Damien Domino faces a number of allegations to which he has pleaded not guilty. I am asked to advise on the likelihood of conviction at trial. I will deal with each offence individually.
2. The first count on the Indictment is Theft contrary to section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 which is an offence against property. A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it. For him to be convicted of theft, the actus reus and the mens rea must be fulfilled which include appropriation, intention to permanently deprive and property belonging to another based on his actions. Appropriation is defined in s.3(1) Theft Act 1968 as including any assumption
…show more content…
The second count on the Indictment is Attempted Burglary contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. For him to be convicted of attempted burglary, the actus reus and the mens rea must be fulfilled which include where an act is more than merely preparatory and his intention. To prove whether an act is more than merely preparatory, the jury must ask themselves whether he was simply preparing to commit the offence, or had he gone on to do something more than merely preparatory to its commission. According to Moore v DPP [2010], it must be sufficiently close to the final act that it could, on the application of common sense, be properly regarded as part of the execution of the individual's plan to commit the intended offence. Damien can only be liable for an attempt if he acted with the intention of committing the main offence. Case law has made it clear that Damien can only be liable for an attempt if they act with the intention of committing the main offence. Recklessness as to the consequence is not enough. Damien’s intention was established when he tried to enter the house but only had partial entry. The evidence against him is on the 6th day of December 2017 attempted to enter a dwelling, namely 20 Routledge Street, as a trespasser with intent to steal therein. Based on the facts of R v Brown [1985] the critical question is had the entry been “effective”. To the court, “effective” means the defendant can steal, commit grievous body harm or Criminal Damage. However, it’s up to the jury to decide. The jury should be directed that, to convict, they must be satisfied that the entry was "effective". Also, based on the facts of R v Ryan [1996], partial entry is sufficient, and it was irrelevant whether he was capable of stealing anything. Thus, the Crown does not have to prove that the person was capable of stealing. Therefore, Damien Domino would be convicted of Attempted Burglary contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 as he
The applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
Secondly, I am going to present some background information on Derek Bentley’s case. Derek Bentley’s case consists of a very ambiguous four words “Let him have it” which were excla...
The Crown gave notices pursuant to ss 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act (EA) 2008 (Vic), intending to lead the Evidence against the appellant at trial. The trial judge ruled that the coincidence evidence was admissible but the tendency evidence was inadmissible.
On the basis of this evidence, Kenneth Garlow was charged with murdering Elizabeth. Dats between his murder charge and appearance in court, a new and
I booked Martin for PC 530.5(a)-Identity Theft, PC 602(o)-Trespassing, H&S 11377(a)-Possession of a Controlled Substance and H&S 11364(a)-Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
R N Howie and P A Johnson, Annotated Criminal Legislation NSW, 2011-2102, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2012) 17769-1774
Major problems were experienced in the early years after the Act over how the preserved common law conspiracy to defraud dovetailed with the new statutory conspiracy to commit a crime as frequently, an agreement to defraud will necessarily involve an agreement to commit a substantive offence entailing dishonesty such as theft or the new offence of fr...
The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held in the house of lords. The judges on this were- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date of the judgment was 16th may 2002.
Mens rea, Actus reus and concurrence are all needed to require proof of a person’s mental fault. Actus reus is the criminal act and Mens rea is the criminal intent. One also need reasonable doubt for proof and that is, “that it is not enough to enough to prove that an element of the crime was true. Proof must be such that a reasonable person could not conclude the element was not true.” Specific intent is an act being done deliberately in any offense committed.
To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.
That the defendant committed each element of the particular crime charged must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a defendant is found guilty. This decision is made after evaluating the prosecution presented evidence and the defense responds. A crime has a mental intention element called Mens rea. A criminal act must usually have this mental fault to call it a crime.
A ‘dangerous offender’ is a complicated term to define. Many people have their own opinions to what they classify as dangerous; even within the criminal justice system there is not just one definition that constitutes dangerousness (Nash 2006). Dangerous offenders were defined by the Butler Committee (1975) as those likely to inflict serious physical harm or psychological harm on others. During the 1980’s/90’s there was an increased use of the concept of dangerousness within penal policy, therefore, it became more important to distinguish the difference between offenders and those seen as dangerous offenders (Kemshall 2001). In 1980 dangerousness was defined as a pathological characteristic; a tendency to inflict harm on others (Floud and Young 1981).
Lippman, M. (2012). Contemporary Criminal Law Concepts, Cases and Controversies (3rd ed.). [Vitalsouce Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781452277660/5/3
The lord justice-clerk Ross stated “ The fact that something is physically impossible will prevent an accused from being convicted of the crime, but it does not prevent him from being relevantly charged with attempt to commit that crime provided that he has the necessary mens rea, and does some positive step towards executing his purpose.” This states that if the accused was let off of the crime due to the fact of the case is the impossibility, then the accused would be more careful next time and this would cause a danger to the public as he had the state of mind of wanting to commit the
offenders act is a joke and that is why he committed the crime. He could care