• 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...


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.


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.


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. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    not likely to be reduced, and imprisonment is likely to be the result. A normal sentence for Actual bodily harm could be up to six months. Critical Evaluation Negligence occurs in many areas of sport, but is there a difference between the participators and the general public in negligence claims.

  2. 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.

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

    Another reason in support of strict liability is to ensure that businesses and companies concerning issues such as the issuing of tobacco, pollution, and foodstuffs and other public interests have become more common, an example of this is London Bough of Harrow v Shah& Shah (1909)

  2. Types of Tort Law and Relevant Cases.

    the stress caused to the plaintiff will have to be shown, for example a doctor's letter saying the person is suffering from stress or when damaged property pictures should be taken as proof damage was done. The last element will state the connection in the breach of duty and the

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    to commit the full offence and the accused has actually committed some act (actus reus) which is more than preparatory then guilt can be established. The defendant in this case had the intent to export heroin into the United Kingdom and took steps to see that it was exported whilst the customs officers undercover actually physically imported the drugs.

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

    Courts have developed duress of circumstances, allowing defendants to escape liability when they face imminent death/serious injury if they did not commit a crime. In Abdul-Hussain (1999) Shiites escaping Iraw hijacked a plane, forcing it to land in the UK.

  1. Non-fatal Offences Against the Person.

    s47 assault occasioning ABH requires that for the actus reus there needs to be some physical harm to the skin, flesh or bones and also psychiatric harm. (R V CHAN-FOOK). The mens rea is needed only for the assault itself.

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

    According to the course book, negligence is when the defendant: 1. Causing loss by a failure to take responsible care when there is a duty to do so. 2. The defendant may not wish to inflict injury but by carelessness he allows it to happen.

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