CRIMINAL LAW

UNIT 4 Submitted Unit Task C – Generic Feedback

The Outcomes

This Submitted Unit Task had the following learning outcomes:

1. Discuss the likelihood of successfully prosecuting or defending a person

charged with an offence of aggravated arson.
2. Give clear, concise and accurate written advice to a client in relation to a
charge of aggravated arson.
Completion of Part B offers an opportunity to further develop your skills ahead of the
Mock and end of module assessment.

The Task
You were asked to draft a note which summarised advice for Anne and Mike on
whether they were likely to be found guilty of aggravated arson. Your supervisor
asked you to ensure you covered a number of points and guidance on these is below
as your generic feedback.

Points to Cover
1. What is the actus reus of aggravated arson and how does it differ from simple
arson?

Answer
The actus reus of aggravated arson is the same as for arson except that the
property may belong to either the defendant or another.

2. What is the mens rea for aggravated arson? Do you think the prosecution are
likely to argue that a) Anne had the relevant intention or b) that she was reckless?

Answer
The mens rea of aggravated arson is twofold:
- an intention or recklessness as to the damage or destruction of property;
- an intention to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the
life of another might be endangered.

2223_crim_u04_ce02_sut_c_feedback 51 © The University of Law Limited

 There is no evidence that Anne intended to endanger life. Her aim or purpose
was to destroy the field of GM crops. As recklessness will suffice, there is no
need to consider indirect intent : the prosecution will argue that Anne was
reckless i.e. that she foresaw a risk that the life of another might be endangered
and went on, without justification, to take that risk.

3. Identify at least 5 pieces of evidence which suggest that Anne was reckless as to
endangering life and explain why.

Answer
These are some examples – you may have others:
 Anne used petrol (an accelerant) around the edge of a field. This is likely to
get out of control quickly as it is a large area.
 She knew it had been ‘really dry recently’ and she expected the field to
burn quickly: ‘It spread just as fast as she had hoped’.
 Anne wanted the fire ‘to really take hold before the fire brigade had a
chance to put the fire out’.
 Even though the fire brigade arrived quickly, they only ‘just’ managed to
stop the fire spreading to the farmhouse.
 Farm buildings are often near fields so she realised a farmhouse might be
nearby.
 She anticipated the arrival of the fire brigade so realised that their lives
might be endangered.

NOTE: Although these points would be advanced by the prosecution, it will be

necessary to show that Anne did foresee the relevant risk – remember recklessness
is assessed subjectively so it is not sufficient to argue that she should have
foreseen
the risk.

4. Identify at least 2 pieces of evidence which suggest that Anne was not reckless
as to endangering life and explain why.

Answer
 Anne insists that she “did not know where the farmhouse was’.
 It was dark.

5. Can Anne be convicted of aggravated arson even though no-one’s life was
actually endangered?

Answer
Yes: no life need actually be endangered – R v Dudley [1989] – so it does not
matter, for example, that the fire did not spread to the farmhouse or that Giles
removed his family from the situation.

© The University of Law Limited 52 2223_crim_u04_ce02_sut_c_feedback

6. What advice would you give to Anne on this offence – do you consider that she is
likely to be found guilty?
Answer
The Prosecution can clearly establish that Anne committed the actus reus of
aggravated arson as she destroyed the crop by fire. It can also prove the first
element of mens rea as she admits deliberately starting the fire so she intended
to damage or destroy the property.
However, the Prosecution do not currently have any direct evidence to support
the ulterior mens rea required for the aggravated offence – that she intended to
endanger the life of another or reckless as to whether the life of another might be
endangered. The Prosecution will have to rely on the argument that, as an
intelligent adult, Anne herself did foresee a risk that there may be an occupied
farmhouse nearby and that the fire may spread and endanger lives (or that she
foresaw the risk that the fire officers’ lives might be endangered).
If they fail to prove this element of mens rea beyond reasonable doubt, Anne will
be acquitted of the offence.

7. Explain why the prosecution will be able to prove that Mike committed the actus
reus of aggravated arson.

Answer
He has admitted that he acted with Anne, in pouring petrol on the crop and setting
it alight so the prosecution can prove that he destroyed property by fire.

8. How will the prosecution argue that Mike had the mens rea of aggravated arson
when he set fire to the field.

Answer
Mike has admitted that he intended to damage the crop so the first element of
mens rea can clearly be proved.
As for the ulterior mens rea, there is no evidence to suggest that Mike intended to
endanger life by setting the field on fire. However, the facts helping to establish
that Mike foresaw the risk that the life of another might be endangered, and so
was reckless are that Mike knows Giles and so he is likely to be aware of the
location of the farmhouse and therefore likely to be aware of a risk to life being
endangered by the fire given its proximity to the farmhouse.
On the other hand, he tells police that he was “really scared” and says the fire
burned much faster than he thought it would. This could assist him as it suggests
he may not have foreseen the risk of the fire spreading and endangering life.
NOTE: do not be concerned that you cannot reach a definitive conclusion as to
whether Mike (or indeed Anne) is guilty of aggravated arson. The discussion
above demonstrates the technique of using the information provided to consider
counter arguments.

2223_crim_u04_ce02_sut_c_feedback 53 © The University of Law Limited

9. Will Mike be able to rely on a defence of lawful excuse under s,5(2)(a) Criminal
Damage Act 1971 in relation to the charge of aggravated arson?
Answer
No he cannot rely on a defence of lawful excuse under s,5(2)(a) Criminal Damage
Act 1971 in relation to the charge of aggravated arson. The s.5(2) defences arte
only relevant to offences of simple criminal damage and simple arson – not to the
aggravated offences.

PART B
You were asked to consider:

 how you would have delivered an oral presentation of Anne and Mike's liability
for an offence of aggravated arson; and

 what supplementary questions you might anticipate from the facts given in
Prepare Task 2.

Oral presentation

This is an opportunity for you to reflect on your preparation for an oral

presentation.
When you receive your assessment materials (both for the mock and the end of
module assessment) you are likely to begin your preparation for the assessment
by making written notes, addressing the issues you have identified and answering
the questions posed.

Once you have all the material and detail you need, make sure that you do not
simply read out your notes in your presentation. Neither should you prepare a full
script of the words you plan to use.

Instead, use your written notes to prepare bullet points to structure your oral
presentation and to act as a prompt to you as you go through your presentation.

In particular, watch out for abbreviations you may have used in your written notes
and ensure that you do not replicate them in your oral presentation. For example,
if you have written “D” for defendant in your notes, in your presentation, do not
say
“The prosecution will need to prove that D set fire...” Instead you would say “The
prosecution will need to prove that the defendant (or Anne/ Mike etc) set fire...”

Supplementary Questions

You may have identified a range of questions that might be asked from the
information given in Prepare Task 2 (some of these were addressed in Prepare
and
Engage Task but remember you are anticipating supplementary questions that
might follow on from the points covered in this submitted unit task. The SUT only
dealt with aggravated arson so you might anticipate that the supplementary
questions might focus on the simple offence.
© The University of Law Limited 54 2223_crim_u04_ce02_sut_c_feedback
 The answers to the suggested questions below are all covered in the Unit
materials,. We have included the answer to the third question is included here as
you may have been less sure on this one.

Example supplementary questions

- What is the actus reus of simple arson?

- Will the prosecution be able to prove that Mike had the relevant mens rea for
an offence of simple arson?
- Why will it be important for Anne to raise a defence of lawful excuse under s.5
Criminal Damage Act 1971 to a charge of simple arson? (Answer: because
the prosecution can prove that she committed the actus reus of simple arson
with the relevant mens rea). T
- Will Mike be able to rely on a defence of lawful excuse under s.5(2)(a)
Criminal Damage Act 1971 to avoid a conviction for simple arson?

The purpose of asking you to think about these is that, although you cannot “question
spot” for the supplementary questions in the assessment, thinking about all the areas
of law raised in the fact pattern will enable you to prepare thoroughly so that you are
able to deal with the supplementary questions asked by the assessor.

2223_crim_u04_ce02_sut_c_feedback 55 © The University of Law Limited