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

LAW COURSEWORK: Number Three Name: Joseph Tilbury Examination Number: Centre name: Spalding Grammar School Centre Number: 26233 Component Code: 1177/3 Examination Session: Summer 2003 I. Using actual situations, describe the elements of actus reus and mens rea in criminal law. It is necessary for the prosecution, in the bulk of crimes, to prove two elements in order for a person to be found guilty of a crime. These are the actus reus (which means the guilty act) and the mens rea (which means the guilty mind/intention), and it is only in strict liability crimes where the act alone (the mens rea) is enough to prove a person guilty. Examples of strict liability crimes are possession offences (the defendant possesses, for example, knives, guns or drugs) and not wearing a seatbelt. The actus reus can be an act (e.g. stabbing someone) or an omission (e.g. not halting at a red light), whilst the mens rea can be caused by intention (this level must be proved for the most serious crimes including theft, burglary, robbery, murder) or recklessness (taking an unjustifiable risk, this level must be proved in crimes including assault and battery). It is easiest for me to describe the elements of a crime by utilising real cases and offences. I must first however explain the chain of causation, which is where there is an intervening act between the defendant's guilty act and the

  • Word count: 1508
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Consider the possible criminal liability arising in the above circumstances.

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. Reggie pulls Steve to the floor saying, "I have warned you about this", causing Steve to be severely bruised. Consider the possible criminal liability arising in the above circumstances. The defendants may be liable for causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to s. 18 Offences Against Persons Act (OAPA) 1861, maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to s. 20 OAPA 1861 or assault occasioning actual bodily harm,

  • Word count: 1141
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

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

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. Adrian may be criminally liable according to section 20 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861, which is triable either-way and carries a maximum sentence of 5 years. For the offence to be proved the defendants action must have wounded or

  • Word count: 1522
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Occupiers liability - Both Mike and Nigel will have a claim in the tort of occupiers liability. Occupiers liability concerns the liability of an occupier to the claimants injury, loss or damage to property

Occupiers liability act question 4)b) Both Mike and Nigel will have a claim in the tort of occupiers liability. Occupiers liability concerns the liability of an occupier to the claimants injury, loss or damage to property suffered whilst on the occupiers premises. It is a land based tort, so need to prove that the defendant Ken is the occupier. An occupier is some one who has a sunstaintial degree of control over the premises. As regards Ken, we are told that he owns the gardens in which the swimming pool is situatied, meaning that he has control over the premises where both the accidents occurred, so he is the occupier. This tort has come from the tort of negligence, so duty breach and damage must be proven. However, the duty for occupiers liability is contained within two acts of occupiers liability act 1957 and occupiers liability act 1984. The duty of care owed by Ken to Mike is held with the occupiers liability act of 1984, which under s1 (1) states that the duty is owed to persons other than lawful vistors, so it deals with unlawful visitors or in Mikes case tresspassers. The duty is owed in premises which are either a fixed or movable structure s1(2). As the incident occurs in a swimming pool in Kens garden, this can be said to be premises. The circumstances in which the duty is owed to a trespasser are when the occupier Is aware or has reasonable grounds to

  • Word count: 539
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Advise the parties of their criminal liability. What difference, if any would make the answer if J had died.

CRIMINAL LAW SUGGESTED ANSWER J and K went into a jeweller's shop in order to have their ear pierced. The sixteen year old assistant, L employed by M, the owner of the shop, failed to sterilize the needle before J's ear and between piercing and was seriously ill for three months. Subsequently, k, after a blood test, was found to have become HIV positive. J had known that she, J was HIV positive hen she went into the shop. Advise the parties of their criminal liability. What difference, if any would make the answer if J had died. SUGGESTED ANSWER : The issues here are: . L's liability for piercing J's ears resulting in illness. OAPA S 18, 20, 47, 23 & 24. 2. L's liability for piercing K's ears and passing the HIV. OAPA S 18, 20, 47, 23 & 24. 3. L's liability if J died Homicide: manslaughter 4. M's liability for any of the above - secondary parties - vicarious liability . Liability for piercing J's ear resulting in illness L's liability as regard to J would center on 2 issues. Firstly, the piercing of the ear itself and for the passing of infection (blood poisoning). As regards to the piercing clearly this would involve a breaking of the skin JJC v Eisenhover and therefore can be classified as a wound and this the requirement for S 18 and 20 of the OAPA. However, S 18 would be largely irrelevant since there is no intention to cause GBH but for S 20 the

  • Word count: 1458
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

How satisfactory is the law on voluntary manslaughter?

How satisfactory is the law on voluntary manslaughter? Voluntary manslaughter, as established by the Homicide Act 1957, is determined by three sections: diminished responsibility, provocation, and suicide pact. Diminished responsibility is established by Section 2 of the Homicide Act. It may be used as a defence to murder if the defendant can prove an abnormality of the mind (if, for example, the defendant is an alcoholic, or has a mental condition as in R v Byrne, where the defendant had uncontrollable sexual desires.) The defence is that the defendant does not have the necessary control over their actions, when compared to a reasonable person. Diminished responsibility has been criticised for a number of reasons: * The very term 'Diminished responsibility' has been criticised by authorities such as the Butler Committee, who say that it is 'not a medical fact relating to the accused'. It was suggested by them that ' a person should not be convicted of murder if there is medical or other evidence that they were suffering from a form of mental disorder'. The criminal law committee agreed with this, but were not happy with the wording, suggesting that instead it should be: * 'The mental disorder was such as to be a substantial enough reason to reduce the offence to manslaughter.' * There is a danger for the accused when using it, because the prosecution sometimes responds

  • Word count: 751
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Involuntary Manslaughter - In struggling to define the boundaries of involuntary manslaughter the courts have encountered considerable difficulties and produced a muddle - Discuss whether this criticism is justified

Suliman The Merciful Involuntary Manslaughter - Homework { In struggling to define the boundaries of involuntary manslaughter the courts have encountered considerable difficulties and produced a muddle } Discuss whether this criticism is justified. Involuntary manslaughter comprises the commission of the actus reus of homicide without malice aforethought, which is required for specific intent offences like murder. There are now, since R v Adomako [1994], two clearly recognised kinds of involuntary manslaughter. These are unlawful act manslaughter (constructive manslaughter) and gross negligence manslaughter also sometimes referred to as 'reckless' manslaughter. Unlawful act manslaughter arises where the defendant has first committed an unlawful act, and as a result, someone dies (causation in fact and in law is required). In addition, the unlawful act must be dangerous on an objective test; i.e. it must be 'such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm' (established by the Court of Appeal in Church (1996)). The act need not be aimed at a person; it can be aimed at a property, provided it is 'such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject another person, to at least, the risk of some harm' (Goodfellow

  • Word count: 872
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of s deciding case.

Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of s deciding case. This essay will be exploring the various reasons for and against strict liability which will be complemented with a case study. Strict liability involves offences in which the crimes do not require mens rea and does not have to be proved. The defendant need not to have intended or known about the consequences of the crimes as it is enough to have the actus rea at present to be convicted. Overall strict liability cases are less serious such as regulatory offences involving road safety, pollution or food hygiene as convictions would be very hard to obtain if the prosecution had to prove recklessness, negligence or intent in every case, and it would cost a lot of money to bring every single one of these cases to court, so therefore strict liability makes law implementation more resourceful. Parliament sometimes gives in to the process of proving the guilty mind as most strict liability cases are statutory as it is for example in the publics interest against the selling off unfit food. Such as the case of Callow v Tillstone (1900) where the butcher was convicted of selling inedible meat as it was held to be unfit for public consumption, even thought the vet deemed it edible. Although liability is said to be strict concerning one aspect of and element, other

  • Word count: 2085
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

One of the main issue here is whether Adder is liable for Bust Ltd going into liquidation, and whether Adder is liable for Kevin, Pablo's financial loss, including physical injury to Pablo, this also includes whether Adder is also liable for Musko Plc's

One of the main issue here is whether Adder is liable for Bust Ltd going into liquidation, and whether Adder is liable for Kevin, Pablo's financial loss, including physical injury to Pablo, this also includes whether Adder is also liable for Musko Plc's loss of profit for Pablo not performing at there theatre. Let start of with Adders liability for Bust limited, where he mislead the company's financial report in negligent, leaving the company in liquidation. The Hedley Byrne case introduced the concept that a claimant could recover for economic loss; however the courts have always distinguished such an action for pure economic loss, arising out of negligence act. The House of Lords held that no duty of care was accepted by Heller and none arose, so the claim failed, the Lordship stated obiter that in appropriate circumstances, there could be a duty of care to give careful advice, and that breach of that duty could give rise to liability for negligence, but the fact is the sole damage was economic loss did not, they said did not effect the question of liability, this proves that Adder may not be liable for Busted Ltd. If we look at the legal principle laid out in Spartan Steel v Martin Co Ltd, the defendants negligently caused all three of the types of loss that resulted from the power cut and all three types of loss were easily foreseeable, the court only compensated for

  • Word count: 1473
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Homicide Act 1957

Q- Using Cases to illustrate your points critically, decribe the Homocide Act 1957 and include the subsequent judicial interpretations of it. The law surrounding homicide carries a wide scope of controversial issues; this can include the topics of Murder, Manslaughter, Infanticide and Vehicular homicide The definition of murder is derived from the writing of the jurist Sir Edward Coke: "Murder is where a person of sound memory and of the age of discretion unlawfully killeth...any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by party or implied by law, so as the party wounded or hurt etc., die of the wound or hurt etc." For any crime the basic requirements for an offence to be successful are an 'Actus Reus', 'Mens Rea' and an absence of a valid defence. The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of another person in the Queen's peace. The definition still stands today and until recently the definition included the "year and a day" rule but this has now been abolished. It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant (D) caused the V's death, that there was a causal link starting from the D's act leading to the V's harm. In cases where a V is stabbed or shot and dies immediately from the wound it is obvious that D caused V's death. it must be proved in each case that the defendant's actions were the cause of

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1974
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay