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
