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

Consider the possible criminal liability arising in the above circumstances.

Extracts from this document...


Mick and Steve are keen bodybuilders and regularly work out at the gym. One method they adopt in order to strengthen stomach muscles is for one of them to lie on a bench while the other drops a heavy ball onto his stomach. Reggie, the gym manager, has warned them that he considers this to be a potentially dangerous activity. Tony, a new member at the gym, is told by Mick that he has to undergo an initiation ceremony. Tony reluctantly allows himself to be held down on a bench by Mick and Steve then produces the heavy ball which he proceeds to drop onto Tony's stomach. This activity causes Tony an internal rupture. Realising that Tony is injured, Mick and Steve lift him up to carry him to a car to get him to hospital. At this point, Reggie, the gym manager, arrives from the pub somewhat the worse for wear with drink. He thinks that Mick and Steve are physically forcing Tony to engage in what he considers to be their dangerous activities. ...read more.


Hence, s. 20 or s. 47 OAPA 1861 seem the more likely bases for liability. The mens rea of either offence requires the harm to be committed 'maliciously', which mean intentionally or subjectively recklessly. This would require Steve to have foreseen a risk of some physical harm to Tony, albeit not necessarily the more serious harm, which is in fact, caused (Mowatt [1968], approved in Savage & Parmenter [1991]). Steve could plead the defence of consent. In addition, Attorney-General's Reference (No. 6 of 1980) [1981], the Court of Appeal said that "...it is not in the public interest that people should try to cause or should cause each other actual bodily harm for no good reason...", but added that, "Nothing we have said is intended to cast doubt on the accepted legality of properly conducted games and sports". Presumably harm incurred during intensive fitness training, as well as sport per se, which involves a risk of injury, may be consented to. Similarly, in Aitken [1992] the Courts-Martial Appeal Court appeared to accept that injuries incurred during initiation ceremonies involving "robust games" may also be consented to. ...read more.


Any offence which may be committed recklessly does not involve specific intent (according to a majority of the House of Lords in Caldwell [1982]). Neither of these offences require such an intent (Majewski [1977] itself involved several counts of s. 47 actual bodily harm), and hence the jury should be instructed to disregard any evidence of intoxication in assessing whether Reggie foresaw the consequences of his actions. If Reggie had been sober he may have been able to plead s. 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides inter alia, that "a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime". Where the defendant mistakenly thinks that force is required to prevent a criminal offence, it has been held that what is reasonable is assessed on the facts as the defendant honestly believed them to be (Gladstone Williams (1984); Beckford [1988]). Provided this belief was honestly held it need not, objectively speaking, be reasonable. However, where the defendant was intoxicated, then this defence is denied (O'Grady [1987], O'Connor [1991]). Thus it would seem that Reggie has no defence and faces liability for s. 47 actual bodily harm at least. ...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)

    There is a three point test in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman that is used to prove a duty of care, namely, are the acts reasonable foreseeable? Is there a relationship of proximity? And is it reasonable to impose a duty on these circumstances?

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    Defendant's in these types of cases are blamed to the same extent a person who intentionally commits a crime. The second type of intention in voluntary intoxication is basic intent crimes such as common law assault/battery, manslaughter, rape, 'reckless' criminal damage and Sec 47, 20, 23 of the OAPA (1861).

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    causation leading to the commission of the offence thus he was guilty. The House of Lords decision in Empress Car Co v National Rivers Authority12 recently gave a more subjective view of causation. Lord Hoffman moved away from the common sense application of causation and said "The answer will depend upon the rule by which responsibility is being attributed."

  2. Discuss the meaning of fault on the basis for criminal liability. Explain and evaluate ...

    Full and partial defences are allowed to reduce the responsiblilty of the D's if they are not entirely blameworthy. The defendant may have committed the actus reus with appropriate mens rea, but can still not be at fault. For example, using reasonable force to defend yourself or if victim consented harm.

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

    The probability, however high, of a consequence is only a factor."cobb bbr sebbbbw orbb bbk inbb fobb bb: Lord Lane in Nedrick (1986) believed that a defendant might intend a result albeit not desiring it, and said that juries must consider (i)

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

    is required to constitute a battery and Reena's conduct should constitute a positive act. The fact that Chloe turns out to be the victim and not Belle does not matter. The applied force should also be unlawful, thus not consented to by victim and this must be proven.

  1. I am the company solicitor for Everlasting Estates Ltd., and have been required to ...

    Bill Speed, employee of Everlasting Estates Ltd., whilst delivering building materials to the site where the new Sixth Form College was under construction, carelessly reversed his lorry and injured a fellow worker, Bob Thorpe. Bob Thorpe due to contrary to statutory regulations was not wearing a hard hat.

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

    Tort of negligence Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances (Encyclopedia Britannica, Meriam Webster). The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

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