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

Murder, manslaughter, assaults, sexual offences and defences.

Extracts from this document...


Murder, Manslaughter, Assaults, Sexual Offences and Defences (1678 words). Section 18 (wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent) The Actus Reus of Section 18 Of The OAPA 1861. S.18 OAPA penalises 'whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously...wound or cause any grievous bodily harm...with intent to do some grievous bodily harm...' S.20 OAPA penalises 'Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm...(GBH)'. The actus Reus under these two offences can either be wounding OR causing/inflicting GBH. 'Wounding' means that the continuity of the whole skin is broken - not merely a scratch. Broken limbs, where there is no breaking of the skin, are not wounds. However they do come within GBH, which is defined in R v. Smith {2001} 1 AC 146 as 'really serious harm', different in kind to the 'interference with health and comfort' suggested as the test of ABH in R v. Miller {1975} 1 WLR 1222. Whether the defendant has, 'caused' grievous bodily harm is purely a matter of causation. Lord Mackay in R v. Mandair (1995) 1 AC 208 stated: 'In the case of "cause", the nature of the connection is immaterial (provided the chain of events is short enough to satisfy the criminal law of causation)...' Jack has clearly committed the actus reus of homicide as he has caused James death and there is no intervening causes that may possible break the chain of causation. To be liable for murder he must have intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, on the facts of the question it seems quite unlikely that he intended to cause serious bodily harm. He was only out to threaten James at first until he snapped. ...read more.


he has suffered at James' hands (The concept of delay in retaliation has also to be reconsidered in the light of R v. Ahluwalia {1992} 4 ALL ER 889 - although there must be a 'sudden and temporary loss of self-control', that can Occur after a period as a result of the cumulative effect of continuous violence. This can be referred to, as the 'slow-burn' effect, which can lead to a sudden loss of control and the delay, does not lead to an exclusion of the defence). In a sudden rage, he rushes into the lounge where James is sleeping and stabs James in the chest with the knife, killing him. The jury must be satisfied that a reasonable person sharing such of Jack's characteristics(R v. Morhall {1996} AC 90. That if a characteristic was relevant to the provocation it should be given to the reasonable man regardless of the fact that it was not a characteristic you would expect a reasonable person to have.) as are relevant would have been provoked and reacted as Jack did. The reasonable person is the same age and sex as Jack (R v. Camplin (1978} AC 705. However, he will always have a reasonable power of self-control (R v. Lesbini {1914} 3 KB 1116) and is not drunk {Newell (1980) 71 Cr. App. R. 331}. He will also be given any other characteristic, which is relevant to the provocation (the cases of R v. Dryden (1995) 4 All ER 987; R v. Thornton (no.2.) (1996) 2 All ER 987). Applying that law to this situation, the reasonable person would definitely be a 'short, fat pig' Jack is enraged by a remark about his weight and size. ...read more.


Roberts 1971) 115 SJ 809. The idea of recklessness is Cunningham recklessness -this is upheld in Savage -victim was cut by broken glass. Charged Under s.20, she was convicted under s.47 - there was a battery (deliberately throwing beer) and there was no requirement to show that she foresaw the risk of any actual harm. Gail has assaulted Jack and caused him actual bodily harm (the cut above his left eye) She also has the necessary mens rea as she clearly intended to hit Jack. She does not have to foresee the risk of harm. Defence As Gail thinks that Jack is going to rape her she may argue that she used reasonable force in preventing a crime and that she was acting in self-defence. She is judged on the facts as she honestly believed them to be (Gladstone Williams). However, according to the case of R v. O'Grady {1987} QB 995, she cannot rely on mistaken view of the facts if this was caused by her voluntary intoxication. The question is therefore, assuming Jack was going to rape Gail, whether the force that Gail used by throwing a stone at Jack's head was reasonable. It certainly seems reasonable in those circumstances for Gail to fight him off. However, when she picked up the stone to throw at Jack arguable she has already prevented the crime and her conduct looks as if it is an attempt to punish Jack for what he had done. This would amount to excessive force and could result in Gail being convicted unless she could show some justification such as the need to prevent jack from coming after her. Gail would therefore be guilty also of section 47 of OAPA 1861. - 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)

    He was sentenced to four months in jail but this was later reduced to 28 days. Also in the case of R v Blissett (the independent) 4/12/1992 in the course of a challenge during a football match the victim sustained a fractured cheekbone and eye socket, the defendant was cleared of violent conduct.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    "The Nedrick/Woolin direction on intention manages to produce a clear distinction between intention and ...

    4 star(s)

    Following the Nedrick/Woollin direction on intent, he would still be convicted of murder because the defendant realised that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty of his actions. In cases of conjoined twins, the courts have followed the line of Nedrick/Woollin in that an operation cannot go ahead

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    if he had not been drunk and if the answer to this was yes then they should ask whether he was actually suffering from diminished responsibility when he did so. The case of R v. Tandy stated that an alcoholic state arising from voluntary drinking did not amount to a

  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

    Thus far we have established that actus reus and mens rea must overlap and exist in the same point in time. It has also been shown that guilt can be established even if the mens rea is not present at the inception of the actus reus, all that is required is that coincidence occurs before the actus reus is completed.

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

    the defendant is on the other side of a window or door does not prevent his actions from being an assault. This example was shown in Smith v.

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

    how probable the consequence was and (ii) if the defendant foresaw that consequence. He reasoned thus: that if the defendant did not foresee the consequence, it cannot be said that he intended it. If he did foresee it but thought the risk slight, the jury might easily infer that he did not intend it.

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

    v Kingston and Saint Andrew Corp. 1989. To claim for damage, plaintiff have to show that the tortfeasor was actually in the employment relationship with that employer and the negligence act occurred in the course of his employment (Honeywill v Larkin 1934).

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