survey-manager/survey-nginx/secure_html/data/tests/SPEp1w25.janes

id&qtp&qim&qil&qtx&qca&qia&qrm&qnxt&qprv&qalb&subj&wght&pts&flr&ded&layout&qfixed&qptsbyans&flags
SPEp1w25.001&mcs&0&N&A church is open to the public free of charge so that people may come to view the 16th century stained glass windows. Two medieval silver cups, which are still regularly used as part of religious ceremonies in the church, are also on display. Peter, a member of the public, takes the two silver cups from the church intending to drink wine from them to impress friends when they visit. He plans to return the cups to the church in a few days' time. He is seen leaving the church with the silver cups and the police are called. Will Peter be liable for an offence of unauthorised removal of articles from public display?&Peter will not be liable, because the cups are used regularly and are not merely kept for display.&Peter will not be liable, because the church is open without charge. The offence only applies to buildings where an entry fee is payable.;Peter will be liable for the offence in these circumstances.;Peter will not be liable because the offence applies to a 'collection'. This means more than two items, and there are only two cups involved.;&The offence arises when: a building (or part of one) is open to the public, so that people may view a collection kept in the building or in its grounds, and someone without lawful authority removes from the building or its grounds, an article displayed or kept for display there. There is no specific definition of 'collection', presumably it would amount to more than one article, but there is nothing to say so or to say there has to be more than two. Here the church is a building, it is open to the public to view the collection of stained glass. When it comes to the silver cups, however, if they are functional and not merely kept for display, then it is likely that they will not be covered by the offence.<br><br>(Theft Act 1968, section 11, R v Barr [1978]) <br>&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.
SPEp1w25.002&mcs&0&N&Officers issue a closure notice for an empty house that is being used for the supply and use of heroin. After the notice is served, application is made to the magistrates' court for a closure order. The court is satisfied with evidence that shows the premises has been used for the unlawful supply and use of Class A drugs. Of what else must the court be satisfied if an order is to be made?&Disorder or serious nuisance has been caused at the premises and the order is necessary to prevent further disorder or nuisance.&The order is necessary to prevent further drug offences being committed at the premises.;That at least one person involved in the misuse of Class A drugs at the premises was not a resident there.;Unless the order is made, the owner or occupier of the premises is not likely to take effective steps to control further use of the premises for drug offences.;&The three matters of which the court has to be satisfied before making a closure order are: that the premises have been used for the unlawful production, supply or use of Class A drugs, the use of the premises is associated with disorder or serious nuisance to the public, and that an order is necessary to prevent such disorder or nuisance for the period specified in the order.<br>,br>(Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, section 2)&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.
SPEp1w25.003&mcs&0&N&Pat claims she was raped by Joe, who does not deny that a sexual act took place. However, Joe claims that Pat consented to the act. If Pat did not give consent, what must the prosecution prove if Joe is to be convicted of rape?&Joe did not reasonably believe that Pat gave consent.&Joe knew or had reasonable cause to believe that Pat did not give her consent.;It would have been obvious to a reasonable person that Pat was not consenting.;Joe was reckless as to whether Pat gave consent.;&Recklessness used to feature in rape, but the provisions are now quite different. Apart from having to prove penetration, the prosecution has to prove that the complainant did not consent to the penetration and the accused did not reasonably believe that the complainant was consenting. Whether the accused's belief that there is consent is reasonable will be a matter for the court to decide, having regard to all the circumstances.<br><br>(Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 1)&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.
SPEp1w25.004&mcs&0&N&Paul is convicted of a sexual offence on Tuesday, which means that he is required to give notification of details to the police. On Wednesday, he moves house and rents a flat in another part of the country. He uses a different name to avoid being traced by his victim's relatives. He goes to a police station on Thursday in the area where he now lives to give the required notification to the police. What will be correct in relation to the details he must give?&He must provide his old address and former name, as well as the new address and the name he is now using.&He must provide his current address and name, as well as his former name, but not the old address.;He only needs to provide his current address and new name.;He is not required to give details at that police station. He should give notification at a police station in the area he was living in on the date of his conviction.;&Among the details that must be notified by a sex offender are: his name on the date of conviction and on the date he gives notification, his address on the date of conviction and on the date he gives notification. The date of conviction is referred to as the 'relevant date'. Notification should be at a police station in the area where the person's home address is situated. If the person does not have a home, then the police area where his last address will do, or the police area in which he was convicted. The police station has to be one prescribed for that purpose.<br><br>(Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 83)&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.
SPEp1w25.005&mcs&0&N&Wendy pays for a counterfeit debit card, which she intends to use at cash machines. She goes to a machine and attempts to draw �200. However, the pin number she was told to use does not work, so she does not receive any money. She is later identified from camera footage and is arrested. She is charged with having custody of a false instrument. What other offence does she commit by trying to obtain money from the machine?&Using a false instrument with intent.&Attempting to use a false instrument with intent.;Attempting to obtain property by deception.;She does not commit another offence.;&For the purposes of deception offences, a machine cannot be deceived, so forget the option of attempting to obtain property by deception.. A person commits an offence who uses a false instrument, knowing or believing it to be false, with intent to induce someone to accept it as genuine, and, by so accepting it, to do or not do something to his own or another's prejudice. 'Prejudice' will include where a person gains, or another loses. It would clearly be to the bank's prejudice if the machine paid out on a forged card. The term 'induce' includes not only trying to persuade people into accepting something as genuine, but also when a machine responds to an instrument as if it were genuine. The offence is complete when the card is used with intent, the fact that no money was obtained does not matter.<br><br>(Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, sections 3, 10)&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.
SPEp1w25.006&mcs&0&N&Linda, aged 30, is a single parent with a four-year-old child. The child suffers from an asthmatic condition that requires prompt application of a throat spray when an attack occurs. One evening, Linda goes out, leaving the child in the care of Rachel, a 14-year-old babysitter. Linda had shown Rachel how to work the throat spray and has left her mobile phone number. While Linda is out, the child suffers an asthma attack and Rachel discovers the throat spray is empty. She does not phone Linda, nor does she seek other assistance. Rachel only calls an ambulance when the child almost stops breathing. Might Linda or Rachel be held liable for an offence of cruelty to a child?&The offender has to be aged 16 or older, so Rachel is not liable. Linda may be liable for neglect by failing to provide adequate medical aid.&The offence is committed by a person who has responsibility for a child. As a babysitter, Rachel only had temporary care, so is not liable. As the mother, Linda may be liable.;At the time the child suffered the attack, Linda did not have care of the child, so is not liable. Rachel may be liable for the offence by failing to seek prompt medical treatment.;Both may be liable. Rachel has temporary care of the child and Linda is responsible for the child even though she did not have immediate care of the child at the time.;&The offence is committed when: a person aged 16 or over has responsibility for a person under 16, and wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects the child, in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health. Neglect may arise when the person responsible fails to obtain adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging. A person with parental responsibility for a child will be deemed to have responsibility, and the responsibility does not cease just because the child is in the temporary care of someone else, such as a babysitter. Since Linda has responsibility as the parent and since she left an empty throat spray, she will be liable for cruelty by neglect. Rachel is under 16, so does not commit such an offence.<br><br>(Children and Young Persons Act 1933, section 1)&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.
SPEp1w25.007&mcs&0&N&Robert, a builder, was sued in the High Court by Smith, a customer, after a dispute over work done at Smith's house. Smith won the case and Robert had to pay damages. Some nine months after the court case has finished, police are called to Smith's house where Smith claims that he has been assaulted by Robert. He believes that Robert is seeking revenge after losing the court case. Robert is found and says the assault had nothing to do with the court case. He says it occurred because Smith has been telling everyone that Robert is completely incompetent as a builder. Robert may be liable for an offence of harming a witness in civil court proceedings, as well as for a possible assault charge. What must be proved in relation to Robert's motive for the assault if he is to be convicted of an offence of harming a witness?&Because the assault occurred within a year of the end of the court case, Robert will be deemed to have carried out the assault because Smith was a witness and it will be up to Robert to rebut that assumption.&The prosecution will have to prove that Robert carried out the assault because Smith was a witness in the court case against him.;Robert cannot be prosecuted for harming a witness because the court case is finished.;Because Smith believes the court case is the reason for the assault, this will be presumed to be so unless the defence can bring evidence to prove otherwise.;&The offence arises when a person (A) does something to another person (B), the action is intended to harm (B), the action does harm (B), (A) does the act knowing or believing that (B) is a witness in non-criminal court proceedings, and that is why (A) did it. Generally, the prosecution would have to prove all these points in order to secure conviction, but there is an exception. When the act takes place between the time the proceedings start, until a year after the end of the proceedings, the last element - that was why he did it - will be deemed to be the case, and the onus will then be on the defence to prove otherwise.<br><br>(Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, section 40)&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.
Updates to get nginx working 4 months ago			`id&qtp&qim&qil&qtx&qca&qia&qrm&qnxt&qprv&qalb&subj&wght&pts&flr&ded&layout&qfixed&qptsbyans&flags`
			SPEp1w25.001&mcs&0&N&A church is open to the public free of charge so that people may come to view the 16th century stained glass windows. Two medieval silver cups, which are still regularly used as part of religious ceremonies in the church, are also on display. Peter, a member of the public, takes the two silver cups from the church intending to drink wine from them to impress friends when they visit. He plans to return the cups to the church in a few days' time. He is seen leaving the church with the silver cups and the police are called. Will Peter be liable for an offence of unauthorised removal of articles from public display?&Peter will not be liable, because the cups are used regularly and are not merely kept for display.&Peter will not be liable, because the church is open without charge. The offence only applies to buildings where an entry fee is payable.;Peter will be liable for the offence in these circumstances.;Peter will not be liable because the offence applies to a 'collection'. This means more than two items, and there are only two cups involved.;&The offence arises when: a building (or part of one) is open to the public, so that people may view a collection kept in the building or in its grounds, and someone without lawful authority removes from the building or its grounds, an article displayed or kept for display there. There is no specific definition of 'collection', presumably it would amount to more than one article, but there is nothing to say so or to say there has to be more than two. Here the church is a building, it is open to the public to view the collection of stained glass. When it comes to the silver cups, however, if they are functional and not merely kept for display, then it is likely that they will not be covered by the offence.<br><br>(Theft Act 1968, section 11, R v Barr [1978]) <br>&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.
			SPEp1w25.002&mcs&0&N&Officers issue a closure notice for an empty house that is being used for the supply and use of heroin. After the notice is served, application is made to the magistrates' court for a closure order. The court is satisfied with evidence that shows the premises has been used for the unlawful supply and use of Class A drugs. Of what else must the court be satisfied if an order is to be made?&Disorder or serious nuisance has been caused at the premises and the order is necessary to prevent further disorder or nuisance.&The order is necessary to prevent further drug offences being committed at the premises.;That at least one person involved in the misuse of Class A drugs at the premises was not a resident there.;Unless the order is made, the owner or occupier of the premises is not likely to take effective steps to control further use of the premises for drug offences.;&The three matters of which the court has to be satisfied before making a closure order are: that the premises have been used for the unlawful production, supply or use of Class A drugs, the use of the premises is associated with disorder or serious nuisance to the public, and that an order is necessary to prevent such disorder or nuisance for the period specified in the order.<br>,br>(Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, section 2)&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.
			SPEp1w25.003&mcs&0&N&Pat claims she was raped by Joe, who does not deny that a sexual act took place. However, Joe claims that Pat consented to the act. If Pat did not give consent, what must the prosecution prove if Joe is to be convicted of rape?&Joe did not reasonably believe that Pat gave consent.&Joe knew or had reasonable cause to believe that Pat did not give her consent.;It would have been obvious to a reasonable person that Pat was not consenting.;Joe was reckless as to whether Pat gave consent.;&Recklessness used to feature in rape, but the provisions are now quite different. Apart from having to prove penetration, the prosecution has to prove that the complainant did not consent to the penetration and the accused did not reasonably believe that the complainant was consenting. Whether the accused's belief that there is consent is reasonable will be a matter for the court to decide, having regard to all the circumstances.<br><br>(Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 1)&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.
			SPEp1w25.004&mcs&0&N&Paul is convicted of a sexual offence on Tuesday, which means that he is required to give notification of details to the police. On Wednesday, he moves house and rents a flat in another part of the country. He uses a different name to avoid being traced by his victim's relatives. He goes to a police station on Thursday in the area where he now lives to give the required notification to the police. What will be correct in relation to the details he must give?&He must provide his old address and former name, as well as the new address and the name he is now using.&He must provide his current address and name, as well as his former name, but not the old address.;He only needs to provide his current address and new name.;He is not required to give details at that police station. He should give notification at a police station in the area he was living in on the date of his conviction.;&Among the details that must be notified by a sex offender are: his name on the date of conviction and on the date he gives notification, his address on the date of conviction and on the date he gives notification. The date of conviction is referred to as the 'relevant date'. Notification should be at a police station in the area where the person's home address is situated. If the person does not have a home, then the police area where his last address will do, or the police area in which he was convicted. The police station has to be one prescribed for that purpose.<br><br>(Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 83)&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.
			SPEp1w25.005&mcs&0&N&Wendy pays for a counterfeit debit card, which she intends to use at cash machines. She goes to a machine and attempts to draw �200. However, the pin number she was told to use does not work, so she does not receive any money. She is later identified from camera footage and is arrested. She is charged with having custody of a false instrument. What other offence does she commit by trying to obtain money from the machine?&Using a false instrument with intent.&Attempting to use a false instrument with intent.;Attempting to obtain property by deception.;She does not commit another offence.;&For the purposes of deception offences, a machine cannot be deceived, so forget the option of attempting to obtain property by deception.. A person commits an offence who uses a false instrument, knowing or believing it to be false, with intent to induce someone to accept it as genuine, and, by so accepting it, to do or not do something to his own or another's prejudice. 'Prejudice' will include where a person gains, or another loses. It would clearly be to the bank's prejudice if the machine paid out on a forged card. The term 'induce' includes not only trying to persuade people into accepting something as genuine, but also when a machine responds to an instrument as if it were genuine. The offence is complete when the card is used with intent, the fact that no money was obtained does not matter.<br><br>(Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, sections 3, 10)&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.
			SPEp1w25.006&mcs&0&N&Linda, aged 30, is a single parent with a four-year-old child. The child suffers from an asthmatic condition that requires prompt application of a throat spray when an attack occurs. One evening, Linda goes out, leaving the child in the care of Rachel, a 14-year-old babysitter. Linda had shown Rachel how to work the throat spray and has left her mobile phone number. While Linda is out, the child suffers an asthma attack and Rachel discovers the throat spray is empty. She does not phone Linda, nor does she seek other assistance. Rachel only calls an ambulance when the child almost stops breathing. Might Linda or Rachel be held liable for an offence of cruelty to a child?&The offender has to be aged 16 or older, so Rachel is not liable. Linda may be liable for neglect by failing to provide adequate medical aid.&The offence is committed by a person who has responsibility for a child. As a babysitter, Rachel only had temporary care, so is not liable. As the mother, Linda may be liable.;At the time the child suffered the attack, Linda did not have care of the child, so is not liable. Rachel may be liable for the offence by failing to seek prompt medical treatment.;Both may be liable. Rachel has temporary care of the child and Linda is responsible for the child even though she did not have immediate care of the child at the time.;&The offence is committed when: a person aged 16 or over has responsibility for a person under 16, and wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects the child, in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health. Neglect may arise when the person responsible fails to obtain adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging. A person with parental responsibility for a child will be deemed to have responsibility, and the responsibility does not cease just because the child is in the temporary care of someone else, such as a babysitter. Since Linda has responsibility as the parent and since she left an empty throat spray, she will be liable for cruelty by neglect. Rachel is under 16, so does not commit such an offence.<br><br>(Children and Young Persons Act 1933, section 1)&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.
			SPEp1w25.007&mcs&0&N&Robert, a builder, was sued in the High Court by Smith, a customer, after a dispute over work done at Smith's house. Smith won the case and Robert had to pay damages. Some nine months after the court case has finished, police are called to Smith's house where Smith claims that he has been assaulted by Robert. He believes that Robert is seeking revenge after losing the court case. Robert is found and says the assault had nothing to do with the court case. He says it occurred because Smith has been telling everyone that Robert is completely incompetent as a builder. Robert may be liable for an offence of harming a witness in civil court proceedings, as well as for a possible assault charge. What must be proved in relation to Robert's motive for the assault if he is to be convicted of an offence of harming a witness?&Because the assault occurred within a year of the end of the court case, Robert will be deemed to have carried out the assault because Smith was a witness and it will be up to Robert to rebut that assumption.&The prosecution will have to prove that Robert carried out the assault because Smith was a witness in the court case against him.;Robert cannot be prosecuted for harming a witness because the court case is finished.;Because Smith believes the court case is the reason for the assault, this will be presumed to be so unless the defence can bring evidence to prove otherwise.;&The offence arises when a person (A) does something to another person (B), the action is intended to harm (B), the action does harm (B), (A) does the act knowing or believing that (B) is a witness in non-criminal court proceedings, and that is why (A) did it. Generally, the prosecution would have to prove all these points in order to secure conviction, but there is an exception. When the act takes place between the time the proceedings start, until a year after the end of the proceedings, the last element - that was why he did it - will be deemed to be the case, and the onus will then be on the defence to prove otherwise.<br><br>(Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, section 40)&&&A&undefined.0&&&&&1:v&&&N.