• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

As there is a substantial injury in the form of a dislocated knee, Adrian immediately goes beyond the realms of assault, as force was applied, and battery - as there was an injury. A section 47

Extracts from this document...


John Nickell Adrian and Brian Scenario: Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Adrian and Brian were in a nightclub, where Adrian took some drugs. Shortly afterwards, Adrian began to act in a strange manner, giggling and stumbling about. When Adrian clumsily spilt a drink over Chris, Brian decided it was time to get him home. As they left the nightclub, Chris and his friend, Don, followed them. Chris challenged Adrian to a fight and Adrian took off his jacket and then immediately lashed out at Chris before Chris was prepared. The blow sent him reeling backwards and he dislocated his knee in a very awkward fall. Discuss Adrian's criminal liability in connection to the injury to Chris. As there is a substantial injury in the form of a dislocated knee, Adrian immediately goes beyond the realms of assault, as force was applied, and battery - as there was an injury. A section 47 offence also does not apply, as for this there needs to be "actual bodily harm" such as bruises, grazing and scratches; "any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim" (Miller (1954)); which I believe Adrian goes beyond. ...read more.


As well as this, Parmenter also decided that although the Actus Reus required "serious harm", there is no requirement for the defendant to foresee serious harm, any type of harm or injury is enough. So even if Adrian didn't foresee Brian falling awkwardly and dislocating his ankle, although this may be considered to be reasonably foreseeable, Adrian must have foreseen some harm as he punched him hard enough for him to go "reeling backwards"! I think, defences aside, that it is almost certain that a jury would convict Adrian of a section 20 offence. The question then is, could Adrian be found guilty of the most serious non-fatal offence outlined in Section 18 of 1861's Offences Against the Person Act? The key differences between a S.18 offence and a S.20 offence is that committal of a S.18 offence can result in anything up to life imprisonment, whereas committal of a S.20 offence leads to a maximum of five years imprisonment. Reflected in the fact that a S.18 offence can only be tried on indictment in a Crown Court, whereas a S.20 offence is triable either-way. ...read more.


The defendant is to be judges on his beliefs, even if these are mistaken (Williams (1987)). The force must be reasonable however, and not be motivated by retaliation or revenge (Martin), or be excessive as found in the case of Clegg (1995) where the threat was no longer there. If the defence of self-defence fails, Adrian may consider the defence of Mistake, which must be about a fact that would either negate the Mens Rea or allow the defendant to rely on another defence. If Adrian made a mistake of fact by believing himself to be in immediate danger, even if this was unreasonable, by the rules of mistake, the jury have to decide whether they believe the force used was reasonable in the circumstances or not. If the mistake negates the Mens Rea for the offence then he will have the defence even if he was drunk. However, intoxication does not allow a defendant to make a "mistake" about the amount of force needed as found in O'Grady (1987). All these questions are to be decided by a jury on consideration of all the evidence. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    QBD. This concerned whether an error made by a player in terms of an intentional foul which led to an injury to an opposing player was capable of giving rise to liability in negligence. 'A case of foul play' found in the New Law Journal is an article which examines the

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    The case of R v. Sanderson shows the difficulties that the jury may face where a D is intoxicated and suffering an abnormality of the mind. It has been doubted whether the temporary effect of alcohol can bring the D within the scope of S.2 of the 1957 Act. In the case of R v.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    A drunken intent is still considered to be an intent. An example of this is 'Dutch Courage' intoxication, this is where a person deliberately gets drunk to get 'Dutch Courage' to commit a crime. This was raised in the case of A-G for N.

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    3rd party stops the defendant from committing the attempt can that chain of causation be broken. A further illustration of causation exists in the cases of R. v Latif ; R. v Shahzad11 in which it is established that as long as there is intent (mens rea)

  1. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    Carstens theorised ace_16k's realism hypothesis. [1] Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] (Lord Reid)coge ger segegew orge gek inge foge ge. [2] Whether an offence is to be considered one of strict liability depends on the court's construction of the statute, as in Gammon [1985] and Lim Chin Aik [1963] Carstens suppressed ace_16k's postmodernism .

  2. Discuss the criminal liability for an offence against the person of Reena in respect ...

    For the Mens Rea of intent it must be proven that Reena's direct aim or purpose in this case was to apply unlawful force to another or was subjectively reckless as to whether such force might be applied. For the Men Rea of intent it must be proven that Reena's

  1. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    Concerning the detail to legal aspect- Chemi-Kaze PLC has made a breach of occupier?s liability and ordinary negligence because Chemi-Kaze PLC did not exercise any appropriate prevention to ensure the safety on its promises. It just left the container outside the door and didn?t take any action to protect the damaged-containers of chemicals.

  2. Tort law assignment. Brian fell against the standard of care a reasonable man would ...

    The House of Lords laid down strict guidelines for when this could apply: If there was a special relationship between the two partes, based on the defendants skill and judgement and the reliance placed upon it. The defendant (advisor) must posses a special skill relating to the type of advice given and must have realise that the claimant (advisee)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work