G20088480

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’.  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 from a consequence being ‘highly probable’ as in Hyam, , ‘a natural consequence of the defendant’s act’ in Moloney to ‘virtually certain’ in Nedrick and finally ‘substantial risk’, in the most recent case, Woollin.  Woollin is the most up-to-date case on the law of intention and so when deciding if Andy is guilty of intending to cause harm Woollin needs to be taken into account.

When considering Andy’s liability, as regards intention (to do harm) it is necessary to establish precisely what Andy intended.  For example, there are two offences which Andy could be liable for under the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861.  Depending on the type of harm Andy intended he could be liable for either s.18 or s.20 offence.  For Andy to be liable of an offence under s.18 it must be proven that Andy intended to ‘wound or cause grievous bodily harm’.

In other words, it has to be shown that Andy specifically intended to cause the specific offence of, grievous bodily harm.  When compared with s.20, the difference becomes apparent.  Offences under s.20 are more difficult to prove as s.20 requires that the person i.e. Andy, need only intend some harm and need not intend grievous bodily harm or wounding as in s.18.  It could also be argued that there is an element of assault towards Bill (which will be discussed later).  So, on balance, Andy would probably liable for a s.18 offence as regards Bill.  

Join now!

 A word needs to be briefly said about transferred malice.  A defendant may be guilty of injuring a person other than his intended victim under this doctrine.  However, there has to be a coincidence of both the Mens Rea and the Actus Reus (Guilty Act), see Latimer.  If the defendant has the mens rea for a different offence from that which he commits however, the intent cannot be transferred, see Pembliton.  Based on this it could be said that Andy has the mens rea for assault as he did tell Bill to ‘shut up’ (which could constitute an assault ...

This is a preview of the whole essay