Criminal Law – GDL EXAM SCRIPT (Questions & Answers)
QUESTION 1:
In July 20XX, Ted, who is currently unemployed, decides to take his son, Frankie aged
5, to the Ruby Fairground run by Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd. He takes a £20 note from his
girlfriend’s purse intending to replace it later when he picks up his welfare benefits. They
have been arguing a lot about money recently, so he doesn’t ask her if he can take the
money, in case she says no.
The Ruby Fairground charges an entrance fee for adults and children aged 6 and over
which covers the cost of the rides. Children of 5 and under go free. Realising he doesn’t
have enough money to pay for his ticket and snacks, he decides to try to get into the
Ruby Fairground without paying the entrance fee. The Ruby Fairground is in a field
which has been fenced off with a wooden fence. He finds a section of the fence which is
slightly loose. He pulls away two of the fence panels and squeezes through the hole
with Frankie.
Ted and Frankie go on some rides together. Then Frankie wants to go on the chair
swing ride on his own. The ride attendant and employee of Ruby Fairground, Akash, is
supposed to check the riders to make sure the buckles are clicked in fully, but he is
distracted today as he had found out that his father was terminally ill that morning. He
doesn’t check that Frankie’s buckle is securely fastened.
When the ride starts and the swings start going round, Frankie’s seatbelt comes undone
and Frankie falls out of the swing, bumps his head and is knocked unconscious. Despite
swift and exemplary medical care, he dies as a result of these injuries.
In a subsequent investigation, evidence is found to show that the Head of Operations of
Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd, as well as the manager of Ruby Fairground where Frankie died
had been warned that the seatbelts on the chair swing rides needed replacing as some
of them were worn and the buckles did not always click in securely. A memorandum
shows that Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd was going to replace these after the summer
holidays had passed, but asked the managers of the fairgrounds to tell the ride
attendants to check the buckles are clicked in carefully. The manager of Ruby
Fairground had written an email to all the fairground employees on this, but due to
misspelling the email address this had not reached the employees.
Consider the criminal liability of Ted, Akash and Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd.
,ANSWER 1:
Ted takes £20 from his girlfriend’s purse
Ted - theft
AR (Actus reus)
Appropriating property belonging to another – Ted assumes the rights of an owner (DPP
v Gomez) by taking a £20 note from his girlfriend’s purse, which belonged to her.
MR (Mens rea)
Dishonesty – while on the one hand Ted could be judged to have acted in a way
reasonable and honest people would have by borrowing money from his partner’s
handbag (Ivey), on the facts it seems that Ted would not have had his girlfriend’s
permission to take the money. They had been arguing a lot about money recently, so it
seems that Ted did not believe that she would have consented to him taking the £20
note (s.2(1)(b) TA 1968). Also, given that he appreciated this fact, and that he could
have just asked his girlfriend for the money if he thought she would consent to him
taking it, he is likely to be regarded as being dishonest.
Intention to deprive his girlfriend of the money permanently – Ted does not intend to
deprive permanently in the ordinary meaning of the word as per s.1() TA / Warner.
However, by intending to replace the money when he picks up his benefits, he could be
taking the item under a condition as to its return which Ted may not be able to perform
(s.6(2) TA). Nevertheless, given that there is no information on the facts that Ted should
expect his welfare payments to suddenly stop, he is probably able to keep this promise
and will be not guilty. If not, he may be guilty.
Ted and Frankie get into Ruby Fairground and go on some rides
Ted – simple criminal damage (s.1(1) CDA 1971)
AR
D damages or destroys property belonging to another – Ted damages the fairground
fence by pulling two panels away, which although not extensive damage will alter the
fence to the extent that fixing it incurs cost (Hardman). The fence belongs to Crystal
Fairgrounds Ltd (‘CF’), who own the fairground.
MR
, D intends to damage property or is reckless as to its destruction. Intention means
aim/desire/purpose. He clearly makes it his aim/desire/purpose to pull the fence panels
loose in order to get him and Frankie into the fairground. D knows property belongs to
another or is reckless as to who it belongs to – Ted knows this is the fairground site,
and so will also know that the fence belongs to them (another). Ted is guilty of simple
criminal damage.
Ted - Fraud (s.2 Fraud Act 2006)
AR
Ted makes a representation by going into the fairground and queuing and getting on
rides. This is a false representation as he has not in fact paid his adult’s entrance fee.
His 5-year-old son, Frankie, is not criminally liable, as not only does Frankie not have to
pay an entrance fee as he is a child of 5 or under, but criminal liability does not extend
to children under 10 years-old.
MR
Ted knows the representation is or might be misleading, as he realises he doesn’t have
enough money to pay for his ticket and snacks, so clearly knows he needed to pay
entrance. This also makes Ted clearly dishonest. Intent, by making the representation,
to make a gain for themselves or another, or to cause loss to another – Ted might not
make or intend to make a gain for himself and Frankie as he gains access to a service
(the fairground ride park itself), which does not fall under s.5(2)(a) FA 2006. However,
given the rides may themselves be goods rather than services, Ted may intend to make
a gain (i.e. equivalent to the cost of entrance). Regardless, he does intend to cause a
loss to Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd (the cost of his entrance fee). Ted is therefore guilty of
fraud by misrepresentation (s.2 FA 2006).
Frankie dies
Ted - Gross negligence manslaughter (Adomako)
Ted clearly lacks the MR for murder when his son dies (they do not intend to kill or
cause GBH), and cannot be liable for constructive manslaughter as they have not
committed a positive unlawful act (Lamb). However, Adomako confirms that liability for a
homicide charge can be incurred through an omission to act, providing that:
A duty of care is owed by Ted to Frankie – as Frankie’s father, Ted has a special
relationship with his son which establishes a duty of care (Stone and Dobinson).
However, there is no clear breach of Ted’s duty her. While he lets his son go on the ride
by himself (he is only 5 years-old), there are no safety warnings or rules at the
QUESTION 1:
In July 20XX, Ted, who is currently unemployed, decides to take his son, Frankie aged
5, to the Ruby Fairground run by Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd. He takes a £20 note from his
girlfriend’s purse intending to replace it later when he picks up his welfare benefits. They
have been arguing a lot about money recently, so he doesn’t ask her if he can take the
money, in case she says no.
The Ruby Fairground charges an entrance fee for adults and children aged 6 and over
which covers the cost of the rides. Children of 5 and under go free. Realising he doesn’t
have enough money to pay for his ticket and snacks, he decides to try to get into the
Ruby Fairground without paying the entrance fee. The Ruby Fairground is in a field
which has been fenced off with a wooden fence. He finds a section of the fence which is
slightly loose. He pulls away two of the fence panels and squeezes through the hole
with Frankie.
Ted and Frankie go on some rides together. Then Frankie wants to go on the chair
swing ride on his own. The ride attendant and employee of Ruby Fairground, Akash, is
supposed to check the riders to make sure the buckles are clicked in fully, but he is
distracted today as he had found out that his father was terminally ill that morning. He
doesn’t check that Frankie’s buckle is securely fastened.
When the ride starts and the swings start going round, Frankie’s seatbelt comes undone
and Frankie falls out of the swing, bumps his head and is knocked unconscious. Despite
swift and exemplary medical care, he dies as a result of these injuries.
In a subsequent investigation, evidence is found to show that the Head of Operations of
Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd, as well as the manager of Ruby Fairground where Frankie died
had been warned that the seatbelts on the chair swing rides needed replacing as some
of them were worn and the buckles did not always click in securely. A memorandum
shows that Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd was going to replace these after the summer
holidays had passed, but asked the managers of the fairgrounds to tell the ride
attendants to check the buckles are clicked in carefully. The manager of Ruby
Fairground had written an email to all the fairground employees on this, but due to
misspelling the email address this had not reached the employees.
Consider the criminal liability of Ted, Akash and Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd.
,ANSWER 1:
Ted takes £20 from his girlfriend’s purse
Ted - theft
AR (Actus reus)
Appropriating property belonging to another – Ted assumes the rights of an owner (DPP
v Gomez) by taking a £20 note from his girlfriend’s purse, which belonged to her.
MR (Mens rea)
Dishonesty – while on the one hand Ted could be judged to have acted in a way
reasonable and honest people would have by borrowing money from his partner’s
handbag (Ivey), on the facts it seems that Ted would not have had his girlfriend’s
permission to take the money. They had been arguing a lot about money recently, so it
seems that Ted did not believe that she would have consented to him taking the £20
note (s.2(1)(b) TA 1968). Also, given that he appreciated this fact, and that he could
have just asked his girlfriend for the money if he thought she would consent to him
taking it, he is likely to be regarded as being dishonest.
Intention to deprive his girlfriend of the money permanently – Ted does not intend to
deprive permanently in the ordinary meaning of the word as per s.1() TA / Warner.
However, by intending to replace the money when he picks up his benefits, he could be
taking the item under a condition as to its return which Ted may not be able to perform
(s.6(2) TA). Nevertheless, given that there is no information on the facts that Ted should
expect his welfare payments to suddenly stop, he is probably able to keep this promise
and will be not guilty. If not, he may be guilty.
Ted and Frankie get into Ruby Fairground and go on some rides
Ted – simple criminal damage (s.1(1) CDA 1971)
AR
D damages or destroys property belonging to another – Ted damages the fairground
fence by pulling two panels away, which although not extensive damage will alter the
fence to the extent that fixing it incurs cost (Hardman). The fence belongs to Crystal
Fairgrounds Ltd (‘CF’), who own the fairground.
MR
, D intends to damage property or is reckless as to its destruction. Intention means
aim/desire/purpose. He clearly makes it his aim/desire/purpose to pull the fence panels
loose in order to get him and Frankie into the fairground. D knows property belongs to
another or is reckless as to who it belongs to – Ted knows this is the fairground site,
and so will also know that the fence belongs to them (another). Ted is guilty of simple
criminal damage.
Ted - Fraud (s.2 Fraud Act 2006)
AR
Ted makes a representation by going into the fairground and queuing and getting on
rides. This is a false representation as he has not in fact paid his adult’s entrance fee.
His 5-year-old son, Frankie, is not criminally liable, as not only does Frankie not have to
pay an entrance fee as he is a child of 5 or under, but criminal liability does not extend
to children under 10 years-old.
MR
Ted knows the representation is or might be misleading, as he realises he doesn’t have
enough money to pay for his ticket and snacks, so clearly knows he needed to pay
entrance. This also makes Ted clearly dishonest. Intent, by making the representation,
to make a gain for themselves or another, or to cause loss to another – Ted might not
make or intend to make a gain for himself and Frankie as he gains access to a service
(the fairground ride park itself), which does not fall under s.5(2)(a) FA 2006. However,
given the rides may themselves be goods rather than services, Ted may intend to make
a gain (i.e. equivalent to the cost of entrance). Regardless, he does intend to cause a
loss to Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd (the cost of his entrance fee). Ted is therefore guilty of
fraud by misrepresentation (s.2 FA 2006).
Frankie dies
Ted - Gross negligence manslaughter (Adomako)
Ted clearly lacks the MR for murder when his son dies (they do not intend to kill or
cause GBH), and cannot be liable for constructive manslaughter as they have not
committed a positive unlawful act (Lamb). However, Adomako confirms that liability for a
homicide charge can be incurred through an omission to act, providing that:
A duty of care is owed by Ted to Frankie – as Frankie’s father, Ted has a special
relationship with his son which establishes a duty of care (Stone and Dobinson).
However, there is no clear breach of Ted’s duty her. While he lets his son go on the ride
by himself (he is only 5 years-old), there are no safety warnings or rules at the
