Serious Crime Act 2007

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
CRIMINAL LAW
Table of Contents

2
CRIMINAL LAW
Question 1
Inchoate offences are such offences that are not a serious offence, which are however
committed in the course of committing a substantive offence (Cps.gov.uk. 2020b).
Encouraging or Assisting the commission of an Offence
Sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 lays down the inchoate offences comprising
of: a) intentionally encouraging for assisting an offence, b) encouraging for assisting and
offence believing it to be committed, and c) encouraging assisting offences believing one or
more will be committed. These inchoate offences are committed in case a person does an act,
intentionally, which encourages or assists the commission of a crime as discussed under
Section 44 of the Act. The person must believe that his act will induce the offence to be
committed, as per section 45 of the Act. In certain cases, the person may believe that his act
is capable of inducing the commission of one or more offences as held under section 46 of
the Serious Crime Act 2007.
Conspiracy
An act of Conspiracy, as discussed under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, involves
an agreement between two or more people for engaging into a criminal scheme, in order to
carry out a criminal act as discussed in Mulcahy v The Queen (1868) LR 3 HL 306. The
agreement between the conspirators cannot be a mental operation and therefore, must be
spoken or written or other actions; thereby holding the defendant guilty even after he returns
and withdraws himself immediately from the agreement as held in R v Gortat and Pirog
[1973] Crim LR 648.
Attempt
As discussed under Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, a person shall be guilty of
the offence of attempt, when he intense to commit an offence, and thereby moves forward
ahead of the preparatory stage of committing such offence. It is important to confirm whether
the defendant actually tried to commit the offence or was still in the preparatory stage in
order to hold him guilty for the offence of Attempt, as discussed in R v Geddes [1996] Crim
LR 894 CA.
Therefore, the offence of attempt, conspiracy and encouraging for assisting offences could be
compared and contrasted with the elements of inchoate offences in terms of the different

3
CRIMINAL LAW
stages of the offences. Conspiracy involves an agreement between the conspirator only,
Attempt requires the offender to move ahead of the preparatory stage, and encouraging for
assisting the commission of an offence requires an intentional act. It is therefore clear that
these are actually different types of inchoate offences, having a difference in terms of their
stages of occurrence and impact.
Question 2
Murder and manslaughter are considered as the two types of homicides under the criminal
law of UK, of which murder is considered to be the most serious form of homicide. It is an
act of murder when a person kills another, with the intention to cause death or a serious
bodily harm (Cps.gov.uk. 2020a). The element of intention is also referred to as mens rea or
malice, which is a guilty mind. Therefore, the elements of the crime of murder consists of: a)
a person of sound mind, b) unlawfully kills, c) another human being, d) with every intention
to cause death or previous bodily harm, e) under the Queen’s peace and not in times of
warfare.
Defences: Loss of control
In such case where a person has been held guilty of murder shall be entitled to refer to his
partial defence of ‘Loss of Control' s discussed under Sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners
and Justice Act 2009. As held under section 54 (1)(a), (b) and (c), loss of control has three
elements:
a) Loss of Control
b) A Qualifying Trigger
c) An Objective Test
In a trial for murder the prosecutors must provide sufficient evidence to show that the death
was caused due to loss of control of the defendant, aiding the killing. The reason for the loss
of control must be such that it must justify its reasonableness to be accepted as a partial
defence. Secondly, the existence of a qualified trigger must exist proving that the defendant
was seriously wrong, thereby causing an extreme sense of grievance as held in R v Clinton
and others [2012] EWCA Crim 2. The prosecutors must highlight the gravity of the
circumstances along with the extent to which the defendant was wrong. By virtue of the
objective test, the degree of tolerance and self-restraint of a normal a person is compared with

4
CRIMINAL LAW
that of the defendant’s conduct as discussed in R v Rejmanski (Bartosz) [2017] EWCA Crim
2061.
Self-defence
Another defence that could be cited as a defence by a defendant accused of murder is 'Self-
defence'.
The principle of self-defence was first held in the case of Palmer v R [1971] AC 814 and later
approved in in the case of R v McInnes 55 Cr App 551, where it was held that it is normal for
a man to defend himself who has been attacked and therefore he would do what is reasonably
necessary to save himself. This concept of self-defence has been made applicable under
section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 that discusses about 'reasonable force’. Section 3 of
the Criminal Law Act 1967 states that “a person may use such reasonable force under certain
circumstances in order to prevent crime….” Therefore, by virtue of the provision of section 3,
a person may apply reasonable force in the course of prevention of a crime occurring to him
or to anyone else, thereby causing death of the person who made been causing a crime. in this
situation the person using the reasonable force to prevent the occurrence of a crime, thereby
causing death, could take the reference of Self-defence (Cps.gov.uk. 2020c).
Question 4
Issue 1
To advise Jason how he could defend himself against the accusation of raping Tracy at the
trial.
Issue 2
To advise Tina about the possibility of Gareth being successfully convicted for raping her at
the party.
Rule
The elements of Rape as held under Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 states that the
person guilty of the offence must intentionally penetrate the vagina, anus or mouth of another
with his penis, there the victim does not consents to such penetration and the offender does
not reasonably believes that the victim consents to such penetration.

5
CRIMINAL LAW
Section 75 of the Act lays down the evidential presumptions about the victim, not consenting
to the sexual act would include: a) use of violence against the victim causing apprehension, b)
the victim was unlawfully detained, c) the victim was asleep or unconscious, d) the victim
was disable, thereby failing to communicate with the defendant, e) the victim was drugged.
Section 76 of the Act lays down the provisions of conclusive presumption of the victim’s
consent against the act in case: a) the offender deceived the victim about the nature or
purpose of the act, and b) the offender induced the victim to give consent by impersonating
another person known to the victim.
Application 1
In the given case, Jason did have an act of sexual intercourse with Tracy, as there was a
successful penetration of Jason's genital into Tracy's vagina. In the matter of consent, it could
be argued that Tracy did not object to the sexual act committed by Jason, by showing disgust
or resistance, thereby making Jason believe that Tracy consented to the sexual act. However,
the victim could counter-argue that she had no idea that she was involved in a sexual act. It
could be pointed out that although there was no violence or detainment involved; Tracy was
not asleep, unconscious or drugged when the non-consensual sexual act happened,
nevertheless she was intentionally deceived by Jason regarding the purpose of the act.
Application 2
In this case, Gareth had a sexual intercourse with Tina while she sleeping on Gareth's bed,
drunk. There was an intentional penetration. In terms of consent, it could be mentioned that
Tina was asleep while the penetration occurred, therefore there was no form of resistance
from Tina’s end, making the offender believe that Tina would object to such act, as it was her
who came to garrets room and slept in his bed. However, such an argument is extremely
unreasonable on the grounds that there is no evidential presumption of consent, for Tina was
asleep and therefore was unable to give consent. A situation where there was a sleep and
unable to give consent, Gareth should not have assumed that Tina was interested or consented
to the sexual act. Moreover, it could be argued that Gareth did not respond even when he
came to know that Tina was mistaking him with Rodney, her boyfriend, therefore stating that
Gareth impersonated Rodney for a short while, or took the benefit of Tina mistaking him with
Rodney.
Conclusion 1

6
CRIMINAL LAW
Jason shall not be able to defend himself against the accusation of Tracy’s rape.
Conclusion 2
Tina shall be able to successfully hold Gareth liable for raping her.
References
Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Cps.gov.uk. 2020a. Homicide: Murder And Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service.
[online] Available at: <https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-
manslaughter> [Accessed 16 April 2020].
Cps.gov.uk. 2020b. Inchoate Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service. [online] Available
at: <https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/inchoate-offences> [Accessed 16 April 2020].
Cps.gov.uk. 2020c. Self-Defence And The Prevention Of Crime | The Crown Prosecution
Service. [online] Available at: <https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-
prevention-crime> [Accessed 16 April 2020].
Criminal Attempts Act 1981
Criminal Law Act 1967
Criminal Law Act 1977
Mulcahy v The Queen (1868) LR 3 HL 306
Palmer v R [1971] AC 814
R v Clinton and others [2012] EWCA Crim 2
R v Geddes [1996] Crim LR 894 CA
R v Gortat and Pirog [1973] Crim LR 648

7
CRIMINAL LAW
R v McInnes 55 Cr App 551
R v Rejmanski (Bartosz) [2017] EWCA Crim 2061
Serious Crime Act 2007
Sexual Offences Act 2003