• 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

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

    4 star(s)

    and the surgeon would have known this to be the case and therefore under the Nedrick/Woollin model on intention, the surgeon would have the intent for murder if he went ahead with the operation despite his intentions clearly not sharing the same characteristics as that of a murderer.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    Finally in a sports game the referee may be held liable for claims in negligence. On the field of play the referee is responsible for the game and keeping the players within the rules of the game. The land mark case in this area which has concerned most match officials

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

    Per Lord Scarman: Foucault theorised ace_16k's realism hypothesis. "The greater the probability of a consequence the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and... if that consequence was foreseen the greater the probability is that that consequence was also intended...

  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 ...

    which causes actual bodily harm to the victim. This may involve the victim suffering an injury which may require hospital treatment such as stitches. The mens rea for this offence is either intention to put the victim in fear or Cunningham recklessness as to the putting of the victim in fear leading to ABH or intention to apply

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

    He was in a sudden rage; he was armed with a knife, with which he planed to threaten James with if he gave him any further abuse. Therefore, Jack would be liable for s.20 of the OAPA 1861. Section 20 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 S.20 OAPA penalises 'Whosoever

  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