UU����ֱ��

View the related practice notes about Mens rea

Attempt

A person is guilty of attempting to commit an offence if they do an act that is more than preparatory to the commission of the offence, with the intention of committing an offence. An attempt is an offence of specific intent. It requires an intention to commit an offence. The offence itself consists of both a criminal act and a mental state. In each case it is a question of fact whether the accused has gone sufficiently far towards the full offence to have committed the act of the attempt. If the accused has passed the preparatory stage the offence of attempt has been committed and it is no defence that they then withdrew from committing the completed offence.Most attempts at committing criminal offences will be governed by section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (CAA 1981), although some statutory exceptions apply. These include:•burglary under section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968), and•using a firearm to resist arrest under section 17 of the Firearms Act 1968 (FiA...

Vicarious liability

What is vicarious liability?The general principle in criminal law is liability is personal not vicarious. This means that one person cannot be held liable for the crimes of another (other than where a person has aided, abetted, counselled or procured the act of another) (R v Huggins).See Practice Note: Encouraging and assisting criminality.There are exceptions to this general principle and, in some circumstances, liability can be transferred vicariously to another.Vicarious liability for public nuisance In R v Shorrock, the defendant was held to be vicariously liable for the common law offence of public nuisance having granted a licence over a field which was used for an event at which loud music was played which disturbed local residents. The defendant was not present at the event, but was found guilty of causing a public nuisance.In R v Stephens the defendant, an owner of a quarry, was convicted of nuisance when his workmen (contrary to his instructions and without his knowledge) disposed of rubbish into a river which obstructed the navigation. On...

View the related q&as about Mens rea

Is an offence under section 111 of the Water Industry Act 1991 a strict liability offence?

Is an offence under section 111 of the Water Industry Act 1991 a strict liability offence? Many of the common environmental offences impose strict liability on the actions of a defendant. When an offence does not require proof of a mental element, or where no fault element is required in relation to one element of the actus reus but where mens rea is required in relation to other aspects, it is an offence of strict liability. In order to secure a conviction for a strict liability offence the only thing which needs to be proven is the act or omission which forms part of the offence and there is no need to prove any negligence or fault on the part of the defendant. See Practice Note: Strict liability. The justifications for imposing strict liability for environmental crimes include: • it is in the public interest to do so • it acts as a deterrent so that those who have to comply with the law do not...

View the related News about Mens rea

The improper use of public electronic communications network—Convention rights and privacy

Corporate Crime analysis: This appeal concerned the application of section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003) to private consensual messaging, namely offensive messages exchanged between serving police officers in a private WhatsApp group. This is the first time that the higher courts have been asked to consider section 127(1) in this context. The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the messages exchanged between the officers were of a ‘grossly offensive’ nature within the meaning of section 127(1)(a), and that a reasonable person in society would find them to be so, applying the standards of an open, just, multiracial and multifaith society. Written by Eleanor Fox, barrister at 2 Hare Court.

New fraud prevention offence may not make much difference

Law360: The new failure to prevent fraud offence has many devotees, not least the former Serious Fraud Office (SFO) director Lisa Osofsky, who proclaimed it 'a game changer for law enforcement'. But whose game is being changed? And to what end?