Advise the parties of their criminal liability. What difference, if any would make the answer if J had died.
CRIMINAL LAW SUGGESTED ANSWER J and K went into a jeweller's shop in order to have their ear pierced. The sixteen year old assistant, L employed by M, the owner of the shop, failed to sterilize the needle before J's ear and between piercing and was seriously ill for three months. Subsequently, k, after a blood test, was found to have become HIV positive. J had known that she, J was HIV positive hen she went into the shop. Advise the parties of their criminal liability. What difference, if any would make the answer if J had died. SUGGESTED ANSWER : The issues here are: . L's liability for piercing J's ears resulting in illness. OAPA S 18, 20, 47, 23 & 24. 2. L's liability for piercing K's ears and passing the HIV. OAPA S 18, 20, 47, 23 & 24. 3. L's liability if J died Homicide: manslaughter 4. M's liability for any of the above - secondary parties - vicarious liability . Liability for piercing J's ear resulting in illness L's liability as regard to J would center on 2 issues. Firstly, the piercing of the ear itself and for the passing of infection (blood poisoning). As regards to the piercing clearly this would involve a breaking of the skin JJC v Eisenhover and therefore can be classified as a wound and this the requirement for S 18 and 20 of the OAPA. However, S 18 would be largely irrelevant since there is no intention to cause GBH but for S 20 the
How satisfactory is the law on voluntary manslaughter?
How satisfactory is the law on voluntary manslaughter? Voluntary manslaughter, as established by the Homicide Act 1957, is determined by three sections: diminished responsibility, provocation, and suicide pact. Diminished responsibility is established by Section 2 of the Homicide Act. It may be used as a defence to murder if the defendant can prove an abnormality of the mind (if, for example, the defendant is an alcoholic, or has a mental condition as in R v Byrne, where the defendant had uncontrollable sexual desires.) The defence is that the defendant does not have the necessary control over their actions, when compared to a reasonable person. Diminished responsibility has been criticised for a number of reasons: * The very term 'Diminished responsibility' has been criticised by authorities such as the Butler Committee, who say that it is 'not a medical fact relating to the accused'. It was suggested by them that ' a person should not be convicted of murder if there is medical or other evidence that they were suffering from a form of mental disorder'. The criminal law committee agreed with this, but were not happy with the wording, suggesting that instead it should be: * 'The mental disorder was such as to be a substantial enough reason to reduce the offence to manslaughter.' * There is a danger for the accused when using it, because the prosecution sometimes responds
Homicide Act 1957
Q- Using Cases to illustrate your points critically, decribe the Homocide Act 1957 and include the subsequent judicial interpretations of it. The law surrounding homicide carries a wide scope of controversial issues; this can include the topics of Murder, Manslaughter, Infanticide and Vehicular homicide The definition of murder is derived from the writing of the jurist Sir Edward Coke: "Murder is where a person of sound memory and of the age of discretion unlawfully killeth...any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by party or implied by law, so as the party wounded or hurt etc., die of the wound or hurt etc." For any crime the basic requirements for an offence to be successful are an 'Actus Reus', 'Mens Rea' and an absence of a valid defence. The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of another person in the Queen's peace. The definition still stands today and until recently the definition included the "year and a day" rule but this has now been abolished. It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant (D) caused the V's death, that there was a causal link starting from the D's act leading to the V's harm. In cases where a V is stabbed or shot and dies immediately from the wound it is obvious that D caused V's death. it must be proved in each case that the defendant's actions were the cause of
Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of s deciding case.
Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of s deciding case. This essay will be exploring the various reasons for and against strict liability which will be complemented with a case study. Strict liability involves offences in which the crimes do not require mens rea and does not have to be proved. The defendant need not to have intended or known about the consequences of the crimes as it is enough to have the actus rea at present to be convicted. Overall strict liability cases are less serious such as regulatory offences involving road safety, pollution or food hygiene as convictions would be very hard to obtain if the prosecution had to prove recklessness, negligence or intent in every case, and it would cost a lot of money to bring every single one of these cases to court, so therefore strict liability makes law implementation more resourceful. Parliament sometimes gives in to the process of proving the guilty mind as most strict liability cases are statutory as it is for example in the publics interest against the selling off unfit food. Such as the case of Callow v Tillstone (1900) where the butcher was convicted of selling inedible meat as it was held to be unfit for public consumption, even thought the vet deemed it edible. Although liability is said to be strict concerning one aspect of and element, other
Resit Coursework. Obligations II. Having established that the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care (and in this case it is assumed that this has been established), it will next be necessary for the courts to decide whether the defendant has breached that duty. This first involves an assessment by the court of how, in the circumstances, the defendant ought to have behaved; what standard of care should he have exercised. This standard is that of the ordinary and reasonable citizen and not that of the defendant himself: an especially careful defendant will not be held liable because he fell short of his own high standards, however, a defendant whose personal conception of what is reasonable fails to match that of the court will have no defence based on his belief that he acted carefully. Although the concept of the reasonable man is well developed and accepted in tort law it is nevertheless a general and sweeping statement. Sir Alan Herbert said: 'the reasonable man is .. devoid of any human weakness, with not one single saving vice' Although this is not quite true, it is difficult for the courts to create a reasonable, fictional man and I believe it important for them to take into account social and moral change when comparing the defendant to this fiction. In practice 'reasonable care' can be manipulated to produce standards ranging from the very low to the
One of the main issue here is whether Adder is liable for Bust Ltd going into liquidation, and whether Adder is liable for Kevin, Pablo's financial loss, including physical injury to Pablo, this also includes whether Adder is also liable for Musko Plc's
One of the main issue here is whether Adder is liable for Bust Ltd going into liquidation, and whether Adder is liable for Kevin, Pablo's financial loss, including physical injury to Pablo, this also includes whether Adder is also liable for Musko Plc's loss of profit for Pablo not performing at there theatre. Let start of with Adders liability for Bust limited, where he mislead the company's financial report in negligent, leaving the company in liquidation. The Hedley Byrne case introduced the concept that a claimant could recover for economic loss; however the courts have always distinguished such an action for pure economic loss, arising out of negligence act. The House of Lords held that no duty of care was accepted by Heller and none arose, so the claim failed, the Lordship stated obiter that in appropriate circumstances, there could be a duty of care to give careful advice, and that breach of that duty could give rise to liability for negligence, but the fact is the sole damage was economic loss did not, they said did not effect the question of liability, this proves that Adder may not be liable for Busted Ltd. If we look at the legal principle laid out in Spartan Steel v Martin Co Ltd, the defendants negligently caused all three of the types of loss that resulted from the power cut and all three types of loss were easily foreseeable, the court only compensated for
Discuss the criminal liability for an offence against the person of Reena in respect of Chloe and Miles and of Eric in respect of Reena.
Discuss the criminal liability for an offence against the person of Reena in respect of Chloe and Miles and of Eric in respect of Reena. Paragraph One The charges that can be brought against the accused depend on the injuries caused to and suffered by the victim. In the case of Chloe, who has only suffered bruises and scratches - which can be categorized as minor injuries, Reena can be charged with the common assault known as a battery, which is defined by Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act. The Actus Reus of Battery is the application of unlawful force to someone else. The applying of force does not necessarily have to be personal contact; for e.g. just touching another's jacket may constitute the offence of battery as long as the other feels it. This can be seen in the case of Cole v Turner, the slightest degree of force, even the mere touching will suffice for a battery. The definition of force in this context would be the application of strength or energy. If these is no application of force there cannot be a battery. The harm suffered also needs to be physical; causing someone psychiatric harm does not constitute a battery. Now, from what is stated above, it is not clear whether Reena could be liable for a battery, as she has not physically touched Chloe in any way. If we look at the case of DPP v K concerning a schoolboy who poured sulphuric acid into a hot
Q, believe that the pistol which he was about to clean was loaded, pointed it at his friend R. R laughed and pretended to be shot. However, the gun went off and, in fact, R was killed. Unknown to Q, Q's on had loaded some bullets into the pistol.
Question Q, believe that the pistol which he was about to clean was loaded, pointed it at his friend R. R laughed and pretended to be shot. However, the gun went off and, in fact, R was killed. Unknown to Q, Q's on had loaded some bullets into the pistol. Advised Q. What difference, if any, would it make to your advice if Q had been drinking alcohol-free beer which Q'son had laced with a strong sedative and had caused Q to become befuddled so that Q believed that he was not pointing the gun at R? Suggested Solution Q › R (Murder) * Finding facts that Q did not intend to kill or cause GBH to R. * It would not satisfy the mens rea of murder. * Follows R v Hancock and Shankland , Q did not have the foresight of consequences flowing from his act and the degree of probability of 'natural consequences'. In the matter of laws are so important to consider in inferring whether the result Q was intended. * Follows R v Nedrick , Q did not recognise that R's death or serious harm would be 'virtually certain' to result from his act. It is the matter of laws to consider in inferring whether Q intended to kill or do serious bodily harm, even though he might not have had any desire to achieve that result. * Q is not found guilty of murder. Q › R (Constructive Manslaughter) * Without the necessary mens rea for murder, it would be possible to give rise of unlawful
Gross negligence and recklessness.
Gross Negligence and Recklessness In imposing criminal liability for a failure to recognise the risks, obvious to a reasonable person, there are at least two factors: the level of risk involved The seriousness of the potential harm Only where the possible harm is more serious and the risk is more obvious, do we distinguish recklessness from carelessness and impose liability. In assessing this, other issues may come in: The social utility of the action Thus, the surgeon who performs a necessary but dangerous operation may realise that there is a high probability of serious harm or even death but we do not blame him or her if the operation fails - we balance the risks that are undoubtedly being taken against the social utility of the activity. We regard skilled surgical care as socially useful and do not regard the surgeon who kills a patient as reckless whereas a player of 'Russian Roulette' would certainly be so, despite the odds of 6-1 against, since that is an action of no social value whatsoever. At this point, I am using the terms, 'reckless' and grossly negligent' as synonymous but the former term has had an uncertain history. It can be regarded as simply 'gross negligence' involving a major deviation from the standards of the reasonable man, not a state of mind at all. Alternatively it can be limited to those cases where the defendant subjectively recognises the
Consider the possible criminal liability arising in the above circumstances.
Mick and Steve are keen bodybuilders and regularly work out at the gym. One method they adopt in order to strengthen stomach muscles is for one of them to lie on a bench while the other drops a heavy ball onto his stomach. Reggie, the gym manager, has warned them that he considers this to be a potentially dangerous activity. Tony, a new member at the gym, is told by Mick that he has to undergo an initiation ceremony. Tony reluctantly allows himself to be held down on a bench by Mick and Steve then produces the heavy ball which he proceeds to drop onto Tony's stomach. This activity causes Tony an internal rupture. Realising that Tony is injured, Mick and Steve lift him up to carry him to a car to get him to hospital. At this point, Reggie, the gym manager, arrives from the pub somewhat the worse for wear with drink. He thinks that Mick and Steve are physically forcing Tony to engage in what he considers to be their dangerous activities. Reggie pulls Steve to the floor saying, "I have warned you about this", causing Steve to be severely bruised. Consider the possible criminal liability arising in the above circumstances. The defendants may be liable for causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to s. 18 Offences Against Persons Act (OAPA) 1861, maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to s. 20 OAPA 1861 or assault occasioning actual bodily harm,