A lot of people are asking me to share the quizzes based on all topics in Unit 3 (Criminal Law) and Unit 4 (Section A) I created for the CAQ (Quiz/Test maker) app for Android. This is extremely useful if you want to revise topics in a more interactive way.
You can download the CAQ (Quiz/Test maker) app here:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dotpubs.customQuiz&hl=en
And the quiz files in here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6PK1XT_uyDXRjdKTENNZVRIQnM/edit?usp=docslist_api
How to import the quiz files to the app:
1. Extract the files from the CAQ Quiz files.zip using apps like ES File Explorer or B1 File manager.
2. Open the app and select "Import a quiz".
3. Select a quiz file from the directory or folder where you extracted the CAQ Quiz files.zip.
4. Name it.
5. Repeat the steps above until you import all quizzes.
Comment if you encounter any problems.
Sunday 3 August 2014
Complete notes of AQA A2 Law Unit 3 (Criminal Law) and 4 (Section A)
I know it's late but here it is, the complete notes for Unit 3 (Criminal Law) and Unit 4 (Section A). These notes also include notes for sections not posted in my blog.
Download it here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6PK1XT_uyDXejV4cHZIWTJiZFU/edit?usp=docslist_api
Download it here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6PK1XT_uyDXejV4cHZIWTJiZFU/edit?usp=docslist_api
Sunday 23 February 2014
Mobile app is now available!!!
The website is now available in an Android app.
Download the app here: http://www.appsgeyser.com/821265
Download the app here: http://www.appsgeyser.com/821265
Robbery
Robbery
S. 8 defined robbery as a theft carried out, immediately before or at the time with the use of force or apprehension of force to any person during the theft.
Actus reus
There must be a complete theft
- A complete theft must occur in order for a robbery to happen. Corcoran v Anderton held that robbery can occur so long as theft can be proven and there is force used.
Force or threat of force must be used to the victim
- R v Dawson and James held that force can be minimal like the slightest push and can be applied through a medium as in R v Clouden.
- B and R v DPP held that the victim does not need to fear the use of force by the defendant.
- Smith v Desmond held that the the person being threatened with or inflicted with force need not be the victim of the theft.
Immediately before or at the time of the theft
- R v Hale and R v Lockley held that an appropriation could be a continuing act and if there is force used or a threat of force within the appropriation, this is enough to constitute robbery.
Mens rea
R v Robinson held that the defendant must have the mens rea of Theft (dishonesty... with intention to permanently deprive the owner of property). There must also be an intention to use force or threat of u in order to steal.
S. 8 defined robbery as a theft carried out, immediately before or at the time with the use of force or apprehension of force to any person during the theft.
Actus reus
There must be a complete theft
- A complete theft must occur in order for a robbery to happen. Corcoran v Anderton held that robbery can occur so long as theft can be proven and there is force used.
Force or threat of force must be used to the victim
- R v Dawson and James held that force can be minimal like the slightest push and can be applied through a medium as in R v Clouden.
- B and R v DPP held that the victim does not need to fear the use of force by the defendant.
- Smith v Desmond held that the the person being threatened with or inflicted with force need not be the victim of the theft.
Immediately before or at the time of the theft
- R v Hale and R v Lockley held that an appropriation could be a continuing act and if there is force used or a threat of force within the appropriation, this is enough to constitute robbery.
Mens rea
R v Robinson held that the defendant must have the mens rea of Theft (dishonesty... with intention to permanently deprive the owner of property). There must also be an intention to use force or threat of u in order to steal.
That's it!?
I'm a ongoing student so many topics are not covered yet as I haven't study them yet so wait for the next update.
Also will make this review blog better soon, so be patient.
Gerard Anthony Davantes >_<
Also will make this review blog better soon, so be patient.
Gerard Anthony Davantes >_<
Theft
Theft
S. 1 of Theft Act 1968 defined theft as the "dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive the other of it".
Actus reus
Dishonest (S. 2) appropriation (S.3) of property (S.4) belonging to another (S. 5)
S. 3 Appropriation
- Any assumption by a person of any rights (R v Morris) of an owner like selling (R v Pitham and Hehl) or destroying the property.
R v Hinks, R v Gomez and R v Lawrence held that an appropriation can take place even if there is a consent from the owner if there is dishonesty.
S. 4 Property
There are 5 types and these are;
- Money
These includes coins and banknotes
- Real property
These includes land. S. 4(2) denotes 3 ways land can be stolen;
1. A trustee of the land takes it in breach of his/her duties as a trustee.
2. Someone not is possession of the property severs anything forming part of he land.
3. A tenant takes a structure from the land like subletting it.
- Personal property
A person's things, where trivial or sentimental. R v Kelly and Linsday held that a dead body can be stolen if it is being modified.
- Things in action
This basically offers to the rights in order to use or get something like a travel ticket, trademarks, shares, etc. R v Marshall held that a ticket is owned by the organisation producing them and only gives a person a right to use a particular service.
- Intangible property
Things with no physical presence like export quotas (AG of HK v Chan Nai-Keung), Knowledge of content (Oxford v Moss held such cannot be stolen), and patents.
* Although wild animals or plants are not property, selling them or obtaining them illegally will make them property.
S. 5
- A property belongs to a person who has obtained it legally.
- R v Turner held a person can be held stealing a property he legally owns.
- R v Woodman and Ricketts v Basildon held that someone will always have the possession of a property so long as he/she controls it.
- R v Hall and R v Klineberg and Marsden held that a person can be guilty of theft by using a property obtained from a obligation to cause a loss to another or obtain a gain from it.
Exceptions
- R v Wain held that a person cannot be liable for theft so long as he/she fulfills the obligation in the same terms.
- Davidge v Burnett held that there is a obligation is situations where there is a intention to create legal relations under contract law.
- AG Reference 1983 held that any property given to a person by mistake must be returned so long as there is a obligation like a contract. Although this depends whether dishonesty is involve as in Moyness v Cooper.
Mens rea
Dishonest (S. 2)... with intention to permanently deprive the other of it (S. 6)
S. 2 Dishonesty
There are three exceptions
- If the person believes he or she has in law the rim to deprive the other of the property as in R v Robinson.
-if the person believes he or she would have the other person's consent if the other person knew of the appropriation.
- If the person believes the owner of the property cannot be found by taking reasonable steps.
R v Ghost test application
(1) D's action will be considered as dishonest by a reasonable and honest person and (2) D knows what he/she is doing will be held as dishonest according to the standards of a reasonable and honest person.
Section 6 Intention to permanently deprive
- R v Velumyl held that a D will be liable for theft even if he/she has a honest intention to replace or return the property.
- DPP v Lavender held that a person treating another's property as his/her own has intention to permanently deprive.
- R v Lloyd held that burrowing a property and keeping it until "the goodness, the virtue or practical value has gone out of the property" is intention to permanently deprive.
- R v Easom held that conditional intention to deprive is not sufficient for theft.
S. 1 of Theft Act 1968 defined theft as the "dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive the other of it".
Actus reus
Dishonest (S. 2) appropriation (S.3) of property (S.4) belonging to another (S. 5)
S. 3 Appropriation
- Any assumption by a person of any rights (R v Morris) of an owner like selling (R v Pitham and Hehl) or destroying the property.
R v Hinks, R v Gomez and R v Lawrence held that an appropriation can take place even if there is a consent from the owner if there is dishonesty.
S. 4 Property
There are 5 types and these are;
- Money
These includes coins and banknotes
- Real property
These includes land. S. 4(2) denotes 3 ways land can be stolen;
1. A trustee of the land takes it in breach of his/her duties as a trustee.
2. Someone not is possession of the property severs anything forming part of he land.
3. A tenant takes a structure from the land like subletting it.
- Personal property
A person's things, where trivial or sentimental. R v Kelly and Linsday held that a dead body can be stolen if it is being modified.
- Things in action
This basically offers to the rights in order to use or get something like a travel ticket, trademarks, shares, etc. R v Marshall held that a ticket is owned by the organisation producing them and only gives a person a right to use a particular service.
- Intangible property
Things with no physical presence like export quotas (AG of HK v Chan Nai-Keung), Knowledge of content (Oxford v Moss held such cannot be stolen), and patents.
* Although wild animals or plants are not property, selling them or obtaining them illegally will make them property.
S. 5
- A property belongs to a person who has obtained it legally.
- R v Turner held a person can be held stealing a property he legally owns.
- R v Woodman and Ricketts v Basildon held that someone will always have the possession of a property so long as he/she controls it.
- R v Hall and R v Klineberg and Marsden held that a person can be guilty of theft by using a property obtained from a obligation to cause a loss to another or obtain a gain from it.
Exceptions
- R v Wain held that a person cannot be liable for theft so long as he/she fulfills the obligation in the same terms.
- Davidge v Burnett held that there is a obligation is situations where there is a intention to create legal relations under contract law.
- AG Reference 1983 held that any property given to a person by mistake must be returned so long as there is a obligation like a contract. Although this depends whether dishonesty is involve as in Moyness v Cooper.
Mens rea
Dishonest (S. 2)... with intention to permanently deprive the other of it (S. 6)
S. 2 Dishonesty
There are three exceptions
- If the person believes he or she has in law the rim to deprive the other of the property as in R v Robinson.
-if the person believes he or she would have the other person's consent if the other person knew of the appropriation.
- If the person believes the owner of the property cannot be found by taking reasonable steps.
R v Ghost test application
(1) D's action will be considered as dishonest by a reasonable and honest person and (2) D knows what he/she is doing will be held as dishonest according to the standards of a reasonable and honest person.
Section 6 Intention to permanently deprive
- R v Velumyl held that a D will be liable for theft even if he/she has a honest intention to replace or return the property.
- DPP v Lavender held that a person treating another's property as his/her own has intention to permanently deprive.
- R v Lloyd held that burrowing a property and keeping it until "the goodness, the virtue or practical value has gone out of the property" is intention to permanently deprive.
- R v Easom held that conditional intention to deprive is not sufficient for theft.
Automatism
Automatism
Insane automatism, refer to the insanity.
Non insane automatism
First rule: Must be involuntary, although must not arise to a disease of mind (in which insanity should be referred).
Second rule: Must be a external cause either from drugs or attacks as in R v Quick and R v T.
Insane automatism, refer to the insanity.
Non insane automatism
First rule: Must be involuntary, although must not arise to a disease of mind (in which insanity should be referred).
Second rule: Must be a external cause either from drugs or attacks as in R v Quick and R v T.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)