Strict Liability. I shall look at different cases in order to justify whether the offence of strict liability is effective in promoting greater vigilance.
According to the criminal law, the actus reus and the mens rea are general requirements to constitute a criminal offence; however, where the offence is of strict liability, there is no requirement for the proof of mens rea. The negation of mens rea means that an individual may be convicted regardless of their mental state, whether they behaved reasonably or not. This has stirred up much debate on the justification of a strict liability offence as some view it as necessary to ‘promote the objects of the statute’ and is a matter of ‘social concern’; whilst others have taken the view that strict liability is too strict an offence and should be abolished. In this answer, I shall look at different cases in order to justify whether the offence of strict liability is effective in promoting greater vigilance. Firstly, statutes often contain unambiguous wordings in guiding courts as to whether mens rea is required in the interpretation of statutes. The courts then has the discretion to determine whether there should be a presumption of mens rea in establishing an offence; the courts must consider a few factors in determining whether the offence of strict liability should be inferred from the statute. These factors includes considering whether the offence was ‘truly criminal’, whether it was of social concern, whether the gravity of the offence would stigmatise an
OCR Feb 10 Exam Paper Non-Fatal Offences Problem Case. The scenario states that Colin ran towards Sarah waving a knife. The actions by Colin caused Sarah to scream.
OCR Feb 10 Exam Paper - Non-Fatal Offences Sarah is walking home when Colin runs towards her waving a knife. Sarah Screams. Colin grabs Sarah's coat and then punches her in the face which breaks her nose and causes her to fall to the ground. Gregory, a passer-by, runs to help Sarah. Colin lunges wildly at Gregory with the knife and slashes Gregory's hand, causing severe bleeding. Colin takes aim and kicks Sarah in the stomach, causing serious internal injuries. [35] The scenario states that Colin ran towards Sarah "waving a knife". The actions by Colin caused Sarah to scream. The Actus Reus for assault is 'any act which causes the 'victim' (V) to fear immediate unlawful force'. The meaning of immediate was defined in the Smith (1983), a case where a man looked into the window of a women in her flat thus causing her to be terrified, as to meaning "imminent". The fact that Sarah screamed after seeing Colin running towards her illustrates she feared of action imminently. The Mens Rea for Assault is 'intention or recklessness to cause another to fear immediate unlawful force'. By referring to the definition set out in Smith, Richard waving the knife around, coupled with him heading towards Sarah, clearly shows that he was reckless as to make Sarah fear imminent unlawful force. Colin is therefore guilty of committing the Common Law offence of assault, and can be sentenced up to
The following report discusses the distinctions between criminal and civil law and the relevance of these distinctions in the field of crash investigation and prevention.
Contents . Introduction Page 3 2. Law Page 4 3. Criminal Law Page 5 4. Actus reus & Mens rea Page 6 5. Civil Law Page 8 6. The Role of the Crash Investigation Team Page 11 7. Conclusion Page 14 8. Reference Page 15 9. Bibliography Page 16 . Introduction The following report discusses the distinctions between criminal and civil law and the relevance of these distinctions in the field of crash investigation and prevention. 2. Law There are different types of law, which are broken down into two categories. These are: * International Law * National Law International law deals with disputes between different countries. The law here comes from treaties or agreements to which countries are signatories. Where as national law is of a particular law of a country or state and in its self-divided into two areas. These are: * Public Law * Private Law Public law is basically the law that is concerned with the matters of state and private law is solely concerned with civil law, involving the enforcement of personal rights and obligations. Public law is broken down into three areas. These are: - * Constitutional law: - this deals with the structures and workings of government and any disputes, which may arise. * Administrative law: - this deals with the concerns of public bodies, such as local authorities. * Criminal
Should mental state be considered when defining criminal offences?
Given the difficulty of proving state of mind, would it make more sense to define criminal offences without reference to mental state, leaving mental state to be considered at sentencing in aggravation or mitigation of the offence. Give reasons for your answer. In order to answer this question one must first attempt to understand the definition of "mens rea", the mental element of crimes. A fundamental requirement of criminal law is that a crime has physical and mental elements. Mens rea was not developed in England until early 1600, judges deciding that it was not enough to convict someone purely on the crime, deeming crimes had to be accompanied by a guilty state of mind or moral blameworthiness.1 Mens rea itself is purely a generic term, in order to define the mens rea, one must consult the statutory or common law definition of the crime, only then is it possible to know the necessary mens rea for the crime.2 In order to constitute having the required mens rea three states of mind are generally considered.3 The problem when proving state of mind is that it is practically impossible to know what somebody was thinking or intending at the time the crime was committed, especially as defendants have been known to confess to crimes they have not committed. It would then, in theory be simpler for courts and jury's to dismiss mens rea when defining the criminal offence, leaving
The understanding and application of the laws relating to murder and manslaughter
Kathy cooper The understanding and application of the Laws relating to murder Voluntary Manslaughter and Unlawful Act Manslaughter. Having taken drugs prescribed by her doctor, Ann went to a bar with a crowd of her friends. Standing close by was another group, including Ben, who was behaving aggressively. Ann, who by this time had drunk half a bottle of wine, suddenly kicked Ben in the groin and then punched him in the face whilst she was holding a glass. The glass broke and cut Ben so badly that he lost the sight in one eye. Later, Ann insisted that she thought that Ben was about to attack her and that she had forgotten that she was holding the glass. In the confusion that followed, Ben's friend, Charles, became enraged and chased one of Ann's friends, Derek, out of the bar and down to the river. Derek was very frightened and threw himself into the river to escape. Charles, still shouting and waving his arms about, walked away after seeing Derek struggling, but apparently failing, to keep his head above water. In fact, Derek could not swim and drowned shortly afterwards. Murder is a common-law offence and according to the Homicide Act 1957 has the mandatory life sentence of 25 years; the classic definition of murder is that of coke: 'Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killed within any country of the the realm and reasonable
Is There Any Rational Basis for the Distinction Which Criminal Law Draws Between Acts and Omissions? How consistently is the Distinction Maintained?
2. Is There Any Rational Basis for the Distinction Which Criminal Law Draws Between Acts and Omissions? How consistently is the Distinction Maintained? An act is an action which directly or indirectly causes a result. In criminal law, a person is held liable for an action which, when the required mens rea1 and actus reus2 can jointly be proven to have caused harm to a person or property, unless they have a reasonable defence3. In contrast people are usually not convicted for their omissions: "it is evident that to punish men by law for not rendering to others all the service which it is their [moral] duty to render would be preposterous" 4. Making all moral omissions a crime would encompass too many people and would create an oppressive society5. An omission in law is where action is not taken which would prevent or reduce the risk of harm or damage to a person or property, where a person has an obligation to act. A policeman in Dytham [1979] QB 7226 was found guilty of misconduct whilst acting as an officer of justice, whilst as he was in uniform and on duty he stood by and failed to assist a man who was beaten to death by a doorman of a nightclub. His omission to act had contravened his statutory obligation to help, which his profession imposed on him. Where a relationship or assumption of care is present, there is an automatic duty to act, so that if an omission to act
Consider whether Barry might be liable if charged under section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Criminal Law Coursework 2001-2002 Introduction In prescribing a treatment and carrying it out on false pretences, Barry may be liable for charges under section 47 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In pretending to be a qualified doctor, and in examining the man adds further complications to the scenario, as it identifies some mens rea was present. (a) Consider whether Barry might be liable if charged under section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Assault and battery are common-law offences, but the more serious offences against the person are contained in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA). Section 47 of the OAPA states it is an offence, punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for a person to assault another thereby 'occasioning actual bodily harm'. The actus reus1 defines the actual bodily harm as the victim suffering from some injury. The injury need not be serious or life threatening to be liable under s.47 as bruising or abrasions is enough. Actual bodily harm (ABH) also includes psychiatric injuries such as neurotic disorders, which affect the central nervous system, however in court, expert evidence is needed to prove causation despite the victim being able to give evidence of the symptoms of psychiatric injury. In this scenario, Barry has performed the actus reus, as he knowingly performed the
Discuss the possible criminal liability arising in the above situation.
Criminal Law Problem Question 1 Dan who has a grudge against his neighbours, Paul and his wife, Penny, surreptitiously interferes with the braking system of Paul's car one night. The following morning, as usual, Paul and Penny set off to work in the car together with their daughter, Priscilla, whom they intend to drop off at a nursery. The brakes of the car fail and Paul, who has just begun learning to drive, is unable to control the car and prevent a collision with another car. The impact of the collision throws Paul out of his car onto the road. An oncoming lorry driven by Eric runs over Paul, who dies in the ambulance which is taking him to the hospital. Penny and Priscilla are injured in the accident and are taken to hospital, where it is found that Priscilla is in need of a blood transfusion and medical treatment. Penny refuses to consent to this medical intervention, as it is contrary to her and Paul's religious beliefs. Weakened by loss of blood, Priscilla catches pneumonia and dies. Penny's condition deteriorates and she is connected to a life support machine. She is seen by Dan's wife, Delia, a nurse at the hospital, who also hates Paul and Penny. Delia switches off Penny's life support machine with the result that Penny's bodily functions cease a few minutes later. Discuss the possible criminal liability arising in the above situation. Dan may be liable
Discuss the criminal liability, including possible strict liability, if any, of 'Jet Skis Are Us LTD' and Sharp for permitting the use of the jet ski without a licence, Hugh for using the jet ski and of Jones for aiding and abetting Sharp.
Laura Westwood Q4. Discuss the criminal liability, including possible strict liability, if any, of 'Jet Skis Are Us LTD' and Sharp for permitting the use of the jet ski without a licence, Hugh for using the jet ski and of Jones for aiding and abetting Sharp. Strict liability offences are offences for which a person may be convicted without proof of intention, recklessness or negligence. In 'Sweet v Parsley' it was affirmed that there is a strong common law presumption if favour of mens rea, therefore it would have to be proved that mens rea is not needed in this section of the 'Inshore Waters safety Act' for it to be one of strict liability. Guidelines were outlined for the imposition of strict liability in 'Gammon v A-G of Hong Kong (1985).' In deciding whether the offence of '...use or permit to use a speedboat, launch or jet ski...without a licence from the relevant local authority' is an offence of strict liability, it would be considered whether the offence is 'truly criminal,' and it obviously deals with an issue of social concern, as the safety of the public is at risk (Gammon). This would increase the likeliness of the offence being one of strict liability. This must also be effective in promoting greater vigilance not to commit the prohibited act, which would probable be so in this context. The express words of the statute also need to be considered. In
The most serious offence Francis committed was the severe injuries he caused to Jennifer whilst slashing her fur coat. From this it is clear that he shall be charged withGBH (Grievous bodily harm) under s.18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861.
Advising Francis. The most serious offence Francis committed was the severe injuries he caused to Jennifer whilst slashing her fur coat. From this it is clear that he shall be charged with GBH (Grievous bodily harm) under s.18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. Grievous bodily harm means really serious harm and there for the accused may be guilty of murder even if they wanted heir victim to live or did not intentionally mean to harm them. This is indicated by the fact that Francis went towards Jennifer with an axe intending on slashing her coat with it. The coat was placed on her body and therefore Jennifer was more than likely to be injured. However, to be convicted of GBH, mens rea and actus rea needs to be present at the time of the offence. If Francis is convicted of the charge against him he can be sentenced to life in prison, however he did not slash Jennifer's coat with the intention to harm her, therefore, if the jury believes this, the charge will drop to s.20 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, which is wounding or causing GBH without intent, where the penalty will be a maximum of 5 years. The injuries caused towards Jennifer would be most certain as she was wearing the coat. This was seen in Woolin (1997) and Nedrick (1986). Francis also assaulted Gurmukh. He used assault by threatening to hit him and tell his parents of his homosexuality if he
