• 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

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    where the brain becomes damaged from taking alcohol and that the defendant involuntarily took alcohol. There are 2 types of Manslaughter - voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter is an offence that could be referred to as murder except for certain circumstances or situations, which reduce the liability of the D,

  2. 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.

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    v Thabo Meli and R. v Church in which it was established that 2 acts could be grouped together as either part of the of the same transaction or series of acts. This meant that a person's actions could be determined to be the start of a chain of causation thus making them liable for the ultimate result.

  2. Any crime in law is made up of two elements, the actus reus which ...

    Being part of a suicide pact where the defendant genuinely believed that both of the people attempting to commit suicide were going to die and that his survival was an accident, then he will only be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

  1. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    In R v KENNEDY (1999) Crim LR 65 - CA, the defendant prepared a syringe with a mixture of heroin and water and handed it to a friend, encouraging him to inject himself. This the friend did and the injection proved to be fatal. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter.

  2. Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny ...

    In order to commit a criminal offence the actus reus and the mens rea will have to occur at the same time (contemporaneously). Except in cases of strict liability there can be no crime if the defendant has committed only the actus reus and forms the mens rea either some time previously or at some later time.

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

    Safety at Work Regulations 1999 places a duty on employers to assess and manage risks to their employees and others arising from work activities. Employers must also make arrangements to ensure the health and safety of the workplace, including making arrangements for emergencies, adequate information and training for employees and for health surveillance where appropriate.

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

    John relied on Brian?s advice and considered it reasonable, as he invested all his shares in the company which shows there was foreseeable reliance.

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