Observation in Magistrate Courts
Magistrates Court Observation This essay will attempt to give a detailed account of an observation in a Magistrates Court. With reference to history from authors such as Skyrme and official web sites, put together by the magistrates association. In the latter part of the twelfth century, in 1195 King Richard I 'commissioned certain knights to preserve the peace in unruly areas' (magistrates-association). Their responsibilities were to the Crown, and included the maintenance of the law and to enforce it as far as possible. From this time on, the Bench, or the Magistrates as we know them now were known as 'Keepers of the Peace'. An Act in 1327, made it law that 'good and lawful' men were to be 'appointed in every county to 'guard the peace'; Justices of the peace still have the power over disruptive and disorderly people. The power and decisions made are not of a punishment, but more as a deterrent to prevent the offender from recommitting the crime (magistrates-association). It was not until 1919 that women were able to become magistrates. This was when the removal of the Sex Disqualification Act came into practice. On the 31 December 1919, Mrs Ada Summers, Mayor of Stalybridge became the fist female magistrate. Then on the first January 1920, at least six other women were appointed to the same post. From year to year this number had significantly increased and
![Criminal Law Advice to client. This advice relates to the charges against David Harris for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861[1] and wounding or causing actual bodily harm with intent contrary t](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/951898/listing/951898_1.jpg)
Criminal Law Advice to client. This advice relates to the charges against David Harris for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861[1] and wounding or causing actual bodily harm with intent contrary t
R v David Harris ADVICE TO CLIENT This advice relates to the charges against David Harris for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47, Offences Against the Person Act 18611 and wounding or causing actual bodily harm with intent contrary to s. 18 OAPA 1861. 2The first part of this advice concerns the incident involving David's sister Florence resulting in the s.47 OAPA 1861 charge. In a s.47 offence, both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) 2of either assault or battery must be proven[RM1]. The AR for battery is the infliction of unlawful force on another person3, which is immediately satisfied as David indeed inflicted unlawful force on Florence by "pulling her out of the way", which then, in relation to Florence's sprained ankle, occasioned actual bodily harm. Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim-such harm need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling.4 Therefore, the sprained ankle is sufficient for the s.47 charge. 3The MR for s. 47 is that of assault or battery-intention or recklessness as to the infliction of unlawful force. At the time that David committed the offence, he was furious at Florence stating that she would not allow him to leave if he was going to cause trouble. It could be argued that the MR for injuring
Criminal liability is generally thought to require an act, as opposed to an omission and that the act be performed voluntarily. Discuss the significance of these requirements.
Criminal liability is generally thought to require an act, as opposed to an omission and that the act be performed voluntarily. Discuss the significance of these requirements. Criminal liability is imposed when a person can be fairly blamed for causing a prohibited harm or result. This blame then justifies the enforcement of punishment, which depending on the seriousness of the crime, can range from a simple fine to a mandatory life imprisonment. The potential restriction of rights and freedom, as well as the social stigma of being labeled a criminal, hence demand that certain criteria should be met before someone can be liable for his actions. The requirements expressed in the statement above fall within the ambit of actus reus, the objective conduct element of a crime that is a precondition for criminal liability. We shall look at the significances of these requirements from various perspectives. Actus reus is concerned with conduct. The term 'conduct' in the context of criminal law comprises of both acts and omissions. The distinction between them is important, because liability will only be imposed for an omission if a legal duty to act can be established. Katz suggested the following test: 'if the defendant did not exist, would the harmful outcome in question still have occurred the way it did?'1 There are several other distinctions, but the distinction that justifies
Case Note - Stone & Dobinson 1977. The details contained in this case are very emotive and raise some important issues surrounding the issue of care and the duty owed to a person who is unable to care for themselves
Shaun Rogers – LW508 Criminal Law – D.Dinsmore R v John Edward Stone R v Gwendoline Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341 Court of Appeal Case Note The Facts Stone, a 67-year-old man partially deaf and almost blind lived with his younger partner Dobinson. Also living with Stone and Dobinson was Stones adult son Cyril. All had capacity issues. Stones anorexic sister Fanny came to live with her brother and his mistress as a lodger. Fanny suffered from anorexia nervosa. When living with her brother and his partner, Fanny’s condition worsened. Attempts were made to help Fanny but these were ineffective. Fanny died. Judgement Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane made it clear that there was no dispute as to the matters upon which the jury had to be satisfied before they could convict of manslaughter.[1] These were, . That the defendants took on the care of a person who was unable to care for themselves, whether this be due to the age or infirmity of the person being cared for. . With regards to the defendant’s duty of care, they were grossly negligent. . That by reason of such negligence the person died. It was suggested by Mr. Coles for the appellants that Fanny cast a duty on her brother and Mrs. Dobinson because of the fact she became infirm and helpless. He said the appellants were entitled to do nothing leading into what he believed to be an analogous example, which was
"In general the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal liability for an omission to act". Assess the truth of this statement and the arguments used to justify it.
"In general the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal liability for an omission to act". Assess the truth of this statement and the arguments used to justify it. An omission can be most easily described as a failure to do something. There is generally no liability in English law for failing to act. For example, there is no legal duty to help someone who is in danger (i.e. somebody who is drowning). Many people often get confused between an act and an omission, so first it must be decided whether you are dealing with an act or an omission. There are three situations where the question "act or omission" arises: continuing acts, supervening faults and euthanasia. An act is usually where the defendant is proven guilty of a crime because they possess all the elements of actus reus and mens rea and an omission is where the a person has failed to do something which generally there is no liability for, but like any rule there are many exceptions so this has lead me to believe that the statement above is false. For example if somebody refuses to provide a breath sample or failed to report an accident, they can then be found liable because a limited number of statutory provisions create liability for omissions in specified circumstances such as the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988. Another exception is where there is a contractual duty to act, there
"In most societies there is a conflict between individual privacy, civil liberties and the need to provide adequate protection for the community" - Discuss.
LEGAL STUDIES ESSAY "In most societies there is a conflict between individual privacy, civil liberties and the need to provide adequate protection for the community". Change is omnipresent, and over time the balance between individual privacy, civil liberties and the need to provide adequate protection for the community may be shifted one way or the other - no delicate balance seems to exist because there is not one which can please an ever-evolving community. Therefore there is a constant battle over the order of importance and moral correctness of each of these items. Law enforcement is one area that attempts to strike a balance. Every step of the way, the police must respect their code to ensure that civil liberties are not imposed upon (to a certain extent) and to ensure that the essential rights of a prisoner are not ignored. They also must provide adequate protection for the community - but with widespread corruption still evident throughout NSW, that's certainly more easier said than done. Perhaps this is because they are horrendously underpaid for what they do; only the government is to blame for that. Law enforcement is not limited to police, however, courts themselves may impose fines and the like to protect the community - as seen with the Sydney hotelier receiving a $20,000 fine after the death of a patron who consumed excessive amounts of alcohol. Individual
Criminal Law- Question Problem
Aylin Yildiz Word Count: 1374 Problem Question: Discuss the criminal liability of Faisal, Azad, Chuck and Bill. In this case, the victim firstly faced several physical attacks in an alley, and was later killed through repeated hits on the head with a cricket bat. This essay covers the respective liabilities of the principal offender Azad, followed by his accomplices Chuck and Bill, and lastly the shopkeeper who provided the murder weapon, Faisal. The principal has committed the crime of murder by unlawfully killing another person in the Queen's peace. The defendant had the required mens rea that is either the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, in circumstances where finding an intention on the evidence of virtual certainty1 is left to the jury (Woollin2). The evidence suggests that the principle purchased a cricket bat (which is not an illegal weapon to possess under English law) with an intention to beat the victim unconscious. His intention to cause grievous bodily harm3 didn't change when he formed a joint enterprise with his two other friends. Then the question left for the jury is whether it was virtually certain that his voluntary actions could result in the death of the victim. The answer seems to be the affirmative. The principal can raise defences to decrease his conviction to manslaughter, but they have a small chance to succeed. For instance, the
The youth justice system.
The youth justice system is fraught with inequities. One sees a disparity in the levels of quality defense and sentences given to the young offenders. In the same manner, the disparity between the treatment of youth with private lawyers and those with Legal Aid (rich and poor; minority and Caucasian) is evident. The barely adequate youth criminal justice system has failed to benefit the young people involved. A visit to youth court confirmed several pre-conceived ideas; poverty and crime are closely linked, lawyers are rarely affordable leading to Legal Aid's mediocre efficiency and suspect efficacy. There is a correlation between ethnicity and number of arrests within a community; no longer recorded is the offender's race when arrested, earlier statistics identify 75% of Winnipeg Youth Detention as Aboriginal disproportionate to the 10% of Manitoba's population that are Aboriginal. These disaffected youth are being stereotyped by the authorities and through their institutionalization, they are inadvertently fulfilling those stereotypes. Parents, being unable to control their children, are turning to the courts to raise and discipline them. A 15 year old boy, shackled and in blue sweats (youth court's take on blue coveralls), was charged with mischief including a motor vehicle and failing to reside. The catchall mischief charge resulted from him breaking a window
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
Consent in the law.
CONSENT In A-G's Reference (No 6 of 1980) [1981], the Court of Appeal held that, subject to exceptions mentioned below, a person's consent is irrelevant and cannot prevent criminal liability for an offence if actual bodily harm was intended and/or caused. This strict rule was based on the view that it is not in the public interest that people should try to cause, or should cause, each other actual bodily harm for no good reason. In some cases there may be a good reason, and the Court of Appeal was at pains to emphasise that the above rule did not affect the accepted legality of certain situations, referred to below, in which the consent of the victim is legally relevant and renders the conduct in question lawful. One cannot consent to the intentional causing of actual bodily harm, except in certain recognised cases. R v Brown and Others [1993] & R v Wilson [1996]. As a general rule where persons quarrel and agree to settle their differences with a fight, the injuries can amount to an assault and the unlawfulness cannot be denied by pleading that the other consented to the fight. A-G's Reference (No 6 of 1980) [1981]. As the House of Lords recognised in Brown there may be 'good reason' for the intended infliction of actual bodily harm, in which case a valid consent to it may be given. The exceptional cases where a person may validly consent to intentional actual bodily harm
