Words: 880
Introduction
Todd may be charged with larceny, fraud and battery assault under the Crimes Act, while Lin will be charged with fraud and larceny under the Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE). The prosecution has the evidential burden to prove all elements beyond reasonable doubt (BRD).
Todd
Larceny
AR
Voluntarily takes and carries away property.
Prosecution can prove BRD (Woolmington) that Todd voluntarily took away the tangible property (croton) as he willingly and consciously took the wallet.
Another possession
Property (croton) is the womens’ possession as it was left on her seat and then recognized it was lost.
Without consent
Prosecution can prove …show more content…
Assault
AR
Voluntary
Prosecution can prove BRD that Todd consciously and willingly assaulted the woman by pushing her in order to prevent her from entering the train.
Causation
‘But for’ Todd’s very light application of force, Smith, in blocking her from entering the unlawful contact, wouldn’t have occurred, which was the operating and substantial cause of her blockage.
Consent
No consent was given as there was no explicit or implied consent to assault (Boughey).
MR
Intent
Prosecution can prove (BRD) (Woolmington) intent of unlawful contact through his purpose of blocking her from entering the train to retrieve property.
TC
The MR of intent to push temporarily coincides with the AR of volunariness to block through contact (Fagan).
Lin
JCE
AR
Mutual agreement / understanding to commit crime
Prosecution can prove BRD (Woolmington) that Linn had a mutual agreement to commit the crime of fraud through falsifying ownership.
Each participates in a way sufficient prochillo.
Lin participated in using the card fraudulently to gain property while also engaging in larceny through not paying for alcohol.
Actus Reus completed by one or other or