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

With reference to the case situation above, discuss, using decided cases to support you arguments:a) The offences, if any, with which Archie could be charged and what the prosecution would need to prove to establish liability for each offence;

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Paper 2, December 2001, Question 6 Trina Soon Archie is employed to protect the pheasants on Lord Melchett's estate from poachers. On day, from a distance he sees Liam and Craig on the estate and, knowing them to be poachers, he decides to 'rid himself of the problem for all time' and fires his shotgun at them. Both Liam and Craig are only wounded, however, but do need to be taken to hospital for treatment. On the way to the hospital, the brakes on the ambulance fail, it leaves the road and overturns on a bend and Liam dies in the accident. With reference to the case situation above, discuss, using decided cases to support you arguments: a) The offences, if any, with which Archie could be charged and what the prosecution would need to prove to establish liability for each offence; (20) b) And whether you think Archie would be convicted of any offence. (5) a. In relation to the death of Liam, there is the possibility that Archie would be charged under homicide. ...read more.

Middle

Moloney, holding that intention may be inferred from the defendant's foresight of consequences. Here, the charge will depend on Archie's intention, which might be deduced from the words that he muttered: 'rid himself of the problem for all time'. As such, Archie knew the consequences of his actions, and had an intention to carry it out. Yet if this is the case, it must also be considered why Archie didn't actually carry out his apparent intention, to 'rid himself of the problem for all time', as he did not actually 'get rid of' (ie. kill) them. However, if this is not the case, it can be said that Archie's intention can be found if he foresaw death or GBH as a virtually certain consequence, as in R v. Woollin. It is also not known where and the number of times Archie shot at Liam and Craig, as this would confer an indication of any considerable intention. If Archie's shooting was limited, perhaps one or two in the leg, then it can be said he had no intention to kill, but just an intention to frighten. ...read more.

Conclusion

However, Archie may also be charged under Section 47 and Section 42. Under S47, Craig has to be seen to have sustained "actual bodily harm", defined in R v. Miller as "any harm calculated to interfere with person's health and comfort." Under S42, Archie has to be seen to "put another person in fear of immediate personal violence" and has "touched another without their consent." If this can be established, Archie would be liable for Section 20 (Offence involving wounding/GBH), Section 47 (Common assault, battery & GBH) and Section 42 (Assault & battery) of the Offences Against Persons Act 1861. b. In the case of Liam's death, Archie would be charged for murder. However, this is rather difficult to prove, as the mens rea required for murder involves proof of intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm as established in R v. Moloney. Thus, he would not be convicted of murder, but rather involuntary manslaughter, with constructive liability. As for Craig's injuries, Archie would be charged under Section 20 of the OAPA. Further charges might include Sections 47 and 42. The conviction under Section 20 is undeniable, but for Section 47 and 42, it is only highly plausible. 2 ...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. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    For example, in The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain, a pharmacist was found guilty of supplying a drug to an addict on a forged prescription despite there being no fault on his part, which many would view as being overly harsh given that by the ordinary person's standards he would not be considered to have been at fault.

  2. Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of ...

    held that in order to secure a conviction for the offence of publishing a blasphemous libel it was enforced that mens rea needed to be proved it was sufficient for the intention to publish material which was in fact blasphemous and that the liability was strict thus the defendants appeal was rejected.

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    For example if A aims to shoot B and fires, he has started a chain of causation that will ultimately result in B's death. Unless there is a novus actus interveniens by C, A will be liable. The very existence of causation means that actus reus and mens rea may

  2. Any crime in law is made up of two elements, the actus reus which ...

    Unlawful act manslaughter is committed when the defendant has caused the death of a person by an unlawful and dangerous act.

  1. Non-fatal Offences Against the Person.

    Under this offence Alice could also be liable for the mental fear of Briony because the offence now covers psychiatric harm. Psychiatric harm is required to have evidence from an expert.

  2. Discuss the meaning of fault on the basis for criminal liability. Explain and evaluate ...

    However, this can also be seen as unbeneficial as well because if business's efforts to try their best it still seen as not good enough, why would they bother trying their best at all? For example, in Callow V Tillstone (1900), a butcher got a vet to inspect his meat, but the vet was negligent and passed it.

  1. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    If the prosecution cannot link the defendant's conduct to the death, then the defendant must be acquitted. In other words, the prosecution must show that but-for the defendant's conduct, the victim would not have died. The case of R v WHITE (1910)

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

    even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent. Strict liability has been applied to certain activities in tort, such as holding an employer absolutely liable for the torts of her employees, but today it is most commonly associated with defectively manufactured products.

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