negligence caustion assult battery
Tobias' threatening attitude towards Edward requires a consideration of what constitutes an assault. An assault is defined as an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person.1 When Tobias phoned Edward, and utter the words "I am going to kill you and ensure that you never play ruby again". These words alone may be no more than mere abuse, and the content of his words are insuffient to amount to a threat. If words are to account to assault, the Burden of proof is on Edward to show that he reasonable appended harm. If the words themselves do amount to a threat, there are no legal authority that words alone could constitute an assault.2 However this may now be challenged in the House of Lords case in R v Ireland.3 It was accepted that a silent phone call could amount to an assault. Accordingly, it is now clear that the use of words alone may be an assault taking into account all the surrounding circumstances. If Tobias words are capable of amounting to an assault, there remain the issue that there cannot be an assault unless the threat is immediate. The fact that Tobias utter these words to Edward over the phone rather than in person or face to face, a reasonable person would hold that, Tobias is not in a position to inflict immediate and direct harm on Edward. Thus, Edward wasn't under immediate threat
Is it time to adopt a written constitution?
'For effective governance in the 21st century the United Kingdom requires a written constitution.' Constitutions perform three main tasks: they provide for the creation of the institutions of the State; they regulate the relations between those institutions and one another; and they regulate the relations between those institutions and the citizens they govern.1 Many believe that the United Kingdom's constitution is now outdated with an inherent lack of overall agreement between its statutes, common laws and conventions. The constitution is meant to be the main backbone on which power, control, order and authority are built upon and maintained by.2 Considering this, is it now therefore the time for the United Kingdom to adopt a written constitution in order to provide for effective interaction between these formal institutions and those of civil society in the 21st century? In this essay I will first of all differentiate and explain what is meant by the terms 'written' and 'unwritten' with respect to a constitution. I will then go on to determine the principal characteristics on which the present constitution of the United Kingdom is based and moreover, explore the arguments both for and against the adoption of a written constitution within the United Kingdom taking into consideration any possible advantages or disadvantages that may be apparent within these arguments.
In what ways does the new European Union legal order differ from the common law jurisdiction? To what extent do you think the machinery of the new legal order is effective in achieving its objectives?
* In what ways does the new European Union legal order differ from the common law jurisdiction? To what extent do you think the machinery of the new legal order is effective in achieving its objectives? The main sources of law in the common law jurisdiction are statutes and the doctrine of judicial precedent. In the European Union (EU) the main sources of law are the treaties and various forms of secondary legislation (regulations, directives, and decisions), judicial precedent does not apply in the EU. As of 1st January 1973 EU law has had effect in the UK as a result of the European Communities Act 1972. The EU does not have a formal constitution as such, but the EC Treaty confers powers and duties on the institutions. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has referred to 'a new legal order' in a number of cases. This 'new legal order' is characterised by the concepts of direct effect and the supremacy of EU law over national law. The case of Van Gend en Loos (1963)1 establishes the 'new legal order' most clearly, where the court created a famous statement2. The case of Van Gend en Loos (1963)3 was the first in a long line of rulings from the ECJ that developed the doctrine of supremacy of EU law over national law. The case of Costa v. ENEL (1964)4 elaborated on this new legal order. The new legal order of the EU is not only supreme to national legislative
The Inchoate Offences: Conspiracy, Incitement and Attempt.
The Inchoate Offences: Conspiracy, Incitement and Attempt The taking of certain acts towards committing a "full" offence (e.g. theft) may render the actor liable for one or another of the "inchoate" (or "incomplete") offences - conspiracy, incitement or attempt. Note that the labels "inchoate" or "incomplete" are misleading. Each of the "inchoate" offences is complete in itself, and possesses elements of actus reus and mens rea. It is the full offence that is incomplete, though prosecutors sometimes favour charging an inchoate offence for evidential reasons. The key question you should be asking in connection with each offence is "why is this conduct being criminalized"? . Conspiracy Conspiracy under statute is simply an agreement to commit a crime:- s 1 Criminal Law Act 1977 ("CLA 1977"):- "If a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence by one of the parties to the agreement ... if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions." So there must be proof of:- (i) an agreement (ii) which if carried out in accordance with the parties intentions (iii) necessarily amounts to the commission of a crime .1. "An agreement ... " s2 CLA 1977 excludes agreements between spouses and those where the only other party is under the age of
Problem Question, Divorce& FInancial Provision
Question Sakina and Raj, now aged 52 and48, met 17 years ago and have been living together. They had two children, Tuscan and Umbria, now aged 15 and 12. However, after Raj discovered that Umbria was not his daughter but George’s instead, he and Sakina split up after 7 years of cohabitation. George was a very wealthy business man. She marries George, who dies a year later. Sakina inherited George’s estate worth £10 million. Two years ago, she and Raj met again. Raj proposed marriage; Sakina accepted on condition that Raj formally agreed that, were their marriage to end within five years, he would agree to a lump sum of £100000 “full settlement”. Raj was at that time unemployed. He agreed to her condition. After the marriage they lived together in the house Sakina had inherited. Raj started a business, using Sakina’s capital. She also provided valuable working experience, whist continuing to bring up the children. The business prospered. A year ago Raj suspected that Sakina was having an affair with Vince. Rather than confront her directly, Raj had her followed by a private detective. She became convinced that she was being stalked by a stranger, suffered a nervous breakdown and is now incapable of looking after the children or assisting with the business. She admits adultery with Vince, but Raj does not want a divorce. She wishes to divorce Raj and marry
In an essay of 1500 words, discuss the treatment of male comradeship in Henry V and The Rover
In an essay of 1500 words, discuss the treatment of male comradeship in Henry V and The Rover. Comradeship is a familiarity or sociability (typically between men) with a person who shares one's interests and activities including political persuasion. In this assignment I shall examine the treatment of male comradeship in relation to William Shakespeare's Henry V and The Rover written by Aphra Behn, with comparative analysis of the two texts. Henry V was written during the Renaissance period against a backdrop of the military campaign against the Irish. Through his portrayal of Henry as a victorious King, Shakespeare not only appealed to the audience's national patriotism but appeased the existing monarch Elizabeth I. This epic historical play provides an ironic insight into the price of being King through a contrast of Henry's misspent youth: 'riots, banquets and sports' (Penguin p63) and his new world as court politician, military leader and upholder of Christian values. The opening scene provides the play's first example of comradeship. It begins mid-conversation between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of Ely. Shakespeare uses this device to stimulate the audience's interest, as they become party to a private conversation. His use of religious leaders would have created an initial sense of trust in the action and messages conveyed. However, as the scene
Has Neofunctionalism Been Superseded By A New 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism" As Currently The Most Convincing Theoretical Explanation of European Political Integration?
Has Neofunctionalism Been Superseded By A New 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism" As Currently The Most Convincing Theoretical Explanation of European Political Integration? From an ambitious project originally envisaged to remove the catastrophe of war from such a war-torn continent, the European project has proceeded in 'fits and starts'. Since its inception, there has been much debate regarding what forces drive the integration process forward. Why now, when interstate war in Europe seems impossible, do member states continue to 'pool' their sovereignty in so many areas? Two theories have dominated previous attempts to answer the question of "how and why states cease to be wholly sovereign, how and why they voluntarily mingle, merge and mix with their neighbours, so as to lose the factual attributes of sovereignty."1 Neofunctionalism, the idea that the integration process, once started, develops its own momentum for further integration, saw the height of popularity in the 1960s, following the initial success of the ECSC/EEC and the hugely influential theoretical explanation by Ernst Haas. The second theory, Liberal Intergovernmentalism, surfaced in the 1990s and was championed by Andrew Moravcsik. It saw flaws in neofunctionalist thinking and instead offered an alternative account in which the integrative process was always, and remains, in the hands of national governments;
How effective communication can contribute to health, care and early years workers valuing people as individuals.
How effective communication can contribute to health, care and early years workers valuing people as individuals. We communicate with people for various reasons. E.g. to give or receive information, to provide support or to carry out an assessment for individual needs. Interactions with people can be formal or informal. Formal interactions are likely to involve a social worker talking to an official capacity. Informal interactions in contrast are more themselves and relaxed the different types of interactions are verbal and non verbal. Verbal interaction occurs when the person speaks, when people talk to each other one to one or in groups. Effective verbal communication involves a two way process of speaking and listening. In St John's Palliative Care Homes all forms of communication are important for a good relationship between client and staff. Ways to communicate verbally would include; asking questions, probing and prompting within the conversation e.g. at St John's a nurse asking the client what their granddaughter/ son is like if the client mentions that they have them, and the tone of voiced used. Verbal communication is most commonly used in communication with children, meetings, providing support and dealing with problems and complaints. Stress and being upset are barriers to good communication, as is confusion and being emotionally stressed. At St John's hospice
Describe the elements of the Tort of Negligence and critically analyse their practical applications.
Describe the elements of the Tort of Negligence and critically analyse their practical applications. Torts could be intentional or could arise out of negligence: people are responsible for injury caused to others not only as a result of their willful acts, but also by the want of care (lawschoolhelp). Tort of negligence arises out of the breach of a duty of care which is owed by people to others (Wikipedia).The principle of the tort of negligence is that all individuals should "exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances", in order not to hurt others (lawschoolhelp). The tort of negligence, in contrast to intentional torts, does not require intent from the side of the tortfeasor, nor knowledge or belief by the tortfeasor of what the consequences of his of her action or non-action are. The tort of negligence only requires that the act or omission has to create a risk as a consequence of it, and that this risk is foreseeable by a reasonable person in the same situation (torts). The elements that make the tort of negligent valid or actionable are that 1. it should be proved that the tortfeasor owed the claimant a duty of care, 2. that by negligent conduct the defendant broke this duty of care, 3. this negligent conduct caused a consequential legally actionable damage to the claimant, and that 4. there is a proximate connection
Are Evil Intentions A Crime?
Are Evil Intentions A Crime? It could be said, especially in this time when so many live in constant fear of the possible crimes resulting from increased terrorist activities, that Stephen Spielberg's intent was as much to make a political statement as it was to produce a highly entertaining and dramatically engaging sci-fi film with Minority Report. Ironically, we cannot be sure of Spielberg's intent unless he himself confirmed such to be true. Spielberg's film, Minority Report, envisions a society in which people are arrested for crimes they have not yet committed. How can the government know, with such certainty, that these future crimes will occur? Three "pre-cogs," genetic freaks possessing the power to see the future, exercise their pre-cognitive abilities through an experimental demonstration of governmental power of intervention. This government program relies on the majority opinion of these pre-cognitive minds to either prevent the commission of intentional crimes, or to punish presently innocent people for their thoughts of criminal activity- depending on one's perspective. Are evil intentions a crime? Arguably the answer is no, considering evil to be a moral reference and not one of criminal nature. Yet, the law secures a statute to run a circle around this moral dilemma, drafting the Criminal Attempts Act of 1981 ("Attempts") to deem a person guilty of an
