John was walking home having just beaten Roger in a fight. They had fought because Roger was angry at John having carved letter 'J' unto Amy's arm using a penknife. Any was Roger's 15-year old sister, who had begged John to do this. The wound was not neither very long nor very deep, although it did require one stitch. John and Roger had decided to settle their differences by having a fight. John had punched Roger, knocking him over and causing him to fracture his skull. John had run away when the police were called.
A beggar, Carly who was carrying a baby in her arms approached John and asked him for money to feed the baby. This incensed John who hated beggars and he sprayed lighter gas in Carty's face causing her to drop the baby, slightly bruising it.
The police then caught up with John, PC Bill tried to arrest him, John pushed PC bill out of the way in an attempt to get away, causing PC Bill to stagger. In an effort to save himself from falling, PC Bill put his arm out and pushed it through a shop window, sustaining severe cut to his arm.
Discuss John's criminal liability
John could be criminally liable for what transpired between him and the following individuals mention in the question
a) John and Amy
b) John and Roger
c) John and Carty
d) John and Carty's baby
JOHN & AMY
Malicious wounding contrary to section 20 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861
A wound is a break in the continuity of the whole skin (Moriary v Brooks (1834). The fact of the question indicate that the actus reus is established by John carving J on Amy's arm.
Maliciously is the intention for carrying out the offence. It must be proved that John was aware that his conduct carried a risk of wounding or causing some arm albeit not serious harm (Mowatt (1967), Savage and Parmenter (1991). If John is aware that of such a risk (which could be implied from the fact of the case), then the mens rea is established.
The maximum penalty for this offence is .........
Assault occassiong actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861.
Assault
The actus reus of assault is committed when the defendant causes another to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful violence ( Fagan v MPC (1969), Savage v Parmentar (1991), Venna (1998) Irelend (1999). It makes no difference that Amy was not frightened.
Mens rea: The mens rean is intention or recklessness on the part of John as the causing Amy to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful violence.
Battery
The actus reus of Battery is the infliction of unlawful violence on the victim
Mens rea: The mens rea is intention or recklessness as to that infliction Rolfe (1936). The fact of the question indicate that this offence is established.
Actual Bodily Harm
This is harm which is more than transient or trifling and include any injury likely to interfere with the health or comfort of Army (Miller 1934) Her injury is likely to amount to actual bodily harm.
Occassioning: It must be proved that the common assault caused the actual bodily harm. No foresight is required on the part of the defendant (Roberts 1971)
DEFENCE OF CONSENT
There is need to consider whether Amy’s consent was real and not induced by fraud or duress. There are limits on the operation of defence of consent. Attorney General’s Reference (No. 6 of 1980) and Brown (1993) House of Lords said subject to public policy exception, consent will not operate where actual bodily harm is likely to interfere with the health of the victim. It is unlikely that public policy would have allowed the injury to Amy here. Although in Wilson (1996) consent to branding by a husband on his wife was a defence, Army is only 15 and even though it was not done for sexual pleasure, but presumably, for personal adornment, Tattooing and Minor Act 1967 provided that the apparent consent of a child to tattoo will never be valid.
JOHN & ROGGER
Causing Grievous Bodily Arm (GBH) with intent to do (GBH) contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861
The actus reus is causing GBH a really serious harm (Smith (1961); Sounder (1985); Janjua and Chouldhery (1999). A fractured skull is very much likely to amount to GBH
Mens rea: The mens rean is intention to cause GBH. The prosecution would have to prove that it was John’s purpose to cause to cause GBH or if that is not his purpose, the jury may find intent where it is proved he know GBH was a virtual certain consequence of his act (Bryson 1983). If the jury is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that John committed the actus reus of the offence with the requisite mens rea, then they may acquit
Malicious wounding contrary to section 20 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861
A wound is a break in the continuity of the whole skin (Moriary v Brooks (1834). The fact of the question indicate that the actus reus is established by John causing a fracture on Roger’s skull. The House of Lords in Mandar (1995) held that a judge is entitled to leave to the jury a conviction under s.20 as alternative to s.18 because the term ‘causing’ is wide enough to include inflicting.
Mens rea: Maliciously is the intention for carrying out the offence. It must be proved that John was aware that his conduct carried a risk of wounding or causing some arm albeit not serious harm (Mowatt (1967), Savage and Parmenter (1991). If the jury is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that John committed the actus reus of the offence with the requisite mens rea, then they may acquit. In that case they might consider
Assault occassiong actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861.
Assault
The actus reus of assault is committed when the defendant causes another to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful violence ( Fagan v MPC (1969), Savage v Parmentar (1991), Venna (1998) Irelend (1999). It makes no difference that Amy was not frightened.
Mens rea: The mens rean is intention or recklessness on the part of John as the causing Amy to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful violence.
Battery
The actus reus of Battery is the infliction of unlawful violence on the victim
Mens rea: The mens rea is intention or recklessness as to that infliction Rolfe (1936). The fact of the question indicates that this offence is established.
DEFENCE OF CONSENT
There is need to consider whether Roger’s agreement to settle his difference with John was real was real and not induced by fraud or duress. There are limits on the operation of defence of consent. Attorney General’s Reference (No. 6 of 1980) and Brown (1993) House of Lords said subject to public policy exception, consent will not operate where actual bodily harm is likely to interfere with the health of the victim. It is unlikely that public policy would have allowed the injury to Roger.
ual pleasure, but presumably, for personal adornment, Tattooing and Minor Act 1967 provided that the apparent consent of a child to tattoo will never be valid.
JOHN AND CARLY
Malicious Administering of noxious thing with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy contrary to s.24 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861
Administer a noxious thing. Administering in Gillard 1998. It was held that sparing the victim with a noxious fluid would be administer. Noxious thing is a question of fact for the jury. In Marcus (1981) it was held that noxious thing include hurtful, unwholesome or objectionable substance. It is for the jury to decide if lighter gas is one of such things
Mens rea: Maliciously is the intention for carrying out the offence. Malicious interpreted in Cunningham (1998) to mean intention or subjective recklessness. The facts indicated that John’s action was intentional. It must be proved that John was aware that his conduct carried a risk of administering a noxious thing. If the jury is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that John committed the actus reus of the offence with the requisite mens rea, then they may acquit. In that case they might consider
Assault occassiong actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861.
Assault
The actus reus of assault is committed when the defendant causes another to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful violence ( Fagan v MPC (1969), Savage v Parmentar (1991), Venna (1998) Irelend (1999). It makes no difference that Amy was not frightened.
Mens rea: The mens rean is intention or recklessness on the part of John as the causing Amy to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful violence.
Battery
The actus reus of Battery is the infliction of unlawful violence on the victim
Mens rea: The mens rea is intention or recklessness as to that infliction Rolfe (1936). The fact of the question indicates that this offence is established.
DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION
There is need to consider whether John hatred for beggars and being approached by the Carly provoked him to react the way he did.
JOHN AND THE BABY
Battery
The actus reus of Battery is the infliction of unlawful violence on the victim
Mens rea: The mens rea is intention or recklessness as to that infliction Rolfe (1936). The fact of the question indicates that this offence is established. Haystead (2000) provided that the actus reus and mens rea could be proved, John could be guilty if battery in respect of the baby.
JOHN AND BILL
Causing Grievous Bodily Arm (GBH) with intent to do (GBH) contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861
The actus reus is causing GBH a really serious harm (Smith (1961); Sounder (1985); Janjua and Chouldhery (1999). A fractured skull is very much likely to amount to GBH
Mens rea: The mens rean is intention to cause GBH. The prosecution would have to prove that it was John’s purpose to cause to cause GBH or if that is not his purpose, the jury may find intent where it is proved he know GBH was a virtual certain consequence of his act (Bryson 1983). If the jury is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that John committed the actus reus of the offence with the requisite mens rea, then they may acquit
Malicious wounding or Causing Grievous Bodily Arm with intent to resist arrest contrary to s.18 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861
A wound is a break in the continuity of the whole skin (Moriary v Brooks (1834). The fact of the question indicate that the injury is severe and it might amount to GBH.
Mens rea: Maliciously is the intention for the wounding with the ulterior intent to resist arrest. Morrison (1989), where it was held that malicious bears the subject reasoning and the jury should be directed to consider whether John foresaw a risk of some harm. If the jury is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that John foresaw a risk of some harm, then they may acquit. In that case they might consider
Assault occassiong actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861.
Assault
The actus reus of assault is committed when the defendant causes another to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful violence ( Fagan v MPC (1969), Savage v Parmentar (1991), Venna (1998) Irelend (1999). It makes no difference that Amy was not frightened.
Mens rea: The mens rean is intention or recklessness on the part of John as the causing Amy to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful violence.
Battery
The actus reus of Battery is the infliction of unlawful violence on the victim
Mens rea: The mens rea is intention or recklessness as to that infliction Rolfe (1936). The fact of the question indicates that this offence is established.
DEFENCE OF CONSENT
There is need to consider whether Roger’s agreement to settle his difference with John was real was real and not induced by fraud or duress. There are limits on the operation of defence of consent. Attorney General’s Reference (No. 6 of 1980) and Brown (1993) House of Lords said subject to public policy exception, consent will not operate where actual bodily harm is likely to interfere with the health of the victim. It is unlikely that public policy would have allowed the injury to Roger.
ual pleasure, but presumably, for personal adornment, Tattooing and Minor Act 1967 provided that the apparent consent of a child to tattoo will never be valid.
In all the scenario there are likelihood of the offece of battery and possibly assault, where s.47 was considered there would be no need to specifically point out this. Where you have explain an offence before it is appropriate to refer to your previous explanation.
No comments:
Post a Comment