• 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)

    The element, which is known as 'causation in fact' and if 'but for' the defendants negligent conduct the damage would not have happened then the negligence is the cause of the damage. This is causation in law and liability may still be avoided if the defendant can show that the

  2. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    Criminal Damage Act 1971 - criminal damage - but also under s.1 (2) of the same act which is criminal damage with the additional element of 'intentionally or recklessly endangering life'. Caldwell pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of criminal damage but not guilty under s.1 (2)

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

    And employer's duty also includes protecting employees from harassment, bullying or victimization by other by other employees. Adequate equipment Employers have a duty to take reasonable care to provide their workers with adequate equipment, including protective devices and clothing, and to maintain it all properly.

  2. British Law in Health and Social Care

    their neighbour here is a quote of what the legal definition of a neighbour should be. "The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question "Who is my neighbour?"

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

    The prosecution will look at the injury first to determine the appropriate offence. The actus reus may be committed with or without a weapon or instrument but must cause harm serious in degree and gravity. The prosecution has to choose whether to charge the defendant with either wounding or Grievous Bodily Harm, he cannot be charged with both.

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

    Bill Speed, employee of Everlasting Estates Ltd., whilst delivering building materials to the site where the new Sixth Form College was under construction, carelessly reversed his lorry and injured a fellow worker, Bob Thorpe. Bob Thorpe due to contrary to statutory regulations was not wearing a hard hat.

  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