Art and part liability
Criminal Law Coursework Word Count: 1,692 In Criminal Law, the principle of art and part liability is a form of derivative criminal liability. Consider and explain how criminal liability might be established on an art and part basis. In addition, consider how an individual may be held liable for the unintended consequences of a course of criminal conduct, and how such an individual might defend any such allegations. Art and part liability is a form of derivative criminal liability meaning: "where two or more people engage together in committing a crime, each actor is equally guilty of the whole crime irrespective of the particular role played by each individual".1 A typical example of art and part liability is a bank robbery. For example, a gang perform the physical act of the crime: the actus reus; the robbing of the bank, with one man sitting in the getaway car. All men are guilty of the crime. If one member inside the bank panics and kills someone, the getaway driver is as guilty of murder as the killer and all the gang members involved. There are, however, defences available to reduce the extent of criminal liability, for example, if the accused was unaware that the killer had a weapon and made no prior agreement or planning for the carrying or use of the weapon, then he would not be responsible for the murder, there would be no art and part liability for this
"Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." - Lord Hewart
"Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."1 - Lord Hewart "This is not about your client's harsh upbringing, nor their life-story, this proceeding regards the law."2 - District Court Judge Introduction The popularised image of courtroom dramas in no way prepared me for the everyday realities of our court system. Interestingly, glimpses of this over-dramatised form of the law appeared on occasions, through the conduct of enthusiastic prosecutors or dry magistrates. The marked separation in formality, conduct and atmosphere of each court was of more surprise than the variations in procedure. The local courts were characteristic of what might be called 'assembly-line law', where large numbers of cases were dealt with summarily, the magistrate often taking only minutes to move the accused on. The cases were simple and repetitive, it became difficult to see the participants as individuals, instead of yet another number to be dealt with. The complexity of the Supreme Court was very different, and the situation far more reflective of the discourse of justice and rationality that the law promotes. Whilst there is clear merit in the argument that different tiers of justice exist3, it is generalist to argue it is the result of an insidious state ideology. Communication difficulties, unrepresented defendants, and uncompromising
Criminal Justice System of Great Britain
The Role of the Trial The role of the judicial system is to protect the innocent, to pass judgement and to serve an appropriate form of punishment on convicted felons. This may include receiving a custodial sentence, serving a specified amount of community service or incurring a disqualification or penalty fine. All criminal cases in the UK initially commence in the same system. However the severity and details of the offence will affect the following: which court the accused may be trialled and sentenced in, the criminal proceedings and the level of punishment received. This essay will examine the differing categories of offence and describe the role of the trial to provide a basic overview of the Crown and Magistrates court systems of Great Britain. The criminal court system has two rankings. The lower is the Magistrates' Court and the higher ranking is the Crown Court. The Youth Court established in 1992 is a separate less formal division of the Magistrates' Court. It was set up for the trial and punishment of minors aged between ten and seventeen years old. Young offenders too young to be trialled as adults (unless they are being tried alongside an adult) and old enough to know right from wrong are forced to face the consequences of their actions. The youth justice system can impose sentences up to 24 months detention in a young offenders unit or a fixed amount of
IMPOSING LIABILITY ON OMISSIONS
Foundations of Criminal Law Level 2 LLB LAW Student ID: 33165044 Year: 2006/07 Word count: 1486 I certify that this is my own work. The work has not in whole or in part, been presented elsewhere for assessment. Where material has been used from other sources it has been properly acknowledgement. If this statement is untrue I acknowledged that I will have committed an assessment offence. I also certify that I have taken a copy of this assignment, which I will retain until after the Board of Examiners has published results and which I will make available on request. In recent times the criminal law has been concerned with imposing liability for omissions. However, this was not the case in the past as the law was more concerned with the prohibition and punishment of positive acts (Card, 2004). 'An act is the most common basis of the actus reus' (ibid, p57). The actus reus of an offence is its conduct element. It 'describes what the defendant must be proved to have done (or sometimes failed to do), in what circumstances, and with what consequences' (Herring, 2006, p85). Before proceeding further it is necessary to clarify what is meant by an omission. An omission is the failure to act which can sometimes give rise to criminal liability and this failure to act can constitute the actus reus of an offence (Herring, 2006). According to Herring (2006, p88), the criminal law on
Why Do The Vast Majority Of Defendants Plead Guilty In Court?
The Criminal Justice Process Why Do The Vast Majority Of Defendants Plead Guilty In Court? This essay will discuss with reference to research evidence, why the majority of defendants plead guilty in court. Over 90% of defendants plead guilty in a magistrates' court and approximately 70% plead guilty in a Crown Court. (Ashworth, 1994). However over 10% of people who plead guilty in the Crown Court declare that they are actually innocent. (Cited in Sanders, 1997). In Zander and Henderson's (1993) study they discovered that 11% of defendants who pleaded guilty claimed they were innocent. (Ashworth, 1994). Differences have been found across geographical areas for several years, for example in the late 1980's, 80% of defendants pleaded guilty in the Northern circuit compared to 50% in the South-East and 40% in London. The reason for these differences has not been found. (Ashworth,1994). Sanders (1997) stated that in the United Kingdom 'police and prosecution pre-trial practices are geared in large part to securing guilty pleas.' (Cited in Sanders, 1997:1078). Securing guilty pleas are vital to the criminal courts because they save valuable time and money. For example, in a contested trail at the Crown Court the hearing usually takes about 10 hours, whereas it only takes approximately one hour if the plea is guilty. Research from the Home Office has shown that the
Viscount Sankey's Golden Thread Speech
In this essay I will be illustrating the importance of Viscount Sankey's speech in the case of Woolmington v DPP [1935] All ER, utilising references as evidence to support my findings and demonstrate my understanding. In the case of Woolmington v DPP Woolmington had shot and killed his wife, Violet, who had left him a month earlier and gone to stay with her mother. When charged with Violet's murder Woolmington claimed that he hadn't intended to shoot Violet and the gun had accidently fired when he was attempting to show her the gun, insisting the gun was only to scare Violet into returning to him. The ruling took place in the House of Lords, where the issue was focused around if the statement of law in 'Foster's Crown Law'1 was correct where it states 'where a death occurred it is presumed to be murder unless proven otherwise'. In his summary, Swift J brought Fosters Crown Law to the attention of the jury, stating that 'the prosecution prove the killing, and in the absence of explanation that is murder.'2 This suggests that according to Fosters law there is only a necessity for the prosecution to prove the actus reus, or the actual physical aspects of murder of killing an individual as opposed to proving both mens rea or the mental aspect of an action, and actus reus. Swift J went onto comment that 'Consider whether you entertain the slightest doubt that this was a
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
Criminal Justice
Running Head: CRJ SCENARIO Criminal Justice Scenerio Leslie Capurro Criminal Justice 102 Randy Floccini Truckee Meadows Community College In this paper I will discuss what I would morally and personally do in a scenario. The scenario places me in a tough position between my job, and my significant other. I have to choose to give my significant other up to the police while risking my job, or still risk my job and not turn my significant other in. Criminal Justice Scenario One morning I woke up at my usual time, and I continued on with my daily routine as I headed off to my job at the Reno Police Department. I was more tired that day than normal because my husband had come home the night before acting strangely. I thought that was going to be a busy day. We'd already gotten a call to keep an eye out for a red Mercedes-Benz, apparently it was involved in a hit and run accident the night before. With no luck finding the Mercedes-Benz I headed home at the end of my shift to find a rental car in the garage. I asked my husband why he had the rental car and he would only tell me that someone had backed into the red Mercedes-Benz, and that he had dropped it off to be repaired at a shop. I became a bit suspicious but didn't really think much of it. Six months down the road my husband came to me and told me that he was the person who was involved in the hit and run in the red
How satisfactory is the current law on non-fatal offences against the person?
How satisfactory is the current law on non-fatal offences against the person? (25) Non-fatal offences against the person are assault, battery, assault or battery occasioning actually bodily harm, malicious wounding and GBH with intent. The first two offences are defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, with the remainder being found in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. There is a variety of sentences available ranging from imprisonment for 6 months to a life sentence for the most serious offence of GBH with intent (s.18 OAPA 1861). Some would argue that the OAPA 1861 is a very badly drafted piece of legislation, which is merely a consolidation of a number of old offences being grouped together. Because of this, there have been many appeals against convictions regarding this act. There is still no clear statutory definition of assault and battery, while the definitions of the more serious offences are contained in act over 100 years old, leading some to think that they are outdated. Much of the vocabulary in the Act is misleading, with the would "maliciously" having two definitions, one for the s.18 offence, and another for the s.20. This has led the Joint Charging Standard to clarify the issue of what charge to bring for different levels of injury, although even that is wrong; any injury which causes blood to flow could be charged as wounding, even a grazed knee.
![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
