• 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

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

    4 star(s)

    they would be liable in tort, particularly if the standard of care fell below what is reasonably required. The same would apply to the general public and any claims they may make which were away from the sports field. In all areas now special training is needed to in an

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    His defence of intoxication was rejected and he was convicted of manslaughter as no specific intent is required for manslaughter and self induced intoxication is not considered a defence. In circumstances where the defendant did have the required mens rea of the offence despite being drunk, he is then guilty of the offence.

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

    Therefore, what cases does this test of recklessness apply? In theory, to all statutory offences, which include the word 'recklessly' but so far, there has been slight interest except in cases of criminal damage and reckless (now Dangerous) driving. However there is now a statutory definition of 'dangerous' under s.1 Road Traffic Act 1991.

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

    reference to vicarious liability and health and safety implications of his employees. 3d Advise Santa Rosa Institution related to general tortuous liability. Answer: An employer has a duty in law to see that reasonable care is taken to ensure the safety of employees; the duty is essentially the same as the usual duty of care in negligence.

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

    not merely some injury or wound. If this ulterior intention can be shown, the prosecution have also established that the grievous bodily harm was caused maliciously. (R v Cunningham (1981) HL: - Mens rea of murder - intention to commit homicide or grievous bodily harm). Lord Hailsham LC: 'Malice aforethought has never been limited to the intention to kill or to endanger life'.

  1. Intoxication – The Legal Viewpoint.

    [This decision is now regarded as mistaken.] R v Lipman [1969] 3 All ER 410, CA D and his girlfriend V each took a quantity of LSD (a hallucinatory drug). During his "trip", D imagined he was being attacked by snakes at the centre of the earth and had to

  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