[22040/22115] Criminal Law

It would be advisable for Adam to consider what defences of Criminal Law are available for him to use, in order to appeal for his conviction. When looking into the case of Adam, one comes to understand that he is in a very difficult position in regards to his liability, hence his conviction. Adam will have to justify his conduct as a result of the wounds inflicted upon Eve as a consequence of his Actus Reus.

Adam has committed what one would automatically refer to as actual bodily harm. Therefore we understand that a definite act has been committed, one which was unintentional, that could be described as criminal, which would; according to section 20 of the offences Against Persons Act 1861, incriminate him and make him guilty of a misdemeanour.

If Adam were to Appeal against his conviction, one would advise him to consider, and place more emphasis on the importance of his Mens Rea at the time the offence was committed. One can glean from the case that Adam’s intention was not in total correlation to his Actus Reus; henceforth he cannot be guilty of grievous bodily harm. This is according to section 18 of the 1861 act as mentioned above, which provides that for the offence of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm, the defendant must act with “intent” to cause grievous bodily harm. This therefore contradicts what the trial judge mentioned about Adam’s intentions and how they do not in any way alter his legal position, as Adam’s intent was to frighten and not to cause any actual bodily harm. The issue of intent is reinforced in the case of Wilson v Pringle, in which judge Croou-Johnson maintains “in our view the conclusion that in battery there must be an intentional touching, in one form or another of the Plaintiff to the defendant”. Lord Diplock on the other hand maintains a contrary view, in that he believes that we are responsible for our own intentions, even if they are unintentional. In the case of Miller he emphasised the fact that “There can be no good reason why he should not be guilty of arson.” This argument would therefore put Adam in a difficult position legally as it totally disregards his intent, which is his main reason for appeal.

Join now!

Adam could consider claiming that he was acting negligently. The Criminal Law book “texts and materials” describes a person as negligent when “he fails to exercise such care, skill or foresight as a reasonable man in his situation would exercise”. This describes the position of Adam in one light.

The case of Fletcher (1998) placed emphasis on involuntary acts and provided that if something was to get into the way of, or if it were to influence the possible outcome of a certain action the ensuing consequence of the act would be involuntary.

In relation to Adam’s position, one could ...

This is a preview of the whole essay