• 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

    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).

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    This has facilitated many more defendants being tried for their crimes and also allowed juries to convict those who would have been acquitted on a technicality.

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

    The company couldn't argue that they took reasonable care to prevent this, because the House of Lords said strict liability meant no defence of reasonable care. This is a beneficial for the public in respect that they can claim for the damage they have suffered.

  2. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    The police besieged the flat and called on the defendant to come out. He eventually did so, holding the girl in front of him as a human shield. He then fired the shotgun at the police officers who returned fire, striking and killing the girl hostage.

  1. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    Competent staff Where an employer takes on someone without sufficient experience or training for a particular job, and as a result another worker is injured, the employer may be in breach of their personal duty of care towards employees. The practical importance of this principle is limited by the fact

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

    The most serious of the non-fatal offences is wounding with intent contrary to s18 OAPA. This can be committed by the defendant causing either a wound or Grievous Bodily Harm (as in s20) but the mens rea is intent to cause GBH or intent to resist arrest.

  1. negligence in tort

    Prakash does owe a duty of care to Shamilla. He was in breach of his duty towards Shamilla because he was riding his bike despite two days prior he injured his arm whilst riding his bike.

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

    On the other hand, if persons by their own fault cause or contribute to their own injuries, they will be held at least partly responsible for their damages under the contributory negligence defense. ________________ Strict liability Strict liability, sometimes called absolute liability, is the legal responsibility for damages, or injury,

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