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definitions of the more serious offences are contained in act over 100 years old, leading some to think that they are outdated.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.
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
criminal law assignment
Criminal Law Law 113 Alan Reed Assignment 2 ~ Criminal Problem Gemma Bolt ~ 053047962 Table of Cases * Abdul-Husain and Others [1999] Crim.L.R 570 * Allan [1965] 1 Q.B. 130: [1963] 3 W.L.R. 677 * Bainbridge [1960] 1 Q.B. 129: [1959] 3 W.L.R. 656 * Brown [1985] Crim.L.R 367 * Clarkson [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1402: [1971] 3 ALL E.R. 344 * Cole [1994] Crim.L.R. 582 * Doughty (1986) 83 Cr.App.R. 319: [1986] Crim.L.R. 625 * DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] A.C. 653: [1975] 2 W.L.R. 641 * DPP for Northern Ireland v. Maxwell: sub nom. DPP v. Maxwell [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1350 * DPP v. Camplin [1978] A.C. 705: [1978] 2 W.L.R. 67 * Duffy [1949] 1 ALL E.R. 932 * Hudson and Taylor [1971] 2 Q.B. 202: [1971] 2 W.L.R. 1047 * Lomas 1913 * Olugboja [1982] Q.B. 320: [1981] 3 W.L.R. 585 * Ryan (1996) 160 J.P. 610: Crim.L.R. 320 * Smith Morgan [2000] 3 W.L.R. 654: [2000] 4 ALL E.R. 289 * White [1910] 2 K.B. 124 * Woolin [1999] 1 A.C. 82: [1998] 3 W.L.R. 382 Table of Statutes * Criminal Attempts Act 1981 Elizabeth II HMSO * Sexual Offences Act 2003 Elizabeth II HMSO ss 1 & 63 * Theft Act 1968 Elizabeth II HMSO s9(1)a The question at hand is to discover the criminal liability of Alan, Titus, Celestine, Shay and Shola. Firstly Alan is part of a joint enterprise which is where two or more people are committed to carrying out a common offence1. Here the joint enterprise is
Criminal Law,dealing with the subject of murder and how applying the general principles of criminal law will help us in deciding an outcome
Criminal Law LR2S07 This essay will be dealing with the subject of murder and how applying the general principles of criminal law will help us in deciding an outcome. To begin with murder can be defined as 'a common law offence, which is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought.'1 It is important to establish whether Mens Rea and Actus Reus are present. In most cases is an act of crime because the person committing it intended to do something wrong. This mental state is generally referred to as Mens rea, or guilty mind. Mens rea expresses a belief that people should be punished only when they have acted in a way that makes them morally blameworthy.2 The Actus Reus is a guilty action, which may not necessarily involve intent. The main facts of the case are as follows: John was a Carsea United supporter, he brought three flares to the match with he planned to release into the crowd to disrupt the match is the opposition, Swaniff City, were in the lead. After half time, Swaniff City were clearly leading so John decided to release the flares. He points them to the Swaniff City fans, whom he hates passionately. One of the flares hits Pablo; John laughs and flees the scene. Pablo is eventually collected by an ambulance but due to the drivers careless driving, is involved in an accident. Another ambulance comes after a considerable
Criminal Justice, Miscarriages of justice
Criminal Justice in England and Wales Miscarriages of justice Everyone agrees that the aim of the law is to achieve justice. Many argue that justice is the ultimate goal to which the law should strive. But what does the word 'justice' mean? Kelson, whose theories were first published in 1911 and further developed in his General Theory of Law and State published in 1945, suggested that it is not scientifically possible to define justice because it is simply a matter of individual preferences and values. However in simple terms, 'justice' means 'fairness'. Clearly what is 'fair' to one person may be regarded as unfair to another but, although it is impossible to agree everything, it is hoped consensus can be reached in a society on many features of a 'just' legal system. There are two basic definitions of justice within the law- formal (or procedural) justice substantive justice. Any state has a legal system through which justice is dispensed. The whole process of enforcing legal rules is formal justice. If someone breaks the legal rules the state takes action. The state dispensing 'justice.' Formal justice may be defined as: 'The following of legal rules and treating like cases alike.' Formal justice is about applying the rules fairly to everyone. It is a fundamental principle that one should be above the law and those who administer the law should do so without
Freedom of Expression
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise we don't believe in it at all" this famous quote by Noam Chomsky could be debated about without coming to a conclusion for the simple that the term "freedom of expression" can mean various things to different people and include or exclude certain benefits. Therefore, no one can really agree or disagree with freedom of expression for everyone without arguing about the very definition of it. According to BusinessDictionary.com freedom of expression is defined as "Right to express one's ideas and opinions freely through speech, writing, and other forms of communication but without deliberately causing harm to others' character and/or reputation by false or misleading statements. Freedom of press is part of freedom of expression." This is only one example of how to define freedom of expression keeping this definition in mind, I do agree with freedom of expression if it entails what was put out in the definition. I will explain how the limiting of freedom of expression is directly related to the creation of laws in society and what the laws are supposed to achieve in relation to substantive/procedural, statutory/common and public/private. If freedom of expression offends other peoples beliefs, culture, ideas, identity that is when limitations on this "expression", although insults is not really expression it is
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
Analysis of the law relating to the offence of Murder and relevant offences of Provocation, Diminished Responsibility and Intoxication.
This continuous assessment requires a detailed analysis of the law relating to the offence of Murder and relevant offences of Provocation, Diminished Responsibility and Intoxication. The issue of non-fatal offences will also be dealt with. Murder is the killing of a human being by a human being within the Queen's peace, death arising within 3 years of the act by the accused and also caused by the act of the accused. The actus reus of Murder therefore requires that the defendant should have caused the death of the victim through an act of his/her own. Death should be caused within the Queen's peace and three years of the act of the defendant.1 In this question the defendant Mo killed her husband Billy. It was Mo's act of setting fire to Billy's bed, which caused the death of Billy who is the victim in this instance. It is required to be proved that death was caused by the act of the defendant. Murder is a consequence crime and therefore accordingly requires causation to be proved in order for the actus reus of murder to be proved. It is in essence proving that it was the act of the defendant that caused the death of the victim. Causation is a 2-stage test and requires firstly causation in fact. The test for causation in fact is the 'But for test'2. But for the act of the defendant, would the victim still have suffered the consequences and if not then there is causation in
Criminal Law - Problem Question - Homicide
Assignment No.2 "Alan, a soldier, was home for the weekend. He possessed several rifles. In a drunken argument with his father, Brian, as to who was the better shot with a gun, Brian threatened to break Alan's nose. Alan was afraid of his father but he was the first to load one of the rifles and, a little wobbly on his feet, took aim at Brian and, in haste, shot and injured him. Feeling shocked, Alan fired a second shot at an expensive vase which shattered. Alan managed to call for an ambulance but the ambulance was delayed by a freak storm. Eventually, Brian arrived at hospital where his injuries were treated. After several days he developed an infection in the wound. He was treated by Doctor Chris with an antibiotic to which Brian was allergic. The next day, seeing that he was no better, Doctor Chris administered more of the same antibiotic to Brian in extremely large doses. That night, weak, delirious and close to death, Brian jumped out of the window when he saw the doctor approaching. He fell two storeys to the ground and was killed. Alan confessed to the police that he had lately been hearing voices and believed that his father Brian was the devil. He had not wanted to kill but had wanted to frighten his father. Doctor Chris confessed to the police that he was diabetic and had not had time to eat properly after taking his insulin. Discuss the liability of
Antigone: "and Justice for all…"
Megan Yamamoto Thill, B. Humanities Core 1A October 16, 20 Antigone: "and Justice for all..." Sophocles' Antigone revolves around the issue of how justice is defined and carried out. Both main characters, Creon and Antigone, claim to have the law and Gods on their sides. Each side presents their case with adequate evidence that their reasoning is the absolute truth and that their version of carrying out justice is correct. Creon believes that his power of being king will justify his action of leaving Polynices unburied, while Antigone leans more towards tradition of burial for her form of justice. However, it is their inability to come to a compromise over the absolute definition of justice, in addition to the lack of a solid and unambiguous explanation of the word, which leads their conflict to escalate to drastic heights. The Oxford English Dictionary defines justice as the ability to be righteous, fair and truthful when dealing with a certain situation. In Sophocles' Antigone this definition of justice is partially applied to both Creon and Antigone's state of affairs. On the one side, Creon gives his outlook on justice through his action of leaving the dead body of Polynices unburied. He believes that justice will be served in this manner to the so-called traitor for fighting against his city. However, on the opposing side is Antigone who believes justice will be
