![Criminal Law Advice to client. This advice relates to the charges against David Harris for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861[1] and wounding or causing actual bodily harm with intent contrary t](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/951898/listing/951898_1.jpg)
Criminal Law Advice to client. This advice relates to the charges against David Harris for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861[1] and wounding or causing actual bodily harm with intent contrary t
R v David Harris ADVICE TO CLIENT This advice relates to the charges against David Harris for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47, Offences Against the Person Act 18611 and wounding or causing actual bodily harm with intent contrary to s. 18 OAPA 1861. 2The first part of this advice concerns the incident involving David's sister Florence resulting in the s.47 OAPA 1861 charge. In a s.47 offence, both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) 2of either assault or battery must be proven[RM1]. The AR for battery is the infliction of unlawful force on another person3, which is immediately satisfied as David indeed inflicted unlawful force on Florence by "pulling her out of the way", which then, in relation to Florence's sprained ankle, occasioned actual bodily harm. Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim-such harm need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling.4 Therefore, the sprained ankle is sufficient for the s.47 charge. 3The MR for s. 47 is that of assault or battery-intention or recklessness as to the infliction of unlawful force. At the time that David committed the offence, he was furious at Florence stating that she would not allow him to leave if he was going to cause trouble. It could be argued that the MR for injuring
Falun Gong - A practice wrongfully accused as a religion with malicious intent.
Falun Gong: A practice wrongfully accused as a religion with malicious intent By Sylvia Simson 992-11-4219 Recitation TA: Claudio Benzecry World Cultures: China Thursday, December 5th, 2002 Post-Mao Chinese society subsists within the Communist governance system that has been enforced since the triumph over the Nationalist Party in 1949. A government that controls literally every aspect of Chinese lifestyle, the Communist Party leaves little room for any form of liberty, whether it is regarding the size of your family or your religious preference. In particular, the regime stands strongly against any new organization, affiliation, or movement with a unique ideology, and insists that an organization or a movement must undergo complete state-control before it is officially legalized. The fundamental reason behind this suppression of non-governmentally controlled innovative beliefs is simple: fear. China has a historical precedent for fear of new groups or organizations, particularly if they are large with a captivating leader, as every past form of political uprising has involved a large mass of people lead by a charismatic leader. The Communist Party is constantly concerned with the idea that another large movement will be able to defeat their own degenerating administration, mainly because of the vast amount of anti-Communist protestation that has occurred over the
Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny down some steps. Jenny suffered a very badly broken leg that needed surgery. She also suffered cuts and bruises to her other leg.
Paper 3 The Facts Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny down some steps. Jenny suffered a very badly broken leg that needed surgery. She also suffered cuts and bruises to her other leg. Question (in 3 parts) (a) Briefly explain the legal requirement that actus reus and mens rea should be contemporaneous (occur together). (5 marks) Plan A brief explanation of actus reus - guilty act, omission, state of affairs, result crimes A brief explanation of mens rea - guilty mind, types of mens rea (intention, recklessness) The requirement that actus reus & mens rea must coincide A brief explanation of exceptions to actus reus & mens rea coinciding - crimes of strict liability Essay Most crimes (except strict liability) require the prosecution to prove both the actus reus (the guilty act) and the mens rea (the guilty mind) of the crime. What they are required to prove will be set out in the definition of the offence. There are four types of actus reus. The most usual is a positive voluntary act on the part of the defendant. Secondly in result crimes the criminal act by itself may not be enough - for example for a murder charge a death must have taken place. Unusually there may be a state of affairs crime such as occurred in R v Larsonneur or Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent where the defendant has little or no control
Revision notes - NFOAPA
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) - Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health/comfort of V
Non-Fatal Offences - Notes and Evaluation.
Non-fatal Offences Against The Person The main offences are set out in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA). The main offences are Assault, Battery, ABH, Wounding and GBH. Common Assault (S39 CJA 1988) There are two ways of committing this : assault and battery. Assault and battery are both common law offences, which means that there is no statutory definition for either one. An assault is also known as a technical assault or a psychic assault. There must be an act which contains something which causes the victim to fear immediate personal violence. An assault requires some act or words - an omission is not enough. Words (either written or verbal) can be sufficient and in Ireland (1997) it was held that silent telephone calls could constitute an assault. The important point is that the act or words must cause the victim to fear immediate unlawful personal violence. There is no assault if it is clear that the defendant cannot actually use force. The force which is threatened must be unlawful. The Mens Rea for an assault is either an intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence, or recklessness as to whether such a fear is caused - the defendant must realise that there is a risk that his acts or words could cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence. The Actus Reus of battery is the application of unlawful force to
Intoxication – The Legal Viewpoint.
Intoxication - The Legal Viewpoint. Intoxication by drink or by drugs - the criminal law makes no distinction - is no defence in itself, but has frequently to be considered either as leading to a lack of mens rea or as the cause of a mistake that may offer a defence. The law is unsympathetic towards those who injure others or their property while under the influence of drink or drugs taken voluntarily, and rightly so considering the very large number of crimes that are alcohol- or drug-related. A number of studies have shown that between half and two-thirds of the perpetrators of homicide, assault and rape had been drinking (and that a large proportion of these were seriously intoxicated) at or just before the time of the offence. Alcohol is associated with up to 70 per cent of homicides and serious assaults, and with 50 per cent of fights or assaults in the home. Specific intent Where an offence is one of specific intent, and D did not have that intent (whether because of intoxication or for any other reason), he is entitled to be acquitted. Offences of specific intent include murder, wounding with intent, theft, handling stolen goods, indecent assault where an indecent purpose must be proved, and all attempts. Note that the question is not whether D was capable of forming the necessary intent, but whether he did in fact form it. DPP v Beard [1920] AC 479, HL A man D
Consider whether Barry might be liable if charged under section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Criminal Law Coursework 2001-2002 Introduction In prescribing a treatment and carrying it out on false pretences, Barry may be liable for charges under section 47 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In pretending to be a qualified doctor, and in examining the man adds further complications to the scenario, as it identifies some mens rea was present. (a) Consider whether Barry might be liable if charged under section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Assault and battery are common-law offences, but the more serious offences against the person are contained in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA). Section 47 of the OAPA states it is an offence, punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for a person to assault another thereby 'occasioning actual bodily harm'. The actus reus1 defines the actual bodily harm as the victim suffering from some injury. The injury need not be serious or life threatening to be liable under s.47 as bruising or abrasions is enough. Actual bodily harm (ABH) also includes psychiatric injuries such as neurotic disorders, which affect the central nervous system, however in court, expert evidence is needed to prove causation despite the victim being able to give evidence of the symptoms of psychiatric injury. In this scenario, Barry has performed the actus reus, as he knowingly performed the
Explain the difference between direct intent, oblique intent and subjective recklessness in English criminal law. Illustrate your explanation with cases.
Explain the difference between direct intent, oblique intent and subjective recklessness in English criminal law. Illustrate your explanation with cases. The term mens rea in criminal law is used to describe the defendant's mental state for a criminal offence. Mens rea in criminal law says that the physical element alone is not enough to amount to criminal liability. The presence of some mental element is usually required. This is called mens rea. This allows courts to inflict punishments on those who acted without at least some awareness of what they were doing. In this essay I will look at the different types of mens rea under English criminal law specifically by paying particular attention to direct intent, oblique intent and subjective recklessness. I will illustrate my understanding of the different types of mens rea by using relevant cases. Intention in criminal law is regarded as the worst type of mens rea, recklessness the next worst and negligence the least. In criminal law intention is said to be the guiltiest state of mind. Intention reflects not just a choice to act in a way which will bring a result, but a whole hearted decision to act in order to bring a result about.i In criminal law there are two types of intention. Direct intent refers to someone's aim or desire. It is generally accepted that the Defendant intends a consequence of his actions if he realises
Reform Law
Critically analyze present law on non-fatal offences. The first observation that can be made about non-fatal offences is that they are not completely codified. The separate offences of assault and battery remain common law offences, although their separate nature was confirmed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.39. But the more serious offences - assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), wounding and inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH), and causing GBH with intent - are considered in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The 1861 Act, even at the time of its passing into law, was rightly described as 'a rag-bag of offences' by its own draftsman, and it is now over 140 years old, the criticisms are even more acute. The language used to describe the various sections is now archaic: grievous bodily harm, which simply means serious harm; and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which most commonly means some kind of battery that causes real harm to a victim. The definition given to 'wounding' in C (a minor) v Eisenhower is far too wide - any breach in the outer and inner layers of the skin. This could cover any minor cut or even a graze. An interesting comparison can be made here with regard to the Theft Act 1968, which was intended to codify the entire law of theft. Within 10 years a further Theft Act had to be passed, and there have been further significant
Using actual situations, describe the elements of actus reus and mens rea in criminal law.
LAW COURSEWORK: Number Three Name: Joseph Tilbury Examination Number: Centre name: Spalding Grammar School Centre Number: 26233 Component Code: 1177/3 Examination Session: Summer 2003 I. Using actual situations, describe the elements of actus reus and mens rea in criminal law. It is necessary for the prosecution, in the bulk of crimes, to prove two elements in order for a person to be found guilty of a crime. These are the actus reus (which means the guilty act) and the mens rea (which means the guilty mind/intention), and it is only in strict liability crimes where the act alone (the mens rea) is enough to prove a person guilty. Examples of strict liability crimes are possession offences (the defendant possesses, for example, knives, guns or drugs) and not wearing a seatbelt. The actus reus can be an act (e.g. stabbing someone) or an omission (e.g. not halting at a red light), whilst the mens rea can be caused by intention (this level must be proved for the most serious crimes including theft, burglary, robbery, murder) or recklessness (taking an unjustifiable risk, this level must be proved in crimes including assault and battery). It is easiest for me to describe the elements of a crime by utilising real cases and offences. I must first however explain the chain of causation, which is where there is an intervening act between the defendant's guilty act and the
