• 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)

    is the case of Smolden v Nolan v Whitworth [1997] ELR 249 where a referee failed to establish control over a dangerous aspect. The plaintiff was awarded 1.8 million pounds in damages, and received 1 million pounds. Also in the case of Vowles v Evans and Welsh Rugby Union ltd

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    if the consequences of that operation will be the virtual certain death of one of the twins. This is illustrated in Re A (Children) (Conjoined twins) where the judge stated 'however little they desired that end...her death would inevitably follow' The death of one of the children was virtually certain

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

    The probability, however high, of a consequence is only a factor."cobb bbr sebbbbw orbb bbk inbb fobb bb: Lord Lane in Nedrick (1986) believed that a defendant might intend a result albeit not desiring it, and said that juries must consider (i)

  2. 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.

  1. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    According to above, for this case, we can see that, the service breach the duty, and the damage is the guys die. They need to responsible for it. Claim 2- Santa Rosa Institution Joseph Wong, an assistant manager of Santa Rosa Institution, was killed in a car accident on his way home from the campus.

  2. Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny ...

    The section 20 offence is considered to cover the more serious injuries and so Jenny's broken leg will be covered by this offence as this will be considered too serious an injury for ABH. Both this offence and ABH are either way offences and are subject to a maximum of 5 years imprisonment.

  1. Murder, manslaughter, assaults, sexual offences and defences.

    This was upheld in R v. Savage {1992} 1 AC 699. ACTUS REUS: Causing a wound or inflicting grievous bodily harm The Actus Reus is the same for this section as it is for section 18. Moreover, as stated Jack dos have the Actus Reus.

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

    a breach of occupier?s libability and ordinary negligence because Bright Light PLC did not exercise any appropriate Prevention to ensure the safety on its premises. As Bright Light PLC is operating business in electrical equipments, it is liable for ensuring that its equipment would not cause damage to others in his premises.

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