BMPL4009 Criminal Law
Scenario Question

Name : Md Ibrahim Khalil
ID : 2212007Table of Contents
Introduction	3
Paula’s Potential Criminal Liability	4
Harriet's Potential Criminal Liability	5
Conclusion	8
References	9
References	11
 Introduction
In the given scenario, two individuals, namely Paula and Harriet, have been involved in activities that may be considered unlawful during the celebration of Christine's unexpected birthday gathering. This essay aims to investigate the potential criminal liability of the individuals in question through an analysis of the offences committed, an examination of the actus reus and men's rea requirements, and a discussion of any relevant defences that may apply (Shkira, 2022). The offences under consideration pertain to the act of theft, as observed in the case of Paula, and the act of assault, as witnessed in the case of Harriet. Through a comprehensive analysis of factual evidence, established legal principles, and relevant case precedents, we can offer informed guidance about their potential legal responsibility and available defences.Paula’s Potential Criminal Liability
Paula may be guilty of theft for stealing Christine's handbag and concealing it, as well as handling stolen goods for fleeing the scene in a vehicle while carrying the stolen handbag. We'll break down each crime and look at the elements -- actus reus, mens rea, and any applicable defences -- individually.
Theft
In England and Wales, stealing is illegal under Section 1(1) of the Stealing Act of 1968 (Harder, 2020). The actus reus of stealing is the unlawful taking of another's possessions to deprive the owner of those items indefinitely. The defendant must have had the dishonest intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property at the moment of the appropriation to satisfy the mens rea requirement. When Paula removed Christine's purse from her coat and stowed it beneath her vehicle, she did so without Christine's permission. She had custody of the purse, making this an act of theft according to the law (Doussard, 2019). Paula showed a purpose to permanently deprive Christine of her property when she said she was going to take the purse to her vehicle when the party was over. Therefore, it is probable that the actus reus for stealing has been met. Paula's behaviours point to her mens rea, or intent to deceive. She was well aware that stealing Christine's purse was wrong since it belonged to Christine. As a result, she may have been so dishonest as to intend to permanently deprive Christine of her possessions. The mens rea for stealing is thus likely to be met.
Possible Defense: Paula may be able to use the defence of a claim of right under Section 5(1) of the Theft Act 1968 if she can show that she had a reasonable belief in her legal right to the handbag or that she had a claim of right to it. Paula may have felt entitled to Christine's purse on some level, but the facts as presented suggest otherwise (Syrota, 2022). Therefore, it's possible that she can't use that defence.
Handling Stolen Goods
If Paula continues to drive with the stolen purse in her possession, she may be liable for handling stolen goods under Section 22(1) of the Theft Act 1968. The actus reus of theft is the dishonest reception, retention, or disposal of stolen property (Syrota, 2022). Knowing or suspecting that property was stolen is mens rea. Paula did more than just take the stolen purse; she kept it in the car's footwell and drove it all the way home. She kept the stolen stuff, therefore the actus reus of concealing stolen property is met. Regarding the men's rea, Paula's purposeful acts in stealing the handbag from Christine's coat and then placing it beneath her vehicle suggest that she knew or believed that the handbag was stolen (Mellinger, 2021). Paula had the necessary information or belief that the commodities were stolen since she hid the handbag and drove off with it. The elements of actus reus and men's rea for dealing with the stolen property are so likely to be met.
Possible Defense: Paula may be able to assert the defence of acting under a claim of right or with legal authority by Section 24(1) of the Theft Act 1968 if she can prove that she received or held the stolen items to return them to the owner or a police officer. Paula may have intended to return the handbag to Christine or report the theft to the police, but the available material suggests otherwise. Therefore, it's possible that she can't use that defence.
Harriet's Potential Criminal Liability
Harriet's behaviour at the surprise birthday celebration may subject her to criminal prosecution for many offences. The crimes include vandalism, violence, and perhaps poisoning the victim. Harriet's possible responsibility may be calculated by looking at the elements of each crime, such as actus reus and mens rea, as well as any defences that may be used.
Harriet may have committed criminal damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 in the United Kingdom when she shattered the enormous panes of glass in Christine's bi-fold doors (Sapolsky, 2021). The wrongful destruction or damage of another's property is the actus reus of this crime. Since Harriet intentionally damaged Christine's property by shattering the glass doors, she has satisfied the actus reus requirement.
The prosecution must prove that Harriet behaved willfully or negligently to prove mens rea in a criminal case. Harriet's actions may be seen as evidence of her intent if it can be shown that she set out to break the doors on purpose. Harriet may have acted recklessly if she knew the consequences of her conduct yet continued nonetheless. Harriet's actions, which seem to have been motivated by her sincere but incorrect assumption that the home was on fire, support this interpretation (Ham, 2018). This leads us to wonder whether the men's rea requirement necessary for criminal harm is rendered moot by her mental condition.
Harriet might perhaps use the defence of honest belief. Harriet may claim that she had a good faith belief in the necessity to defend herself and flee the imagined danger if she honestly thought that the home was on fire and her actions were a consequence of this conviction (Bauman, 2018). For her to use this as a defence, her opinion must have been reasonable given her experience and the information at hand. Legal precedents like R v Williams [1987] 3 All ER 411 have demonstrated that a reasonable but honest belief may nonetheless serve as a defence in certain circumstances.
Harriet's actions may result in an assault accusation if they result in Daniel's shattered cheekbone. When someone intentionally or recklessly puts another person in fear of imminent illegal force, they have committed assault. Assault requires the use of force against another individual without reason or excuse, and Harriet's conduct of striking Daniel meets this requirement.
To prove mens rea, it would be necessary to show that Harriet intentionally struck Daniel with the purpose to do him bodily damage. The men's rea factor would be met if it could be demonstrated that she meant to strike him or was irresponsible as to whether her conduct would cause injury. Harriet's inebriation from the tainted drink might be taken into account while evaluating her mental clarity and line of defence.
Harriet's defence might include the use of automatism (Brahams, 2020). If she can show that she did not have the requisite mens rea for assault because her acts were involuntary or the consequence of a sudden and unexpected loss of control, she may be able to claim that she did not commit the attack. Harriet would have a hard time using the automatism defence if she was found guilty since she knowingly drank the alcoholic beverage that included the illegal substance.
Harriet may be guilty of the crime of giving poison. To be prosecuted for this crime, it must be shown that Harriet knowingly and willfully added vodka to Harriet's drink without her knowledge or permission. The toxic, damaging or destructive to health, substance must be administered as the actus reus. If vodka were to injure someone with an alcohol allergy, we may classify it as a poison.
The prosecution must prove that Harriet acted intentionally or negligently in administering the poisonous drug to establish mens rea. The men's rea criteria would be met if Harriet intended to spike Harriet's drink. But Harriet's mental state at the time of the drink spiking is crucial (Sheard, 2020). She may claim that she lacked the requisite men's rea for the offence if she honestly thought that Harriet was not allergic to alcohol or that the vodka would not cause damage.
Harriet might use the mistaken identification defence. She may claim that her conduct resulted from an honest error if she can prove that she reasonably thought that Harriet was not allergic to alcohol or that the vodka would not cause damage. Case law, such as R v. Mist [1997] Crim LR 564, has demonstrated that a lack of mens rea may occur when an innocent and reasonable error is made.Conclusion
In summary, both Paula and Harriet could potentially be held accountable for their actions under criminal law. Paula's action of appropriating the designer handbag without obtaining consent may potentially be classified as both theft and the handling of stolen goods. The actions exhibited by Harriet, which involved the intentional destruction of property and the infliction of harm upon Daniel, have the potential to result in legal charges related to criminal damage and assault. Nevertheless, both parties may possess valid arguments to contemplate. Paula may assert the lack of deceitfulness on her part if she sincerely held the belief that the handbag was intended for her. In contrast, Harriet could potentially invoke the defence of honest and reasonable belief, provided that she sincerely believed there was a fire and her response was commensurate with the perceived level of threat. Moreover, Harriet could potentially invoke the legal defence of self-defence in relation to the assault charge, on the condition that she possessed a reasonable belief that it was necessary to safeguard herself or others.
References
Bauman, C.W. (2018). Moral Conviction: Another Contributor to Attitude Strength or Something More? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), pp.895–917. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895.
Brahams, D. (2020). Hyperglycaemia, Automatism, and Insanity. The Lancet, 333(8643), pp.912–913. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(89)92923-1.
Doussard, M. (2019). The Rise of Wage Theft Laws. Urban Affairs Review, 52(5), pp.780–807. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087415608008.
Freiberg, A. (2021). Regulating Markets for Stolen Property. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 30(3), pp.237–258. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/000486589703000303.
Ham, S.H. (2018). Interpretation Isn’t Magic: An Academic’s View on the Role of Research in Teaching Interpretation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 9(1), pp.65–68. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/109258720400900109.
Harder, L.D. (2020). Consumptive emasculation: the ecological and evolutionary consequences of pollen theft. Biological Reviews, 84(2), pp.259–276. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2008.00074.x.
Mellinger, G.T. (2021). Prediction of Prognosis for Prostatic Adenocarcinoma by Combined Histological Grading and Clinical Staging. Journal of Urology, 111(1), pp.58–64. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)59889-4.
Sapolsky, R.M. (2021). The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1451), pp.1787–1796. doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1547.
Sheard, L. (2020). ‘Anything Could Have Happened’: Women, the Night-time Economy, Alcohol and Drink Spiking. Sociology, 45(4), pp.619–633. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511406596.
Shkira, E. (2022). Criminal Liability of Corporations: A Comparative Approach to Corporate Criminal Liability in Common Law and Civil Law Countries. SSRN Electronic Journal, 98(15). doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2290878.
Syrota, G. (2022). STATUTES: Theft Act 1978. The Modern Law Review, 42(3), pp.301–308. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1979.tb01537.x.
References