Would A Photo Like This Be Cringy?
Shopping & Style1 min ago
Criminal Law Help
4 Answers
I am studying law and am confused with the first part of a certain question any help would be appreciated. It is:
Jimmy decided that the best way out of his crisis was to borrow heroin out of Mick's supply. Out of urgency he took the contents of three out of the last four bags in Mick's possesion and replaced it with caustic soda - a substance he knew would be lethal.
I am just wondering what topic this issue lies under..is it theft(appropriation)?
Thanks.
Jimmy decided that the best way out of his crisis was to borrow heroin out of Mick's supply. Out of urgency he took the contents of three out of the last four bags in Mick's possesion and replaced it with caustic soda - a substance he knew would be lethal.
I am just wondering what topic this issue lies under..is it theft(appropriation)?
Thanks.
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cath2000_01. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hi,
Theft isn't the issue here. The heroin is already an illegal substance and Mick would not be able to pursue a matter in the courts. He would be saying, "Hey, he stole my heroine', which is also, "Hey, he stole an already illegal (and accordingly illegally acquired) from me!" The courts wouldn't be very sympathetic to this situation...
I don't want to give to much of an answer but think of the replacement of a substance which he KNOWS to be lethal...
Hope I've helped a little...
Theft isn't the issue here. The heroin is already an illegal substance and Mick would not be able to pursue a matter in the courts. He would be saying, "Hey, he stole my heroine', which is also, "Hey, he stole an already illegal (and accordingly illegally acquired) from me!" The courts wouldn't be very sympathetic to this situation...
I don't want to give to much of an answer but think of the replacement of a substance which he KNOWS to be lethal...
Hope I've helped a little...
If you have a wee look through the contents page of a criminal law textbook, you will usually get a hint of what offences (or 'potential' offences) may have been committed.
Jimmy may know that the substance is lethal, but has he actually committed a crime by his actions? What is his intent? Consider 'recklessness'.
Supposing someone is injured or dies from Jimmy's actions. What charges could he face? What would be needed to secure a conviction (look at the actus reus and mens rea of the crimes you consider).
Defences: Suppose Mick (or another drug user) is injured or dies as a result of Jimmy's behaviour?
Would his state of mind be a relevant defence? If not, why not?
Hope this points you in the right direction without giving too much help.
Jimmy may know that the substance is lethal, but has he actually committed a crime by his actions? What is his intent? Consider 'recklessness'.
Supposing someone is injured or dies from Jimmy's actions. What charges could he face? What would be needed to secure a conviction (look at the actus reus and mens rea of the crimes you consider).
Defences: Suppose Mick (or another drug user) is injured or dies as a result of Jimmy's behaviour?
Would his state of mind be a relevant defence? If not, why not?
Hope this points you in the right direction without giving too much help.
1 to 4 of 4
