• 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)

    On the balance of probabilities a reasonable professional player would have known that the challenge would have carried significant risk of injury. Huddersfield town were held vicariously liable for the tackle. There was a similar claim in the case of Brian McCord v Swansea AFC and John Cornforth (1996) QBD.

  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 ...

    Lord Bridge in Moloney [1985]cofg fgr sefgfgw orfg fgk infg fofg fg. COURSEWORK 2 Intention is the mens rea phrase, which expresses the highest level of blameworthiness of an offender. If a person aims to cause a result, he is more responsible than a person who acts recklessly.

  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 ...

    The employer's personal duty is only owed to employees. And not to independent contractors who may be in the workplace or to visitors to it (though other duties may be owned to such individuals under the normal law of negligence, or in some cases occupiers' liability).

  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 ...

    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