Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Scots Criminal Law
Criminal Law
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Malicious Mischief | -actus reus: causing damage to the property of another (HMA v Wilson: patrimonial loss is enough) -Mens rea: intention or recklesness |
| Vandalism | -actus reus: destruction or damage to the property of another -mens rea: wilfulness or recklessness (Black v Allan: obvious and material risk is sufficient evidence of recklessness) -no reasonable excuse (Mac Dougall v Yuk-Sun Ho: circumstances!!!) |
| Wilful Fire-Raising | -actus reus: setting fire to corporeal property owned by another without permission -mens rea: wilfulness! (No transferred intent -> Byrne v HMA) |
| Culpable and reckless Fire-Raising | -actus reus: settign fire to corporeal property owned by another without permission -mens rea: recklessness |
| Fire-Raising to defraud insurers | -covers setting fire to your own property! ( might also involve breach of the peace) |
| Breach of the peace | -actus reus: conduct severe enough to cause alarm and threaten serious disturbance to the community. Public element! ( Smith v Donelly) -mens rea: (unclear) apparently intentionor recklessness (Hughes v Crowe: some awareness of the conduct enough) |
| Attempting to pervert the course of justice | -actus reus: any act which interferes with the course of justice -mens rea: Delibarate aim to pervert the course of justice (Carney v HMA) |
| Giving false information to authorities | -actus reus: either making false accusations against a named individual or giving false information to the police (wasting police time) -mens rea: knowing the infromation to be false (Gray v Morrison) |
| Perjury | -actus reus: uttering the false evidence (incl. saying you remember things when you don't, Simpson v Tudhope) -mens rea: knowledge that evidence is false |
| Subordination of perjury | actus reus: delibarate seducing of another to commit perjury; witness must actually give false evidence |
| Contempt of court | -actus reus: misconduct in court ( Daws v Cardle), failure to appear (Muirhead v Douglas) -mens rea: wilfulness; intention to challenge authority of the court ( McMillan v Carmichael) |
| Abduction | -actus reus: to carry off a person against his or her will without lawful authority (Elliot v Tudhope) -mens rea: Intention /knowledge (Brouillard v HMA: no need for fear or alarm) |
| Assault | -actus reus: Attach; just words are not enough (MacKeller v Dickson); indirect attack possible (Quinn v Lees) or gestures producing fear and alarm (Atkinson v HMA) -mens rea: evil inten t(Smart v HMA); transferred intent ( Roberts v Hamilton) |
| Aggravated Assault | -use of weapon ( Hogan); seriousness of injury (Stephen Kerr; HMA v Booth); lewness or indecency ( Young v McGlennan), victims character and official capacity (Alexanders), Intent to commit further crime ( Harper v HMA) |
| Threats | -communications enough (james Miller) -mens rea: intention to threaten (intention to cause serious harm not necessary) |
| Non-intentional injuries | -HMA v Harris: gross, criminal indifference to consequences; very high standard of recklessness |
| Reckless endangerment of the lieges | -Normand v Robinson: organisation of a rave in unsafe premises+ needle in bag -MacPhail: fire in field -> smoke on the road |
Created by:
verzweifelt