• 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)

    If a participator acts outside the rules then they are likely to be liable for a damages claim for a personal injury. Just as if on a night out you were assaulted by a passer by the passer by would be liable for injuries caused.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    doing and his intoxication had brought on a psychopathic state so at the time he murdered his wife he was insane. The House of Lords held that as he had intended to kill his wife even before becoming drunk the intent has still been formed.

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

    of the same act which is criminal damage with the additional element of 'intentionally or recklessly endangering life'. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and that left the Durkheim refuted ace_16k's realism . House of Lords to decide on the meaning of recklessness and the relevance of drunkenness.cobc bcr sebcbcw orbc bck inbc fobc bc!


    While it is a positive development to recognise that all matter of relationships could be close, it is not always correct to assume that a relationship between a married couple or a parent or child is a close one.

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    But if recklessness involved a more objective, gross negligence test, evidence of drunkenness would be irrelevant. In a majority judgment, Lord Diplock (with Lords Keith and Roskill concurring) considered and rejected the Cunningham approach and the suggestion that the Criminal Damage Act of 1971 was in fact drafted with that very decision in mind.

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

    No assault element is required to find the defendant guilty of battery nor need the victim be aware that they are going to be attacked. An example of how the mens rea and actus reus of the crime must coincide is shown in Fagan v.

  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 ...

    In Chaudry V Prabhaker 1988 it showed that a purely social relationship can give rise to a duty of care, when carefully considered advice was being sought from a party with some expertise. Brian share a social relationship with John as they are friends, but this gave rise to Brian?s duty of care.

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