Criminal Law Task
Section A – Choose ONE question from the following:
- Explain and evaluate the defence of intoxication raised for offences in English criminal law.
- Discuss the development of indirect intention in English criminal law.
- Discuss the suggestion that the law concerning non-fatal offences needs to be reformed.
- Explain and evaluate when a duty to act will apply in English criminal law.
Section B: – Choose ONE question from the following:
- Frank, a 49-year-old college lecturer and his co-worker Angie were in a relationship and both worked at Salford City College. Both he and his partner were habitual binge drinkers and there had been numerous violent exchanges between the couple, most of which had been initiated by her and most occurred whilst they were intoxicated.
One Friday evening the couple were “celebrating” new opportunities that had opened up for them at the college. Angie had returned from an excursion with sociology students and Frank bought some bottles of vodka from Bargain Booze.
They were drinking and “being silly” as they danced in their flat to 1980s music. Angie accidently stood on Frank’s foot and he went berserk. Angie was frightened of what he was going to do and ran into the kitchen and took a chef’s knife out of the kitchen drawer. Frank snatched the knife from her grip and repeatedly plunged it into her back in a drunken rage. Angie fell to the floor and died from the fatal wounds.
Frank was shocked and rang the paramedics. He felt so ashamed that he tried to cut his own throat but failed. He cut a nerve in his neck and was paralysed from the neck down. Frank was desperate to end his own life and persuaded Mick his brother to bring some heroin into his room at the hospital. He pleaded with Mick to do him a favour and end his life. Mick eventually gave in because he felt so sorry for his brother and gave Frank a fatal dose of heroin.
Discuss the criminal liability of Frank and Mick.
- Brenda, a young mother, befriended an older gentleman called Jeff. He had been left money by his father and was naive, gullible and of limited intelligence. Brenda knew that Jeff was in love with her and used this to her advantage. Over a period of six months, Brenda influenced, coerced and encouraged Jeff to withdraw sums, amounting to £50,000, from his bank account and for them subsequently to be deposited in Brenda’s account.
Brenda’s friend, Wasim, would regularly visit Jeff, posing as a window cleaner. Wasim knew that Jeff’s memory was deteriorating as he had recently been diagnosed with dementia. Wasim regularly told Jeff that he owed money for window cleaning services that he had performed. However, Wasim had not performed these services and took the money from Jeff regardless.
Discuss the possible criminal liability of Brenda and Wasim.
