What improvements, if any, will there be to the present law on consent and on mistaken belief in consent in rape cases as a result of the Sexual Offences Bill 2003?
Criminal Law essay Date: 30th October 2003 By: Neville Chiu Tutorial Group: M Tutor: Michelle Dempsey What improvements, if any, will there be to the present law on consent and on mistaken belief in consent in rape cases as a result of the Sexual Offences Bill 2003? Under existing English Criminal law, a person cannot ordinarily be found guilty of a serious criminal offence unless two elements are present: the actus reus or guilty act and the mens rea or guilty mind. The prosecution has to prove that the accused has committed the crime charged and the accused is innocent unless proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. Actus reus is defined in Haughton v Smith1 as the elements of an offence excluding those which concern the mind of the accused. "An act does not make a man guilty of a crime unless his mind is also guilty." The actus reus of rape is sexual intercourse without consent. Mens reas is defined as the state of mind expressly or impliedly required by the definition of the offence charged. There is a presumption that it is an essential ingredient in every criminal offence, liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute or by the subject matter. If a particular intent or state of mind is an ingredient of a specific offence, which must be proved by the prosecution; but the nonexistence of mens reas is a matter of defense. Thus for a defendant
Critically assess the impact of the way in which media and politicians represented the murder of James Bulger by Venables and Thompson on youth justice policy and practise over the last ten years.
CJS2007 Critically assess the impact of the way in which media and politicians represented the murder of James Bulger by Venables and Thompson on youth justice policy and practise over the last ten years. On February 12th 1993 Jon Venables and Robert Thompson abducted a two-year-old boy from a shopping centre in Liverpool. The pair then proceeded to beat and murder him. At the time of the murder Venables and Thompson were only 10 years old. The murder of James Bulger has been one of the most notorious that Britain has ever seen. It caused outrage and disgust, 10 years later the James Bulger murder still causes much controversy. Venables and Thompson were found guilty of murder and sentenced. The trials judge justice Michael Moorland said they should be locked up for 'many many years' he recommended the pair be detained for at least 8 years. The chief lord justice then recommended that the term should be at least 10 years. The final decision rested on the home secretary Michael Howard. He decided the pair should not be considered for parole until they had served at least 15 years. The pair would be detained at secure care homes and a youth offenders home until they were 18 then be moved to an adult prison to serve the rest of their sentence. At the time this seemed like the right sentence to give for such a horrendous crime, but even at the time there was much controversy.
Course W100: eTMA 4: David. Using 'common sense rules', 'concealing a handbag matching the description of the stolen handbag', represents suspicious behaviour which should be explained. However the advice as to whether the need to explain can be avoided because of unlawful arrest must be given relative to analysis of specific legal rules. Those rules are contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (hereinafter 'PACE'). Specifically, arrest without a warrant (a summary arrest) by a constable is governed by s.24 of PACE. S.24(3)(b) provides that "where an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a warrant ... anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it." PC Patel reasonably believed he knew that an offence had been committed (from his radio call). Absent the radio call, PC Patel may well still have had 'reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed' as provided for in s.24(2) based simply on David's running away (if he had done so) when stopping him to ask something. As David was wearing the same type of jacket as the person suspected of stealing the handbag, in tandem with his decision to run away rather than cooperate, PC Patel fairly unequivocally had 'reasonable grounds for suspecting' David. It might be possible to argue
DO YOU FEEL THAT CUSTODIAL OR NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCES HAVE THE MOST IMPACT IN CONTROLLING CRIME? In this essay I will be talking about crime and its effects on society and the people who live in it, the problems with controlling crime. Furthermore, I will be looking at forms of sentencing in the criminal justice system, problems with the current method of custodial sentencing, including its effects on prisons, alternative methods of sentencing and finally questioning the possibility of a change in the sentencing framework. Feelings about crime are both contradictory and complicated. Crime is a highly emotive issue for people, particularly for those who have lived in the same area for many years and perceived its fabric being eroded by vandalism, burglary, drug and street crime. Many feel that society is trapped in an irreversible decline, which criminal justice institutions are powerless to stop. These views tend to lead to feelings of anger and bewilderment that translate, at the most immediate level, into a demand for a tougher, harsher response to crime. However, it is also perceived that simply punishing people is not enough. There is a frustrating feeling amongst the more liberal thinkers, that there has to be a better way of doing things: sentencing has to prevent crime and tackle its causes, otherwise it does no more than take bad people off the street for a while.
On the Necessity of Justice: An Analysis of Plato's Republic Devin Pratt #0131759 January 28, 2003 PHIL 210 Prepared for: David Morris On the Necessity of Justice - an Analysis of Plato's Republic The central theme of Plato's Republic is the question of whether it is better to govern oneself justly, or to behave unjustly. The argument, however, is not proposed to determine whether it is "better" to be just on some abstract moral scale, but rather to determine whether it is truly advantageous in life for a human to love justice and be just. In addition to using examples about justice that explain its advantage, Plato attempts to define justice on its own in order to fully and appropriately deal with the issue at hand. This is not surprising when you take into consideration Plato's belief in the forms. Plato has Socrates trying to prove to his fellow Athenians that the just is truly more advantageous for many reasons. Socrates uses arguments that attempt to show how justice is more advantageous to people while they are on earth, to their soul once they leave earth, and to their subsequent lives that follow. He also attempts to show us how justice is better for a city in order to convince us that justice is a virtue. Although he makes fairly good arguments all around, I am not interested in anything regarding justice as involved in a larger group or the justice
It is accepted that a person may generally defend themselves and their property from attack. To what extent do the laws of self defence and the prevention of crime support this contention?
Sarah Ghalaey Self defence essay It is accepted that a person may generally defend themselves and their property from attack. To what extent do the laws of self defence and the prevention of crime support this contention? 50 marks While it is accepted that a person may generally defend themselves and their property from attack, the courts and parliament have always been mindful of minimizing the risk of over-zealous retaliation in such a situation. There is always the danger that the defendant may take on the role of attacker. Public policy also dictates that revenge attacks or vigilante type behaviour must be discouraged at all costs. For this reason, the use of any force in self defence must always pass the test of reasonableness. This is however a question of fact for the jury, taking into account all revelant factors in the case. Force causing damage to property, injury or even death may be justified if the force was reasonably used in the defence of certain public or private interests. The use of lawful force is not an offence: because an element of the actus reus is missing. There are actually three situations where force can be used:- Firstly there is self defence which is regulated purely by the common law. Secondly there is prevention of crime which is covered by s.3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides that a "person may such force as is reasonable
On the 9th December PC Elizabeth stopped and search Mr Cromwell in the high street in Chelmbridge which is under Section 1(2) of PACE, a police officer may search a person or vehicle if he has reasonable ground for suspecting that he will find or possessi
From the fact of the question the issues has been identified in turn: . Whether the constable has right to search any person under the pace code? 2. Is their any reasonable ground present for suspecting Mr Kevin Cromwell? 3. Is their any possible breach of S2(2) and S2(3) of PACE? 4. Is their any possible breach of S(10)(1)(a) of PACE,where constable seized the letter from solicitor which address to the suspect ? 5. Do the constable had authority to ask to the suspect to remove his shirt? 6. Is that necessary to arrest Mr Kevin,Code G para 2.22? 7. Is their any breach of detainee rights by police? 8. Whether the suspect were physically fit for the interview? Stop and Search Here, the police have statutory power to stop and search a person in connection with investigation of a criminal offence, which govern by PACE 1984,Misuse of Drugs Act 1971,Terrorism Act 2000,Pace Codes A & B and Serious and Organized Crime and Police Act 2005. In common law an officer cannot stop and search or detain a person unless they give consent,(Rice v Connelly)1. On the 9th December PC Elizabeth stopped and search Mr Cromwell in the high street in Chelmbridge which is under Section 1(2) of PACE, a police officer may search a person or vehicle if he has reasonable ground for suspecting (which should be objective test)that he will find or possessing(which should be subjective test)
Paragraph 1 - Reena in respect of Chloe Charges brought against the accused depend upon the injuries caused to and suffered by the victim. In this case Chloe only suffers bruises and scratches, which constitute as minor injuries therefore Reena can be charged with the common assault known as a battery as defined by section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act. The Actus Reus for a battery is the application of unlawful force to someone else. The applying of force does not have to be personal contact; touching another's jacket would suffice for a battery as long as the other feels it. As is known from the case of Cole v Turner the slightest degree of force, even the mere touching will suffice. The definition of force in this context would be the application of strength or energy. If there is no application of force there cannot be a battery. The harm suffered also needs to be physical; causing someone psychiatric harm does not constitute a battery. With this in mind it is not clear whether Reena could be liable for a battery, as she has not actually touched Chloe in any way. However from the case of DPP v K concerning a schoolboy pouring sulphuric acid into a hot air shaft and when another comes to use it the acid blows onto his face resulting in permanent scarring, it was found that force could be applied directly or indirectly. Indirectly would apply in those situations where
Aftab and his girlfriend Yolande are members of an activist group called Foetus which is pledged to take direct criminal action, if necessary, as part of their campaign to abolish abortion. Aftab and Yolande agree a plan to assassinate the Home Secretary, Bill Jones, who has frequently spoken against the aims and methods of Foetus. They choose Christmas Eve as the date upon which they will achieve the most publicity for their organisation. However, unknown to Aftab and Yolande, Bill Jones has taken a last minute skiing holiday in Europe. Bill has arranged to allow his identical twin brother, Fred Jones, to use his chauffeur driven limousine and stay in Bill's country house during the Christmas period. They lie in wait for Bill's car in a dark lane, pull out in front of it and force it to stop. Yolande jumps out and fires a shot into the car. It misses Fred and kills the chauffeur, Charles. Terrified, Fred leaps out the other side of limousine. Aftab chases Fred who jumps over the parapet of railway bridge on to the track below and is immediately killed by a passing train. Consider what offences, if any, Aftab and Yolande have committed. This case is most complex and involves several different law issues which I will examine thoroughly. Firstly I will examine the criminal liability of Aftab. He and Yolande have both conspired to kill Bill Jones which is an offence in
"Numerous offences are defined so as to require proof of 'intention' ... It might be expected that the meaning of such a fundamental term would have been settled long ago but this is not so. The cases are inconsistent, judicial opinion has recently changed and there is still some measure of uncertainty." (Ormerod, D Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law, 2005, p.93) With particular reference to recent authority and academic critiques, explain and evaluate the meaning of intention in the light of this statement. Intention is one of the main forms of mens rea, the absolute meaning of this term, however, is unsettled and the legal modifications and definitions regarding this term have undergone much academic scrutiny over the years. There are several forms of intention, the main two being direct intent, and oblique (or indirect) intent. There is also specific intent, basic intent and ulterior intent. It is thoroughly established that direct intent is defined as when it is a persons aim to bring about a certain consequence. With many crimes it is not necessary to prove that the actus reus was intended, however some crimes do require an intention, for example murder requires intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm; recklessness is not adequate. This is why it can be vital to find out whether there was intention. In the case of R v Moloney 1, Lord Bridge of Harwich claimed