyons LLB (Dub), LLM (NYU) Tara Murphy BCL (Law with French Law) (NUI), LLM (Essex), Barrister-at-Law Jane O„Grady BCL, LLB (NUI), LPC (College of Law) Darelle O„Keeffe LLB (UL), H Dip Soc Pol (NUI), EMA (EIUC) Helen Whately LLB, LLM (Dub) STATUTE LAW RESTATEMENT Project Manager for Restatement: Alma Clissmann, BA (Mod), LLB, Dip Eur Law (Bruges), Solicitor Legal Researcher: Andrew Glynn BBLS (NUI), LLM (Dub) LEGISLATION DIRECTORY Project Manager for Legislation Directory: Heather Mahon LLB (ling. Ger.), M.Litt, Barrister-at-Law Legal Researcher: Aoife Clarke BA (Int.), LLB, LLM (NUI) iv ADMINISTRATION STAFF Executive Officers: Deirdre Bell Simon Fallon Legal Information Manager: Conor Kennedy BA, H Dip LIS Cataloguer: Eithne Boland BA (Hons), HDip Ed, HDip LIS Clerical Officers: Ann Browne Ann Byrne Liam Dargan PRINCIPAL LEGAL RESEARCHER FOR THIS REPORT David Prendergast LLB, LLM (London), Barrister-at-Law v CONTACT DETAILS Further information can be obtained from: Law Reform Commission 35-39 Shelbourne Road Ballsbridge Dublin 4 Telephone: +353 1 637 7600 Fax: +353 1 637 7601 Email: [email protected] Website: www.lawreform.ie vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Commission would like to thank the following people who provided valuable assistance: Mr Tom Callan, Barrister-at-Law Dr Sarah Christie, Robert Gordon University Mr Mark Coen, Trinity College Dublin Ms Eileen Creedon, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Dr Bebhinn Donnelly, Swansea University Ms Valerie Fallon, Department of Justice and Law Reform Mr Carl Grainger, Criminal Law Codification Advisory Committee Ms Liz Howlin, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Ms Sharon McLaughlin, NUI Galway Ms Jane Mulcahy, Criminal Law Codification Advisory Committee Professor Paul O’Connor, School of Law, University College Dublin Ms Tracy O’Keefe, Criminal Law Codification Advisory Committee Mr Sean Ó Toghda, Criminal Law Codification Advisory Committee Full responsibility for this publication lies, however, with the Commission. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Legislation xv Table of Cases xvii INTRODUCTION 1 A Background to the Project 1 B The Commission‟s Overall Approach to Inchoate Offences 2 C Outline of Report 3 CHAPTER 1 INCHOATE LIABILITY 5 A Introduction 5 B General inchoate liability 5 (1) Terminology for describing inchoate offences 5 (2) General inchoate liability and specific inchoate offences 5 (3) Inchoate liability and secondary liability 7 C Inchoate offences and protected persons 8 (1) Report Recommendation on inchoate offences and protected persons 10 D The rationale of inchoate liability 10 (1) The rationale of criminalising inchoate crime 10 (2) The rationale of attempt 11 (3) The rationale of conspiracy 11 (4) The rationale of incitement 13 E Procedural issues relating to inchoate offences 13 (1) Punishment of inchoate offences 13 (2) Further procedural matters relating to inchoate offences 18 CHAPTER 2 ATTEMPT 23 A Introduction 23 (1) Reform of attempt 23 (2) Main Report recommendation on reform of attempt 24 B The act in a criminal attempt 24 (1) Consultation Paper analysis and recommendations on the act in a criminal attempt 25 (2) Discussion: the act in a criminal attempt 25 ix (3) Report recommendations on the act in a criminal attempt 44 C The target of a criminal attempt: what can be criminally attempted? 45 (1) Consultation Paper analysis and recommendations on the target of a criminal attempt 45 (2) Discussion: the target of a criminal attempt 45 (3) Report Recommendations on the target of a criminal attempt 51 D Attempt culpability 52 (1) Consultation Paper analysis and provisional recommendations on attempt culpability 52 (2) Discussion: Attempt culpability 54 (3) Report recommendations on attempt culpability 65 E Criminal Attempt and Impossibility 65 (1) Legal impossibility and factual impossibility 65 (2) The Sullivan case and impossible attempts 66 (3) Why impossibility should not preclude attempt liability 67 (4) Report recommendation on attempt and impossibility 69 F Abandoned attempts 69 (1) The Sullivan case and abandoned attempts 69 (2) The case for and against introducing a defence of abandonment 70 (3) Report recommendation on abandoned attempts 70 CHAPTER 3 CONSPIRACY 71 A Introduction 71 (1) Main Report recommendation on reform of conspiracy 73 B Agreement in conspiracy 73 (1) Consultation Paper analysis and provisional recommendations on agreement in conspiracy 73 (2) Discussion: agreement in conspiracy 77 (3) Report Recommendations on agreement in conspiracy 84 C Conspiracy culpability 85 (1) Consultation Paper analysis and provisional recommendations on conspiracy culpability 85 (2) Discussion: conspiracy culpability 87 x (3) Report recommendations on conspiracy culpability 92 D The activity to which a conspiracy relates 93 (1) Consultation Paper analysis and provisional recommendations on the activity to which a conspiracy relates 93 (2) Discussion: the activity to which a conspiracy relates 94 (3) Report recommendations on the activity to which a conspiracy relates 98 E The specific common law conspiracies 98 (1) Consultation Paper analysis and provisional recommendations on the specific common law conspiracies 99 (2) Discussion: evaluation of the specific common law conspiracies 99 (3) Report recommendation on the specific common law conspiracies 101 (4) Conspiracy to defraud 101 F Conspiracy and impossibility 107 (1) Consultation Paper analysis and provisional recommendations on conspiracy and impossibility 107 (2) Discussion: impossibility no bar to liability for conspiracy 108 (3) Report recommendation on conspiracy and impossibility 108 G Withdrawal from a conspiracy 108 (1) Consultation Paper analysis and provisional recommendation on withdrawal from a conspiracy 110 (2) Discussion: the case for and against a new defence of withdrawal from conspiracy 110 (3) Report recommendation on withdrawal from a conspiracy 111 CHAPTER 4 INCITEMENT 113 A Introduction 113 (1) Main Report recommendation on reform of incitement 113 B The act of incitement 114 (1) Consultation Paper analysis and provisional recommendations on the act of incitement 114 xi (2) Discussion: the act of incitement 114 (3) Report recommendations on the act of incitement 117 C Incitement culpability 117 (1) Consultation Paper analysis and provisional recommendations on incitement culpability 117 (2) Discussion: incitement culpability 118 (3) Report recommendations on incitement culpability 122 D The target of an incitement: the person and act incited 122 (1) Consultation Paper analysis and provisional recommendations on the target of an incitement 123 (2) Discussion: the target of an incitement 123 (3) Issues regarding the criminality of the incited act 125 (4) Report recommendations the target of an incitement 130 E A new inchoate offence of assisting or encouraging crime? 130 (1) Consultation Paper analysis and provisional recommendation 130 (2) Discussion: retaining incitement
Recommended publications
  • Imagereal Capture

    Imagereal Capture

    Some Aspects of Theft of Computer Software by M. Dunning I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to test the capability of New Zealand law to adequately deal with the impact that computers have on current notions of crimes relating to property. Has the criminal law kept pace with technology and continued to protect property interests or is our law flexible enough to be applied to new situations anyway? The increase of the moneyless society may mean a decrease in money motivated crimes of violence such as robbery, and an increase in white collar crime. Every aspect of life is being computerised-even our per­ sonality is on character files, with the attendant )ossibility of criminal breach of privacy. The problems confronted in this area are mostly definitional. While it may be easy to recognise morally opprobrious conduct, the object of such conduct may not be so easily categorised as criminal. A factor of this is a general lack of understanding of the computer process, so this would seem an appropriate place to begin the inquiry. II. THE COMPUTER Whiteside I identifies five key elements in a computer system. (1) Translation of data into a form readable by the computer, called input; and subject to manipulation by the introduction of false data. Remote terminals can be situated anywhere outside the cen­ tral processing unit (CPU), connected by (usually) telephone wires over which data may be transmitted, e.g. New Zealand banks on­ line to Databank. Outside users are given a site code number (identifying them) and an access code number (enabling entry to the CPU) which "plug" their remote terminal in.
  • Common Law Fraud Liability to Account for It to the Owner

    Common Law Fraud Liability to Account for It to the Owner

    FRAUD FACTS Issue 17 March 2014 (3rd edition) INFORMATION FOR ORGANISATIONS Fraud in Scotland Fraud does not respect boundaries. Fraudsters use the same tactics and deceptions, and cause the same harm throughout the UK. However, the way in which the crimes are defined, investigated and prosecuted can depend on whether the fraud took place in Scotland or England and Wales. Therefore it is important for Scottish and UK-wide businesses to understand the differences that exist. What is a ‘Scottish fraud’? Embezzlement Overview of enforcement Embezzlement is the felonious appropriation This factsheet focuses on criminal fraud. There are many interested parties involved in of property without the consent of the owner In Scotland criminal fraud is mainly dealt the detection, investigation and prosecution with under the common law and a number where the appropriation is by a person who of statutory offences. The main fraud offences has received a limited ownership of the of fraud in Scotland, including: in Scotland are: property, subject to restoration at a future • Police Service of Scotland time, or possession of property subject to • common law fraud liability to account for it to the owner. • Financial Conduct Authority • uttering There is an element of breach of trust in • Trading Standards • embezzlement embezzlement making it more serious than • Department for Work and Pensions • statutory frauds. simple theft. In most cases embezzlement involves the appropriation of money. • Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is important to note that the Fraud Act 2006 does not apply in Scotland (apart from Statutory frauds s10(1) which increases the maximum In addition there are a wide range of statutory Investigating fraud custodial sentence for fraudulent trading to offences which are closely related to the 10 years).
  • Liability of Financial Institutions for Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Laws Sally Totten Gilmore

    Liability of Financial Institutions for Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Laws Sally Totten Gilmore

    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 42 | Issue 3 Article 4 Summer 6-1-1985 Liability of Financial Institutions for Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Laws Sally Totten Gilmore William H. McBride Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Securities Law Commons Recommended Citation Sally Totten Gilmore and William H. McBride, Liability of Financial Institutions for Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Laws, 42 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 811 (1985), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol42/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LIABILITY OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATIONS OF SECURITIES LAWS SALLY TOTTEN GILMORE* WILLIAM H. MCBRIDE** Financial institutions recently have faced numerous lawsuits for allegedly aiding and abetting violations of the federal securities law. The authors hope their proposed model will balance the rights and obligations of the respective parties as well as the need for a consistent but fair approach based on economic realities. Liability for aiding and abetting arises from the knowing and substantial assistance of the commission of a securities law violation., The action or inaction of the secondary defendant (the aider and abettor) must have assisted the primary violator's wrongdoing, and the secondary defendant must have known of both the commission of the underlying violation and his own role in the matter.
  • Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability

    Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability

    CHAPTER 6: PARTIES TO CRIME AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY The text discusses parties to crime in terms of accessories and accomplices. Accessories are defined as accessory before the fact – those who help prepare for the crime – and accessories after the fact – those who assist offenders after the crime. Accomplices are defined as those who participate in the crime. Under the common law, accessories were typically not punished as much as accomplices or principle offenders; on the other hand, accomplices were usually punished the same as principal offenders. Accomplices and Accessories Before the Fact Under Ohio’s statutes, accomplices and accessories before the fact are now treated similarly, while accessories after the fact are treated separately under the obstruction of justice statute discussed later. Under Ohio’s complicity staute: (A) No person acting with the kind of culpability required for an offense…shall do any of the following: Solicit or procure another to commit the offense; Aid or abet another in committing the offense; Conspire with another to commit the offense… ; Cause an innocent or irresponsible person to commit the offense. (Ohio Revised Code, § 2923.03, 1986, available at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.03). Note that parts of the complicity statute – (A)(1) and (A)(3) – mention both solicitation and conspiracy. These two crimes are discussed in Chapter 7. The punishment for complicity is the same as for the principal offender; that is, if Offender A robs a liquor store and Offender B drives the getaway car, both offenders are subject to the same punishment, even though Offender A would be charged with robbery and Offender B would be charged with complicity (Ohio Revised Code, § 2923.03 (F), 1986, available at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.03).
  • Criminal Law: Conspiracy to Defraud

    Criminal Law: Conspiracy to Defraud

    CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD LAW COMMISSION LAW COM No 228 The Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 228) CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD Item 5 of the Fourth Programme of Law Reform: Criminal Law Laid before Parliament bj the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to sc :tion 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 6 December 1994 LONDON: 11 HMSO E10.85 net The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London, WClN 2BQ. 11 LAW COMMISSION CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 1 A. Background to the report 1. Our work on conspiracy generally 1.2 1 2. Restrictions on charging conspiracy to defraud following the Criminal Law Act 1977 1.8 3 3. The Roskill Report 1.10 4 4. The statutory reversal of Ayres 1.11 4 5. Law Commission Working Paper No 104 1.12 5 6. Developments in the law after publication of Working Paper No 104 1.13 6 7. Our subsequent work on the project 1.14 6 B. A general review of dishonesty offences 1.16 7 C. Summary of our conclusions 1.20 9 D.
  • Criminal Code 2003.Pmd 273 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 274 No

    Criminal Code 2003.Pmd 273 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 274 No

    273 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. SAINT LUCIA ______ No. 9 of 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER ONE General Provisions PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Application of Code 4. General construction of Code 5. Common law procedure to apply where necessary 6. Interpretation PART II JUSTIFICATIONS AND EXCUSES 7. Claim of right 8. Consent by deceit or duress void 9. Consent void by incapacity 10. Consent by mistake of fact 11. Consent by exercise of undue authority 12. Consent by person in authority not given in good faith 13. Exercise of authority 14. Explanation of authority 15. Invalid consent not prejudicial 16. Extent of justification 17. Consent to fight cannot justify harm 18. Consent to killing unjustifiable 19. Consent to harm or wound 20. Medical or surgical treatment must be proper 21. Medical or surgical or other force to minors or others in custody 22. Use of force, where person unable to consent 23. Revocation annuls consent 24. Ignorance or mistake of fact criminal code 2003.pmd 273 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 274 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. 25. Ignorance of law no excuse 26. Age of criminal responsibility 27. Presumption of mental disorder 28. Intoxication, when an excuse 29. Aider may justify same force as person aided 30. Arrest with or without process for crime 31. Arrest, etc., other than for indictable offence 32. Bona fide assistant and correctional officer 33. Bona fide execution of defective warrant or process 34. Reasonable use of force in self-defence 35. Defence of property, possession of right 36.
  • Aiding and Abetting Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute

    Aiding and Abetting Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute

    To Proceed with Caution? Aiding andAbetting Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute Ryan S. Lincoln* I. INTRODUCTION Accomplice liability is central to many of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) cases that have arisen since Filhrtigav. Peha-Irala.1 Many plaintiffs bring ATS claims against non-state actors for aiding and abetting tortious conduct by state actors and other principals, instead of against the principles themselves. The proliferation of actions against alleged accomplices is not merely an attempt to get around doctrines that shield state actors from liability, such as the act of state doctrine or the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Rather, a globalizing economy has increased the involvement of third-party actors in regions of the world where alleged tortious activity often occurs. This has increased the number of ATS claims against defendants for aiding and abetting violations of the law of nations, and resulted in doctrinal confusion concerning the contours of these types of violations. While the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain2 narrowed the scope of claims that could violate the law of nations and therefore be actionable under the ATS, it did not specifically address the question of accomplice liability. In footnote 20 the Court noted, but did not take up, the issue of "whether international law extends the scope of liability for a violation of a given norm to the perpetrator being sued, if the defendant is a private actor such as a corporation or individual."' 3 Following Sosa, plaintiffs have brought * J.D. Candidate 2011 University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; M.T.S Harvard Divinity School; A.B.
  • Forensic Pattern Recognition Evidence an Educational Module

    Forensic Pattern Recognition Evidence an Educational Module

    Forensic Pattern Recognition Evidence An Educational Module Prepared by Simon A. Cole Professor, Department of Criminology, Law, and Society Director, Newkirk Center for Science and Society University of California, Irvine Alyse Berthental PhD Candidate, Department of Criminology, Law, and Society University of California, Irvine Jaclyn Seelagy Scholar, PULSE (Program on Understanding Law, Science, and Evidence) University of California, Los Angeles School of Law For Committee on Preparing the Next Generation of Policy Makers for Science-Based Decisions Committee on Science, Technology, and Law June 2016 The copyright in this module is owned by the authors of the module, and may be used subject to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License. By using or further adapting the educational module, you agree to comply with the terms of the license. The educational module is solely the product of the authors and others that have added modifications and is not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine or the sponsors of this activity. Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Goals and Methods ..................................................................................................................... 1 Audience .....................................................................................................................................
  • CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS at COMMON LAW Edwin R

    CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS at COMMON LAW Edwin R

    [Vol. 102 CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS AT COMMON LAW Edwin R. Keedy t GENERAL PRINCIPLES Much has been written on the law of attempts to commit crimes 1 and much more will be written for this is one of the most interesting and difficult problems of the criminal law.2 In many discussions of criminal attempts decisions dealing with common law attempts, stat- utory attempts and aggravated assaults, such as assaults with intent to murder or to rob, are grouped indiscriminately. Since the defini- tions of statutory attempts frequently differ from the common law concepts,8 and since the meanings of assault differ widely,4 it is be- "Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Pennsylvania. 1. See Beale, Criminal Attempts, 16 HARv. L. REv. 491 (1903); Hoyles, The Essentials of Crime, 46 CAN. L.J. 393, 404 (1910) ; Cook, Act, Intention and Motive in the Criminal Law, 26 YALE L.J. 645 (1917) ; Sayre, Criminal Attempts, 41 HARv. L. REv. 821 (1928) ; Tulin, The Role of Penalties in the Criminal Law, 37 YALE L.J. 1048 (1928) ; Arnold, Criminal Attempts-The Rise and Fall of an Abstraction, 40 YALE L.J. 53 (1930); Curran, Criminal and Non-Criminal Attempts, 19 GEo. L.J. 185, 316 (1931); Strahorn, The Effect of Impossibility on Criminal Attempts, 78 U. OF PA. L. Rtv. 962 (1930); Derby, Criminal Attempt-A Discussion of Some New York Cases, 9 N.Y.U.L.Q. REv. 464 (1932); Turner, Attempts to Commit Crimes, 5 CA=. L.J. 230 (1934) ; Skilton, The Mental Element in a Criminal Attempt, 3 U.
  • Peter Rowlands

    Peter Rowlands

    Peter Rowlands YEAR OF CALL: 1990 Peter Rowlands has an established reputation as a tough and committed advocate and experienced leader in criminal defence work. He has a wide-ranging practice from homicide where he acts as leading junior or sole counsel to serious sexual offences, major drug importations, fraud and money-laundering. Peter is ranked for crime in Chambers UK 2019 and the Legal 500 2019. "A decent and fair opponent who is fazed by nothing." "A wonderful advocate who you can listen to all day, he is great with juries and clients. He's the archetypical jury advocate." CHAMBERS UK, 2021 (CRIME) "His thorough case preparation, unrivalled knowledge of the law and relaxed character enables clients to firstly understand and then thoroughly trust his advice and guidance." LEGAL 500, 2021 (CRIME) "His deft and intelligent cross-examination is a joy to observe." LEGAL 500, 2020 "He defends in gang and organised crime-related cases." LEGAL 500, 2019 Extremely thorough and committed, a skilled tactician and incredibly eloquent." LEGAL 500, 2017 If you would like to get in touch with Peter please contact the clerking team: [email protected] | +44 (0)20 7993 7600 CRIMINAL DEFENCE Peter Rowlands has an established reputation as a tough and committed advocate and experienced leader in criminal defence work. He has a wide-ranging practice from homicide where he acts as leading junior or sole counsel to serious sexual offences, major drug importations, fraud and money-laundering, including contested confiscation proceedings. He has been mentioned in the Legal 500 as having developed a particular expertise in murder and armed kidnapping cases and has maintained a ranking in Chambers UK Bar Guide for many years.
  • Criminal Law Level: 6 Credit Value: 15

    Criminal Law Level: 6 Credit Value: 15

    2021 UNIT SPECIFICATION Title: (Unit 3) Criminal Law Level: 6 Credit Value: 15 Learning outcomes Assessment criteria Knowledge, understanding and skills The learner will: The learner can: 1. Understand the 1.1 Analyse the general nature of the actus 1.1 Features to include: conduct (including fundamental reus voluntariness, i.e, R v Larsonneur (1933), requirements of Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983); criminal liability • relevant circumstances; • prohibited consequences; • requirement to coincide with mens rea. 1.2 Analyse the rules of causation 1.2 Factual causation; • legal causation: situations (for example, in the context of the non-fatal offences or homicide) where the consequence is rendered more serious by the victim’s own behaviour or by the act of a third party; • approaches to establishing rules of causation: mens rea approach; This specification is for 2021 examinations • policy approach; • relevant case law to include: R v White (1910), R v Jordan (1956) R v Cheshire (1991), R v Blaue (1975), R v Roberts (1971), R v Pagett (1983), R v Kennedy (no 2) (2007), R v Wallace (Berlinah) (2018) and developing caselaw. 1.3 Analyse the status of omissions 1.3 Circumstances in which an omission gives rise to liability; • validity of the act/omission distinction; • rationale for restricting liability for omissions; • relevant case law to include: R v Pittwood (1902), R v Instan (1977), R v Miller (1983), Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) Stone & Dobinson (1977), R v Evans (2009) and developing caselaw. 1.4 Analyse the meaning of intention 1.4 S8 Criminal Justice Act 1967; • direct intention; • oblique intention: definitional interpretation; • evidential interpretation; • implications of each interpretation; • concept of transferred malice; • relevant case law to include: R v Steane (1947), Chandler v DPP (1964), R v Nedrick (1986), R v Woollin (1999), Re A (conjoined twins) (2000), R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003), R v Latimer (1886), R v Pembliton (1874), R v Gnango (2011) and developing caselaw.
  • 2010 Canliidocs 305 Decisions

    2010 Canliidocs 305 Decisions

    BEATTY, J.F., AND THE LAW OF MANSLAUGHTER 651 BEATTY, J.F., AND THE LAW OF MANSLAUGHTER LARRY C. WILSON* In this article, the author argues that the recent Dans cet article, l’auteur fait valoir que les récentes Supreme Court of Canada decisions in R. v. Beatty décisions de la Cour suprême du Canada, notamment and R. v. J.F. have clarified several of the issues that R. c. Beatty et R. c. J.F., ont clarifié plusieurs have plagued the increasingly complicated offence of questions qui tourmentent l’homicide involontaire manslaughter. In particular, the decisions address the coupable, infraction de plus en plus compliquée. Les redundancy among the many manslaughter provisions décisions abordent tout spécialement la redondance in the Criminal Code, the need to define a clear des nombreuses dispositions relatives à l’homicide separation between actus reus and mens rea, and the involontaire coupable du Code criminel, le besoin de need to establish distinct categories of objective fault préciser une séparation claire entre actus reus et mens for different types of manslaughter offences. The rea, et le besoin d’établir des catégories distinctes de author examines the legal background of these faute objective pour différents types d’homicides decisions as well as the current state of the law. He involontaires coupables. L’auteur examine le contexte concludes by identifying emerging issues relating to juridique de ces décisions ainsi que l’état actuel de la the offence of manslaughter, arguing that the law loi. Il termine en identifiant les enjeux émergents remains convoluted and in need of urgent reform relatifs à ce crime en faisant valoir que la loi demeure despite the progress made in the Beatty and J.F.