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

Discuss the criminal liability for an offence against the person of Reena in respect of Chloe and Miles and of Eric in respect of Reena.

Extracts from this document...


Discuss the criminal liability for an offence against the person of Reena in respect of Chloe and Miles and of Eric in respect of Reena. Paragraph One The charges that can be brought against the accused depend on the injuries caused to and suffered by the victim. In the case of Chloe, who has only suffered bruises and scratches - which can be categorized as minor injuries, Reena can be charged with the common assault known as a battery, which is defined by Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act. The Actus Reus of Battery is the application of unlawful force to someone else. The applying of force does not necessarily have to be personal contact; for e.g. just touching another's jacket may constitute the offence of battery as long as the other feels it. This can be seen in the case of Cole v Turner, the slightest degree of force, even the mere touching will suffice for a battery. The definition of force in this context would be the application of strength or energy. If these is no application of force there cannot be a battery. ...read more.


This is regarded as a serious injury as we learn from his psychiatric who states he may not recover. In the process of escaping Miles also suffers shock and "twists his ankle." Both of these are regarded as minor or moderate injuries. Reena can be charged with aggravated assaults under section 47 of the Offences Against a Persons Act (1861), which is not limited to an assault but includes a battery as well. From the facts there is no suggestion that Miles or anyone else in the club was threatened with any kind of unlawful attack therefore it would rule out any charges involving assault. The Actus Reus of an assault is to cause the victim to apprehend application of unlawful force. In this case Miles fears an attack of fire not of any personal attack thus Reena's conduct cannot be one of an assault. As the House of Lords made it clear in Ireland, an assault involves a perceived threat of immediate and unlawful violence, not just conduct that upsets or frightens the victim. The next offence under s. 47 is that of a battery ensuing in actual bodily harm. ...read more.


The case of Constanza especially demonstrates how the courts have stretched the term 'immediate' to mean an apprehension of force sometime in the near future thus making certain changes in the requirement of the apprehension on immediate force. In Ireland this term is stretched even further to allow an assault if the victim feared any 'possible' immediate force. Immediacy in itself originally meant without delay however these cases demonstrate how the nature of the word has been changed to be imminent, meaning liable to happen soon. It can be found that there is a obvious direct intent to make Reena feel threatened given the fact that he is Miles partner and that it was her conduct that led to the developing of the illness. It would clearly be a way of stating that he has not forgiven her for her previous conduct and would want to see her suffer also. If Eric's conduct causes Reena to apprehend any application of unlawful force then he can be convicted on the basis that he satisfies the Mens Rea of intentionally or recklessly causing her to feel as such. Word Count: 2023 Criminal Law - 1 - ...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)

    ground must be taken to willingly accept the risks involved in playing on that field. So unless there is something that is seriously wrong with the ground it is unlikely that there could be any claims against the club. There could also be claims from the general public against the club.

  2. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    However this is still a serious form of fault as the defendant has foreseen a risk. The use of fault in strict liability crimes has been quite controversial as in these crimes the courts are able to assign fault without the presence of a mens rea, so long as the actus reus has been committed.

  1. Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of ...

    However one of the many problems is whether the offence was of strict liability or if mean rea is required. Many courts have to refer to statutory interpretation in the case of Sweet v Parsley (1970) a landlady was convicted of allowing cannabis to be smoked on her premises.

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

    "A court or jury... shall not be bound to infer that he intended or foresaw a result... by reason only of its being the natural or probable consequence... but... shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence..."

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

    In crimes of Absolute liability the actus reus of the crime is not needed for the defendant to be guilty, and in crimes of Strict liability, the mens rea of the crime is not needed to prove that the defendant was to blame.

  2. Using actual situations, describe the elements of actus reus and mens rea in criminal ...

    In Oxford v. Moss (1979) a student removed an examination paper, photocopied it and then replaced the original paper and was subsequently charged with theft.


    One of the main problems lies within the definition of the tort. This definition originally lead to not allowing claims through, for example in Victorian railways comrs v coultas. However, as science has advandced more claims have been allowed through.

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

    According to the course book, negligence is when the defendant: 1. Causing loss by a failure to take responsible care when there is a duty to do so. 2. The defendant may not wish to inflict injury but by carelessness he allows it to happen.

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