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 begger, 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 beggers and he sprayed ligher 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, casuing 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
e) John and Bill.

Each case will now be considered as follows;

JOHN AND AMY

Malicious wounding contratry to section 20 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861.


Actus Reus: 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.

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 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.


Actus Reus: The actus reus of assault is commited 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. 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.

b) John and Roger
c) John and Carty
d) John and Carty's baby
e) John and Bill.

b) John and Roger
c) John and Carty
d) John and Carty's baby
e) John and Bill.
to the individuals mentioned in the question.