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

Revision notes - NFOAPA

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Law Revision - NFOAPA. Assault - Common Law but charged under S.39 CJA 1988 Intentionally or Recklessly causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force. Meaning of: - Apprehend (Lamb, V's Belief) - Immediate - Smith v CS Woking Police (V not sure what D do next) - This doesn't exclude immediate future (Constanza - At some point, not excluding immediate future) - Words can amount to an assault (Wilson) - Letters (Burstow) - Phone calls (Ireland) - Touch will suffice (Collins v Wilcock) Conditional Threats: - Words can negate (Tuberville v Savage) - V's belief important (Light;Logdon; Lamb) MR: Intent (Mohan) Subjective Recklessness (Cunningham) Battery - S.39 CJA 1988 - Intentionally or Recklessly applying unlawful force to another person. AR: - Apply force directly or indirectly (Haystead;Martin) - Touching of skirt (Thomas) - Touching of another person, however slight...can't complain from inevitable jostling ( Lord Goff - Collins v Wilcock) - Hostility not needed (Wilson v Pringle) - Act not omission (Fagan) This was confused by Bermudez - Can be indirect (Haystead; Martin; DPP v K) - Must be unlawful - Excludes consent/self defence Usual MR. S.47 OAPA - Assault or Battery Occasioning ABH ABH: - Physical (DPP v Smith; T v DPP) ...read more.

Middle

Intent can be direct or oblique. Oblique: Consequence was a virtually certainty to occur and D appreciated this fact (Nedrick;Woolin) - Matthews and Alleyne said that OI was strong evidence from which the jury may find intent. If Jury cannot find intent they may return a verdict of MS (Coutts) Murder - Common Law Offence, Mandatory Life Sentence Coke: Unlawful killing of another human being under the queen's peace with malice aforethought Vol. Act or Omission: - Dangerous Situation (Miller) - Contractual Duty (Pittwood) - Assumption of Responsibility (Stone + Dobson) - Special Relationship (Gibbins + Proctor) - Public Figure (Dytham) Causation: 1) Factual 'But For' test (White;Paggett;Dalloway;Merchant + Muntz) 2) Legal - De Minimus: - More than a minimal cause (Kimsey) - Only a significant contribution by D is sufficient for liability (Paggett) and death/serious injury must be reasonably foreseeable (Chesire) Intervening Acts: - Acts of God - Third Party (Must overwhelm original injuries) - Jordan: "Palpably Wrong" - Breaks Chain - Smith/Chesire: "Thoroughly Bad" - Does not break chain - Malcherick and Steel - Discontinuing treatment does not break chain - Acts of V - "If V does something so daft + unexpected that it is not reasonably foreseeable it will break the chain of causation" (Roberts) ...read more.

Conclusion

Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Act or Omission. Foundations in ordinary neg. (Donoghue v Stevenson) - Current test established in Adomako (ordinary rules of negligence) Elements of GNM: - Duty of care (3 Stage Test/Criminal Omissions) - Breach of care - Obvious Risk of death (to the reasonable man) causing death (causation) - Gross Negligence & MR (Jury Q - So serious it warrants criminal punishment) Duty: - Civil Three Stage Test (Foreseeable/Proximity/Fair) - Corparo v Dickman - Criminal Omissions: PIttwood/Stone + Dobson - Litchfield (Conractual; Dangerous Situation) - Kite & OLL (Dangerous Situation) - Edwards (Special Relationship) - Wacker (Assumption of Duty) Breach of Duty: Standard to reasonable man or reasonable professional doing that job. Obvious Risk of Death: (Objective) There must be an obvious risk of death in activity, one obvious to the reasonable man (Sing/Misra/Yaqoob) This takes into account what pre-cautions were taken. Causes Death: There must be risk of death, ordinary rules of causation. Gross Negligence: Bateman/Adomanko/Andrews Bateman: "Negligence of accused went beyond mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others to amount to a crime against the state, deserving punishment." MR: No real MR required, just for the conduct to fall below the standard of the reasonable man, they can demonstrate a criminal disregard for safety, criminal inattention or gross ignorance. ...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)

    QBD. This concerned whether an error made by a player in terms of an intentional foul which led to an injury to an opposing player was capable of giving rise to liability in negligence. 'A case of foul play' found in the New Law Journal is an article which examines the

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    the Law Commission is where someone throws their child from the top of a blazing block of flats in a vain attempt to save the child's life. The individual would foresee that the chances of death were virtually certain, but morally speaking, he did not intend to kill the child, rather, to save the child.

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

    7eIi7miNj from 7eIi7miNj coursewrok 7eIi7miNj work 7eIi7miNj info 7eIi7miNj [5] Cunningham [1982]codd ddr seddddw ordd ddk indd fodd dd. [6] "To prove the intention, you may show the motive, and this is a link in the chain of evidence", in Heeson [1878].cofb fbr sefbfbw orfb fbk infb fofb fb; [7]

  2. British Law in Health and Social Care

    Negligent conduct is that which falls below an acceptable standard, this standard has been established in order to protect others from an unreasonable risk of harm. Not every type of carelessness is defined as legal negligence. There are four elements that need to be proved for an action or inaction

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    The trial judge directed the jury that the defendant was reckless if he 'closed his mind to an obvious risk' but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction with Lord Lane firstly looking at the recommendations of the Law Commission: ...A person is reckless if, a)

  2. 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

  1. As there is a substantial injury in the form of a dislocated knee, Adrian ...

    Adrian is almost certainly likely to be found to have inflicted GBH, as Chris suffered a dislocated knee. In law, you cannot separate the blow from the fall, as the fall is a direct consequence, and entirely foreseeable - it is one 'transaction'.

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

    Chemicals from Chemi-Kaze?s containers killed many of Flower Power?s stock of plants. Analysis: By statue (Occupier?s liability Act 1957 and 1984), a premises occupier takes responsibility for ensuring the Premises reasonably safe for all those who attend on it (Ward vs.

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