• 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


    In this one, the facts were similar to sion apart from the fact that it was 36 hours instead of 10 days. However they said that one traumatic event has always been sufficient. If this is so, then why didn't the same apply to Sion?

  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. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    3rd party stops the defendant from committing the attempt can that chain of causation be broken. A further illustration of causation exists in the cases of R. v Latif ; R. v Shahzad11 in which it is established that as long as there is intent (mens rea)

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

    conviction of defendant being in possessions of drugs whereas in Sweet v Parsley1970 the defendant conviction was as she did not have the mens rea of the crime. A negative cause for strict liability is that the courts may also have a clack of clarity in some judgments in Warner

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

    The anaesthetist was charged with gross negligence, there was a serious breach in the duty of care he owed to his patient and I believe that the punishment was fair. A duty of care rightfully exists between doctors and patients, teachers and pupils, parents and children and other such groups.

  2. Non-fatal Offences Against the Person.

    There were aims of proposed new offences that would enable violence to be dealt with successfully and that the law would be set out clearly in plain modern day terms. The purpose of the reforms was to replace outdated offences with a logical and consistent set of new offences.

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

    For section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act (1861), this requires proof of intention to cause serious harm to prove that the defendant was at fault, whereas in section 20 of the OAPA (1861), this requires either intention or recklessness to cause some harm.

  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