Looking at the offences of Assault, Battery, Actual bodily harm and Grievous really serious bodily harm.
For this assignment I will be looking at the offences of Assault, Battery, Actual bodily harm and Grievous 'really serious' bodily harm. Common assault and a Battery are under S39 of the criminal justice act and are only classed as summary offences. If a defendant commits one or both of these offences then he/she will be liable for a fine or can be given a custodial sentence for up to six months. For the actus reus of assault it must be recognized that there was an act, that caused a person to fear, that immediate unlawful force is about to be used against them. For assault there doesn't even need to be any applied force, all that's needed is fear that they were going to be attacked. The fear could be simply raising your hand or running towards someone and this would, in law, constitute the actus reus of assault. To commit an assault all that is needed are words and this can be seen in the case of Constanza (1997). In this case the defendant had written 800 letters and made numerous phone calls to the victim. The House of Lords stated that silent phone calls can amount to an assault and this can be seen in the cases of R v. Ireland and Burstow. Usually it must be made certain that the victim feared an immediate infliction of force at that moment. A key example of this is in the case of Smith v. Chief Superintendent, Woking police station (1983). In this case, the defendant
Liability in criminal law requires the prosecution to establish that the accused has caused the relevant prohibited consequences or conduct to occur. For instance, in homicide, that the accused has caused the victim(TM)s death
'Liability in criminal law requires the prosecution to establish that the accused has caused the relevant prohibited consequences or conduct to occur. For instance, in homicide, that the accused has caused the victim's death'. Explain, by reference to decided cases, how the courts have approached the requirement of causation. Causation must be established for nearly all offences, but it so happens that the crime of murder provides the best illustrations of the principles of causation. Whether the defendant's acts or omissions actually caused the victim's death is always for the jury to decide. The judge directs the jury as to the elements of causation. The defendant may only be convicted of murder if the jury are satisfied that the defendant's conduct was both a factual and legal cause of the victim's death. These are the two main principles of causation. The prosecution must decide that 'but for' the defendant's act, the victim would not have died. Therefore it must be established that the consequence would not have occurred as and when it did but for the defendant's conduct. If the conduct would have happened anyway, there is no liability. This is the factual test. The case of White (1910) illustrates this principle. The defendant put poison into his mother's drink with intent to kill her, in order to gain under her will. Later she was found dead with the glass full of
Causation is where a consequence must be proved, the prosecution has to show that the defendants conduct was the factual cause of that consequence and it was the legal cause of that consequence
Causation: Causation is where a consequence must be proved, the prosecution has to show that the defendant's conduct was the factual cause of that consequence and it was the legal cause of that consequence and there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation. There are two types of causation: factual cause is where D can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened 'but for' the defendant's conduct. In R v White (1910), D put cyanide into his mother's drink, but she died of heart failure before the poison could kill her. D was acquitted of murder because he was not the factual cause of his mother's death. In Pagett (1983), D shot at the police who were attempting to arrest him. D used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield, the offices retuned fire and the girl was killed. The jury convicted him of manslaughter. Pagett was guilty because the girl would not have died 'but for' him using her as a shield in the shoot-out. Legal cause may be more than one act contributing to the consequence. The rule is that the defendant can be guilty if his conduct was more than a 'minimal' cause of the consequence. But the defendants conduct need not be a substantial cause. In Kimsey (1996), D in a high-speed car chase with a friend. She lost control of the car and the other driver was killed in the crash. D's driving did not have to be the substantial cause of the
LAW AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM
Law and the Legal System There are two main criminal courts in the England and Wales. The Magistrate's Court and the Crown Court. The magistrate's court is for minor offences and any case that will result in a punishment of no more than a five thousand pound fine or six month imprisonment will be tried here. However if the case is likely to exceed the maximum punishment it will be passed on to the crown court. Serious cases like rape or murder will be tried at the Crown Court. If somebody believes that they have been wrongly accused they have the opportunity to appeal to the courts. However if they were sentenced by a magistrates court they would have to appeal to a crown court, if they were sentenced by a crown court they would have to appeal to a high court, if they had been convicted at a high court then they will have to go to a court of appeal. However there must be reasonable grounds for the appeal. The sentenced must have new evidence or reason of a clear mistake. Crown Court The crown court is found in most cities. It is used for trying serious crimes. There are 15 types of people involved; * Judge - a highly qualified lawyer with successful experience in criminal law as a barrister. The judge has to listen to both sides of the story (the prosecution and defence). If the defendant pleads not guilty then a jury will be called in who will along with the assistance
A person who genuinely attempts to commit a criminal offence and fails still deserves to be punished just as much as a person who succeeds in committing an offence
A person who genuinely attempts to commit a criminal offence and fails still deserves to be punished just as much as a person who succeeds in committing an offence. The offence of attempt is the closest we get in the English legal system to satisfying the statement in question; however it is still the case that many defendants escape punishment because they didn't go far enough in attempting the crime, despite genuinely attempting to commit a criminal offence. In this essay I will analyse the existing law on attempts and conclude as to whether it is satisfactory. Attempt is an inchoate offence and is covered by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. This act provides that "if with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence; he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence". The criminal law does not punish people for just intending to commit an offence; intent is a mental quality that implies a purpose, whereas attempt implies an effort to carry that purpose or intent into execution. An attempt goes beyond preliminary planning and involves a move towards the commission of the crime. The question as to where the defendant has gone before a merely preparatory act is unclear and open to differences in opinion. One of the reasons for this offence is that without it, the police
There are two ways of committing common assault which are assault and battery. Both of there offences are charged under s39 criminal justice act 1988 and summary offences.
There are two ways of committing common assault which are assault and battery. Both of there offences are charged under s39 criminal justice act 1988 and summary offences. Firstly I am going to look at assault which is known as a technical assault or psychic assault. Assault is when defendant intentionally or subjectively recklessly causes another person to fear immediate unlawful personal violence. For the Actus Reus of assault, you must establish that there has been an act which has caused another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force. An assault requires some acts or word this can be seen in Lodgon v DPP where defendant opened a drawer in his office to show another person that there was a gun in it, which defendant said was loaded. In fact the gun was fake. The actions of defendant were held to amount to an assault. Words are sufficient to amount to an assault which can be seen in Constanza (1997) the CA held that letters can be an assault. In this case defendant had written 800 letters and made a number of phone calls to the victim. The victim interpreted the last two letters as clear threats. The CA held that there was an assault, as there was fear of violence at some time, 'not excluding the immediate future'. It must be proven that the threat of unlawful force would take place almost immediately. This can be seen in Smith v Constable of
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) In this task, I will be defining basic terminology of the main types of Alternative Resolution Disputes and highlight their advantages and disadvantages. Alternative dispute resolution" (ADR) is a term generally used to refer to informal dispute resolution processes in which the parties meet with a professional third party who helps them resolve their dispute in a way that is less formal and often more consensual than is done in the courts. While the most common forms of ADR are mediation and arbitration, there are many other forms: judicial settlement conferences, fact-finding, ombudsmen, special masters, etc. Though often voluntary, ADR is sometimes mandated by the courts, which require that disputants try mediation before they take their case to court. There are many reasons why ADR is needed. The over expenditure is one important factor of the courts structure. It has been found around one third of legal budgets are spent on preparations for defence, legal aid etc so naturally it has become important to find ways to reduce cost but at the same time keep the efficiency and effective resolving of disputes between claimants. The four main types of ADR are Mediation, Conciliation, Arbitration and Negotiation. There is not a chronological order for using these before court however Mediation and Conciliation are compulsory in family
The rules and principles of causation not only provide fair practical solutions to the problems of criminal liability but also are founded on sound moral principles. Discuss this statement.
"The rules and principles of causation not only provide fair practical solutions to the problems of criminal liability but also are founded on sound moral principles." Discuss this statement. When deciding whether a defendant is guilty of an offence the court will look to see if the defendant was the cause of the consequence. The three aspects the prosecution must prove are; that the defendant was the factual cause, the legal cause and that there were no intervening acts which broke the chain of causation. In order to establish whether the defendant's actions were the factual cause, the court will decide whether the consequence would not have happened but for the defendant's conduct. This is referred to as the 'but for' test and was used in R V Pagett 1983 to show that the defendant's girlfriend would not have died but for the fact he held her hostage as a human shield against police gunfire. The 'but for' test can also prove a defendant not guilty of a criminal offence, such as the case of R V White. In this case the defendant put cyanide in his mother's drink, but she died before drinking it due to a heart attack. so the defendants actions were deemed as not the factual cause of his mother's death. The 'but for' test complies with the moral principles of society as we would not deem a person a criminal if they have not caused the consequence, as there is no
Explain how and why the courts have restricted the availability of consent as a defence to non-fatal offences against the person?
Explain how and why the courts have restricted the availability of consent as a defence to non-fatal offences against the person? In theory consent is available to murder and all non- fatal offences against the person. However in reality, consent could not be used for anything more than assault & battery. This fact was stated by Lord Jauncy in Brown and others. Therefore, consent is not available for euthanasia, even if the victim is critically ill. There are some situations where the courts imply consent to minor touching, these can be everyday situations where there is a crowd of people and it is impossible not to have some contacts. If V consents to D's act, it does not necessarily mean that consent is valid. V must be able to comprehend the nature of the act, thus in Burrel v Harmer, D was convicted as V did not understand the nature of the act. In Richardson, the courts confirmed that fraud does not necessarily negative consent. It only does so where V is deceived as to the identity of the person or the nature and quality of the act. However, in Tabassum, D was convicted as court of appeal stated that V was consenting to the nature of the act but not to its quality. Thus, nature and quality are two separate elements. As a result of this, in the case of Dica, it was decided that Clarence was wrongly decided as in both cases, the victims did not consent to the quality
Different types of ADR
Types of ADR and What They Are Used For. The different types of ADR are Conciliation, Arbitration, Mediation, Negotiation, Ombudsman and Tribunals. (CAMNOT) Conciliation is half way between Arbitration and Mediation. The conciliator offers advice to the parties and plays a more active role than the Mediator. The Mediator will advice the parties.The purpose of conciliation is to bring the different parties together to look for ways to resolve the dispute. Conciliation looks for common ground to help resolve the matter to the satisfaction of both parties so that both can move beyond the dispute. As the conciliation process allows for both parties in the dispute to have their say, it is possible for each side to come to a better understanding of the other's position. This can help to eliminate misunderstandings based on incorrect assumptions or information and to achieve a real change in attitude. All information gathered in the conciliation process is kept confidential and is not made available to court proceedings. Arbitration is a private process by which an independant preson called an Arbitrator resolves the disbute by making a decision that binds the parties. Arbitrators are often specialists in their field. Generally both sides have to accept an Arbitrator. Arbitrations may have a longer waiting list that legal trials. Arbitration is a consensual process; a
