• 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)

    Clubs may also feel it is bad publicity. This is evident in the recent game between Bristol City and Peterborough where Tony Butler was punched by Clive Platt (who needed three stitches to his hand) in the face in the tunnel at half time and eight of his teeth were knocked out.

  2. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    Now the general rule about drunkenness is that if you are so drunk so that you do not form the intent necessary, then you are entitled to be acquitted. However, the rule in Majewski (1976) goes on to say that this only applies to offences involving specific intent and not to those requiring basic intent.

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

    a crime may in some circumstances be objectively innocent, and take its criminal colouring entirely from the intent with which it is done". Thus, in the case of Court [1988], it was the defendant's intention in spanking a young girl that made his assault on her indecent; he acted not

  2. Discuss the criminal liability for an offence against the person of Reena in respect ...

    direct aim would be to 'have a laugh' therefore to apply unlawful force to the victim was not her aim or purpose. On the other hand the fact that she removed the screws 'surreptitiously', thus secretly or cunningly implies the fact that it must have been her aim to make

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

    GBH has been described as "really serious harm" in DPP v. Smith (1961) or even in Saunders - "serious harm". This has included serious psychiatric injury (Burstow (1997)) and biological infections (Dica (2003)). The use of the word "inflict" was first believed to require a technical assault or battery, yet was interpreted widely as in Lewis (1974).

  2. I am the company solicitor for Everlasting Estates Ltd., and have been required to ...

    to use them by Everlasting Estates The above can affect the company's liability more than Bob's liability. This is because making hard hats available is not the same as wearing them. Everlasting Estates did not persuade employees to wear hard hats for their safety.

  1. Intoxication – The Legal Viewpoint.

    If the defendant actually forms the necessary intent, the fact that he would not have done so but for the intoxication is irrelevant. R v Kingston [1994] 3 All ER 353, HL A man D with homosexual paedophilic tendencies went to the flat of another man X.

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

    In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products 1963 the California Supreme Court became the first court to adopt strict tort liability for defective products. Injured plaintiffs have to prove that the item was defective, that the defect proximately caused the injury, and that the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous.

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