• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Revision of reforms

Extracts from this document...


Reform of NFOAP. Structual: - Mixture of common law and statute (s****l Offences 2003/CJA 1988) - No clear definitions = confusion, cost, delay + injustice - Criticisms by law commission: 'Rag bag of offences' 1993 - Govt: 'It's a disgrace' 1998 Age: Principal act (1861) almost 150 years old. CJA is also 20 years old - In fast evolving social, cultural and technological society this needs updating: - Psychiatric harm (Ireland/Burstow/Chan-f**k) - Cyber Bullying/Stalking - HIV/AIDS - Dica/Konzani Language: Some terms archaic + don't reflect modern language (Smith - Grevious/Maliciously - Mowatt) - Terms lack clear definition - Assault - Occasioning/Inflicting/Causing all mean the same thing - Burstow Heirarchy: Of offences defies logic - MR doesn't determine liability, AR does - Sentencing of S.47 + 20 are 5 years, then S.18 jumps to life - REFORM? Assault = 6 Months. - New S.47 = 5 Years - New S.20 = 7 Years - S.18 Remains at life. Clarify essential as it deals with 80,000 cases/year. Consent: Adds confusion, public policy constraints make it assault/battery only except from lawful exceptions (Brown/Wilson) Critique Of Offences: Common Assault: - Police/Lawyers/Judges use terms interchangeably. Confusing to lay person - Proposals integrate two offences to simplify and make law clearer Assault: - Man in street believes this is a violent offence when infact no harm is required - Absence of 'Fair Labelling' (Clarkson) ...read more.


Law Com. 2 Sentences. 1) Min Life Sentence. 2) Max Life Sentence. Coutts - Can Return verdict of MS - Too much for Jury - Reform fixes this - Murder can be committed by omission, but this does not reflect the seriousness of the offence as even battery can't be committed by omission (Fagan) - When can 3rd Party Break Chain (Chesire/Jordan) Conflict with each other - When V's actions stop being self neglect (Dear/Holland) and start being daft + unexpected - Think Skull Rule unfair, attracts liability for something reasonable man could not foresee (Blaue) Self Defence: Not fair or just, as excessive use of force would lead to a full murder conviction - All or nothing - Police/Army judged to the same standard as Martin, not fair as they are acting to protect society as a whole as they may be much more 'anguished' - Judiciary cannot make separate offence for them as it is parliaments job (Clegg/Demenez) - Similar argument for reforming duress which is not a defence to murder or attempted murder (Howe/Gotts) MR of 'Malice Aforethought' is misleading as there is no need for any kind of malice or ill will - Intention for GBH should be removed (Lord Steyn) ...read more.


Reform of Intoxication. - Majewski said it was a defence to specific intent only, however the distinction between basic and specific is illogical and unfair as intoxication means abolition of MR. If you don't have MR for one crime, you should not have it for another - This undermines the basic principle of law that there must be MR - The Butler Committee in 1975 suggested an alternative approach as used in Germany where when they are not liable for a crime due to intoxication they will be liable for a separate offence of intoxication. This preserves the logic of the law and prevents people from escaping liability. - HOWEVER, this categorises a wide range of offences under one title and the public will not know what specific offence was committed - In 2009 the Law Commission suggested keeping the law largely as it is but codifying it with clearer definitions of what is basic and specific intent - Problems with involuntary intoxication include Kingston as Drunken Intent is still Intent. Prof. Clarkson argues this is unfair to convict a person when their powers of reason have been removed by a third party. - Drunken Mistakes (O'Grady/Hatton) are not a defence, although this goes against the rules of normal intoxication - Inconsistency with the way the law is dealt with in intoxication (Aitken/Richardson + Irwin) ...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

    Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 ...

    5 star(s)

    Regulations 2006 making it unlawful to discriminate or treat anyone differently because of his or her age in employment; some discrimination is justified to protect younger or older individuals or workers and to help integration. Another exemption would be where professional experience or seniority is needed.

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    It is very difficult to claim as generally if a ticket has been bought to watch the match a contract has been made and therefore there is deemed consent to the dangers of being at that particular ground. This would be the same if it was not at a sporting ground but at for example a pop concert.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    He got into a fight in a pub and he assaulted the manager and a customer. When the police arrived he also assaulted him. He was charged with three offences of Actual Bodily Harm and three offences of assaulting the police officers when they were trying to carry out their duty.

  2. Intoxication – The Legal Viewpoint.

    Lord Simon said one of the prime purposes of the criminal law is the protection from certain proscribed conduct, including unprovoked violence, of persons who are pursuing their lawful lives. To allow intoxication as a defence would leave the citizen legally unprotected from unprovoked violence where this was the consequence

  1. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    It is noted that Hart, in arguing for liability for negligence, drew the distinction between those able of observing certain principles and those who did not have that ability. If you do not differentiate, then the schizoid tramp or the inadequate, backward child is judged by the same standards as the prudent individual.codc dcr sedcdcw ordc dck indc fodc dc!

  2. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    This is because negligence, as a tort, can cover both acts and omissions. In other words, a person can be negligent at law for doing something he should not have done as well as for not doing something when he should have.

  1. As there is a substantial injury in the form of a dislocated knee, Adrian ...

    GBH has been described as "really serious harm" in DPP v. Smith (1961) or even in Saunders - "serious harm". This has included serious psychiatric injury (Burstow (1997)) and biological infections (Dica (2003)). The use of the word "inflict" was first believed to require a technical assault or battery, yet was interpreted widely as in Lewis (1974).

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

    Tesco stores ltd). Because Bright Light PLC and Chemi-Kaze PLC share their promises, their occupiers? liability is also split specifically. Bright Light PLC is liable for the first floor as running business there and likewise Chemi-Kaze PLC is liable for the ground floor.

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