• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Revision of reforms

Extracts from this document...


Reform of NFOAP. Structual: - Mixture of common law and statute (Sexual Offences 2003/CJA 1988) - No clear definitions = confusion, cost, delay + injustice - Criticisms by law commission: 'Rag bag of offences' 1993 - Govt: 'It's a disgrace' 1998 Age: Principal act (1861) almost 150 years old. CJA is also 20 years old - In fast evolving social, cultural and technological society this needs updating: - Psychiatric harm (Ireland/Burstow/Chan-Fook) - Cyber Bullying/Stalking - HIV/AIDS - Dica/Konzani Language: Some terms archaic + don't reflect modern language (Smith - Grevious/Maliciously - Mowatt) - Terms lack clear definition - Assault - Occasioning/Inflicting/Causing all mean the same thing - Burstow Heirarchy: Of offences defies logic - MR doesn't determine liability, AR does - Sentencing of S.47 + 20 are 5 years, then S.18 jumps to life - REFORM? Assault = 6 Months. - New S.47 = 5 Years - New S.20 = 7 Years - S.18 Remains at life. Clarify essential as it deals with 80,000 cases/year. Consent: Adds confusion, public policy constraints make it assault/battery only except from lawful exceptions (Brown/Wilson) Critique Of Offences: Common Assault: - Police/Lawyers/Judges use terms interchangeably. Confusing to lay person - Proposals integrate two offences to simplify and make law clearer Assault: - Man in street believes this is a violent offence when infact no harm is required - Absence of 'Fair Labelling' (Clarkson) ...read more.


Law Com. 2 Sentences. 1) Min Life Sentence. 2) Max Life Sentence. Coutts - Can Return verdict of MS - Too much for Jury - Reform fixes this - Murder can be committed by omission, but this does not reflect the seriousness of the offence as even battery can't be committed by omission (Fagan) - When can 3rd Party Break Chain (Chesire/Jordan) Conflict with each other - When V's actions stop being self neglect (Dear/Holland) and start being daft + unexpected - Think Skull Rule unfair, attracts liability for something reasonable man could not foresee (Blaue) Self Defence: Not fair or just, as excessive use of force would lead to a full murder conviction - All or nothing - Police/Army judged to the same standard as Martin, not fair as they are acting to protect society as a whole as they may be much more 'anguished' - Judiciary cannot make separate offence for them as it is parliaments job (Clegg/Demenez) - Similar argument for reforming duress which is not a defence to murder or attempted murder (Howe/Gotts) MR of 'Malice Aforethought' is misleading as there is no need for any kind of malice or ill will - Intention for GBH should be removed (Lord Steyn) ...read more.


Reform of Intoxication. - Majewski said it was a defence to specific intent only, however the distinction between basic and specific is illogical and unfair as intoxication means abolition of MR. If you don't have MR for one crime, you should not have it for another - This undermines the basic principle of law that there must be MR - The Butler Committee in 1975 suggested an alternative approach as used in Germany where when they are not liable for a crime due to intoxication they will be liable for a separate offence of intoxication. This preserves the logic of the law and prevents people from escaping liability. - HOWEVER, this categorises a wide range of offences under one title and the public will not know what specific offence was committed - In 2009 the Law Commission suggested keeping the law largely as it is but codifying it with clearer definitions of what is basic and specific intent - Problems with involuntary intoxication include Kingston as Drunken Intent is still Intent. Prof. Clarkson argues this is unfair to convict a person when their powers of reason have been removed by a third party. - Drunken Mistakes (O'Grady/Hatton) are not a defence, although this goes against the rules of normal intoxication - Inconsistency with the way the law is dealt with in intoxication (Aitken/Richardson + Irwin) ...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

    Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 ...

    5 star(s)

    against a person because of their disability in matters of education, employment, housing and the provisions of services. A disability maybe physical or mental and might involve mobility, manual dexterity, physical co-ordination, continence, the ability to lift and carry ordinary object, their use of speech, hearing, eyesight, memory, concentration or learning ability.

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    Other general defences can be used. Mistake could be used as a defence to a negligence action but this would normally be a mistake as to a fact which is unlikely to occur in sporting cases. Another defence would be 'inevitable accident' where it was not intended by the defendant

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    In the course of hallucinating, that he was descending to the centre of the earth and being attacked by snakes, which was the effect of the LSD. He lashed out at the girl in attempt to fight off the snakes, the girl suffered two blows to the head which caused

  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 did not wound Chris, as for that there needs to be a visible break in the "continuity of the skin" (Eisenhower (1983)). Indeed, even if Chris had broken, not dislocated his knee, this would not be a wound as the skin remains intact (Wood (1830)).

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

    Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) is the next most serious offence and is set out in s47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA). It can be committed by either an assault or a battery (not both) which causes actual bodily harm to the victim.


    The question is, is it sufficient to constitute 'novus actus interveniens' to enable the law to say Tom is not legally liable to have caused Sara's death. The test that would be applied here would be the Smith's test - was the injury that resulted from Tom's act the operating

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

    It is also referred to as imputed negligence. Legal relationships that can lead to imputed negligence include the relationship between parent and child, husband and wife, owner of a vehicle and driver, and employer and employee. For example, a principal is generally liable for the agent's acts performed in the

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