Criminal Law.
Level 1 Law Criminal Law When investigating the grounds on which a defendant can be found criminally liable for an offence, the courts often apply the principle of actus reus (guilty act). This may include offences such as assault and harassment. Unlike other areas of law, criminal law requires that the accused acted with a guilty state of mind. This is refered to as mens rea. Fundamentally, a person cannot be convicted of an offence if he had made a genuine mistake. Application of mens rea in the courts has nothing to do with notions of evil,moral fault or knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act. Instead it refers to the state of mind expressly required by the definition of the offence charged. Therefore, this differs from offence to offence. Typical instances of mens rea include; the accused intended to cause the harm, or he/she foresaw that his/her actions may cause harm to the victim, or the offender was negligent, or the accused intended to commit some criminal offence, but the result was more serious than expected. This is termed as constructive liability. Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act reads; '' Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict grevious bodily harm upon any other person....shall be guilty of that offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable....to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.'' In
Criminal Law.
[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 18611, 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 182 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
Song of the Battery Hen. How has the poet portrayed what life is like in the battery farm?
2 (a) How has the poet portrayed what life is like in the battery farm? The poet has portrayed that life is comfortable in the battery farm. In the first stanza, the poet describes the place where the hens live. They have “a new concrete floor that’s always dry”. This shows that improvements are made to the accommodation given. They also have ‘a sheet-iron roof that rain drops on’. The hens are even sheltered from the rain, thus providing comfort. There is also a fan and fluorescent lighting to ‘disperse the smell of chickenshit’ and to light up the place ‘on dull days’. This shows that the farmer had kept into consideration the comfort of the hens. He made sure that the floor is hygienic; the hens are sheltered from the rain; the smell and lighting of the place. With such ideal conditions, life is comfortable for the hens and this may in turn help them to serve their purpose as egg-laying hens. Moreover, it is stated that the battery farm is situated in a considerably near distance with a broiler house. A broiler house is where tender young chickens are raised for broiling, over a grill or in an oven. This creates a contrast between the chickens in the broiler farm and the hens in the battery farm. The hens in the battery farm are reared to lay eggs and are given a nice place to live in while the chickens in the broiler farm are reared to be killed.
Criminal Law
Title Page Roger and Steve are 15 year old boys. Steve is small for his age and very timid. He also has a heart defect. Roger attacks Steve, who experiences terror. Steve, in his attempt to escape, jumps over a wall not realising that there is a large drop on the other side. Steve's injuries necessitate his being admitted to hospital. Doctor Martin treats the obvious physical injuries suffered as a result of the fall, but, because he has failed to read Steve's medical notes, he does not appreciate that the trauma of the incident has weakened Steve's heart. Steve dies of heart failure. . Discuss whether Roger has caused Steve's death. (500 words) 2. In the event that Roger is found to have caused Steve's death, discuss whether Roger may be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter in respect of Steve. (500 words) 3. In the event that Dr Martin is found to have caused Steve's death, consider his liability for gross negligence manslaughter. (500 words) Your answer should be word processed and no more than 1500 words MODULE LEADER ASSIGNMENT TITLE CRIMINAL LAW LEVEL 1 IN COURSE ASSESSMENT DATE OF SUBMISSION WORD COUNT 648 (This excludes the footnotes/Appendices, footnote numbers in the text and also the bibliography) Criminal ICA - 1 Coursework During this short essay the principles of causation, Unlawful and dangerous Act manslaughter and Gross negligence manslaughter
I believe Battery caged chickens should be banned
Caged Chickens should be banned as it is cruel and unfair I believe that battery caged chickens should be illegal and that barn or free range chickens should be the only way chickens are farmed. Eighty five percent of chickens are battery caged and seventy percent of these are kept in sheds containing over twenty thousand chickens, some containing up to one hundred thousand. Battery caged chickens should be banned because they are farmed in totally unacceptable conditions. Most chickens have four hundred and fifty sq cm of living space which is less space than an A four sheet of paper! This is disgraceful because the chickens have no room to move or carry out any of their normal activities. How would you feel if you were stuck in a small room for all your life? The least we can do for the chickens is give them some living space and let them live as normal a life as possible. A battery chicken cannot walk, it cannot stretch its wings and it is deprived of fresh air and sunlight. Chickens naturally dust bathe to preen themselves and recondition their feathers but are also unable to do this in cages. Dust bathing is the chicken rolling around in soil or sand and in doing so the bird is grooming and cleansing its skin or fur from parasites. Once again this is preventing the chickens behaving in a natural and instinctive manner, thus causing them stress and exhaustion. Over
Reena's criminal liability in respect of Chloe.
Reena's criminal liability in respect of Chloe. In order to assess Reena's criminal liability, we shall look at the possible charges she could face under the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861, which deals with non-fatal offences. When Reena surreptitiously removes some screws from Belle's chair and Chloe suffers bruises and scratches by sitting on the chair, Reena's act could constitute a battery: An act by which the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicts unlawful personal violence upon the victim.1 A battery can be the direct or (as in this case), indirect application of unlawful force to the body of another. Thus in R v Martin2, where the accused placed an iron bar across the exit of a theatre and turned out the lights, he was guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) under s.20 of the OAPA 1861, as the escaping audience were injured when they ran into the bar. Reena could be charged with battery because her act was the cause of the application of unlawful force to Chloe's body. Her application of force to Chloe's body was unlawful because, Chloe did not validly consent to it (the fact that it was Belle Reena was playing a practical joke on is not a defence, as the doctrine of transferred malice will apply), for example in Latimer3, the accused aimed a blow at someone, but by mistake, hit the victim. Court of Crown Cases Reserved (CCCR) upheld
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
Concept of criminal liability - revision notes.
Module 3 - Concept of criminal liability MENS REA - Guilty Mind ACTUS REUS - Act Done Mens Rea and NO Actus Reus = No Criminal Liability NO Mens Rea and Actus Reus = Strict Criminal Liability Basic criminal procedures Criminal: - * Arrested and charged by the police * CPS * Appear in Magistrates Court at 1st opportunity. Preliminary hearing (committal proceedings) The Defendant pleads guiltily or not guilty. Magistrates set a date for next hearing. * A date set for sentence or subsequent trial. Bail conditions set or rejected. Legal aid may be given. Magistrates may throw the case out because there is no case to answer. There are 3 criminal cases: - . Summary - Only ever heard in Magistrates Court 2. Trial Either Way - 1861 OAPA s47 ABH / Mode of trial hearing 3. Indictable - Serious offences heard in Magistrates then Crown The main functions of an Appeal court is to: - * Uphold the decision * Overturn the decision * Substitute a lower sentence * Substitute a lower offence * Order a retrial Judicial Precedent Law can be made in a court or be passed by Parliament. R v R 1991. This is a good example 1956 SOA Criminal Liability . THEFT ACT 1968 s1 "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it; and 'theft' and 'steal' shall be construed
Criminal law
There are a number of important issues raised by the question, in connected with the criminal law. These issues will be looked at in relation to the scenario, which is presented by the question. In addition, the criminal liability of various individuals will be considered. The first important issue that is raised by this scenario is that of intention. Intention is one of the forms of Mens Rea ('Guilty mind') for crimes. Intention is defined as 'the state of mind of one who aims to bring about a consequence'1. However, a distinct needs to be made between the different types of intention, direct and oblique intention. Direct intention is as the definition says having an aim and bringing about that desired consequence. Oblique intention, on the other hand, is 'seeing' your desired aim as one of a number of possibilities on your act e.g. there could be many outcomes to your criminal act and your aim is just one of them. The issue of Intention raises very important questions for the criminal law and often it is up to the jury to decide whether the accused has the necessary intent to cause the crime. As regards the scenario, it could be argued, that Andy has a 'direct intention' to hit Bill as he 'deliberately kicks the ball in the direction of Bill'. There has been much debate within the courts as to what constitutes the requisite degree of intention. This has ranged
Criminal Law
For someone to be liable of an offence in criminal law he or she must be proven to have committed a guilty act which is the state of actus rea and to also have a guilty mind which is to have the mens rea It is fundamentally decided by the judicators whereto an offence carries both of or either on of these conditions. By observing the circumstances it is evident that the non fatal offences in this case can be qualified under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA). The offences are clear under s47 and questionably either s18 or s20 of OAPA 1861. When Stan threw the bottle at Helen this can be classed as an assault under s47 of the OAPA 1861. It is defined as an assault because it is "occasioning actual bodily harm". So Stan is guilty under s47 of the OAPA because it is recognized that "whoever shall be convicted upon inducement of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable1". However, it must be recognised that in order for Stan to be guilty he must have the actus rea and for that to be evident he must fill the criteria of the actus rea. S47 requires proof of assault. In Faulkner v Talbot [1981] it was deemed that any touching of another person without consent2 is battery. It need not be hostile, rude or aggressive3. No contact is necessary for there to be an assault merely pulling out a weapon such as a knife is seen as an assault. So when Stan
