Preview

Criminal Liability

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
565 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Criminal Liability
Using the IDEA structure for Criminal Law application questions – example answer.
In response to questions from the Jan’ ’10 exam.
1bi) “Discuss the criminal liability of Ashok for the incident at the traffic lights.” * Identify and Define
Ashok could be criminally liable for the common law offence of assault; an assault takes place when the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. * Explain Actus Reus and Mens Rea
The actus reus of this offence is any act which causes the victim (v) to apprehend an immediate infliction of unlawful violence (iiuv). No force need actually be applied, creating a fear is sufficient, as was illustrated by Logdon and Lamb. The v must fear that violence threatened is immediate, in Smith this was held to mean as part of the current activity, when the v was separated from the defendant (d) by a glass window.
The mens rea of this offence as stated in Savage is intention or recklessness as to causing v to apprehend iiuv. * Apply
Ashok has fulfilled the actus reus when he pointed his fingers at him in the shape of a gun a mouthed that Ben should be shot, and Ben ‘was very scared.’ He most definitely apprehended an iiuv. With regards to the immediacy issue, although they were both in cars at the time, Ben most likely did fear personal violence as part of what Ashok was doing at that current time.
Ashok, by pulling his car alongside Ben’s, mouthing words and making actions towards him, seems to have directly intended (Mohan) to cause Ben fear, or at the very least by performing these actions he must have forseen the risk that Ben would be scared and done it in anyway, therefore being reckless (Cunningham.)

“Discuss the criminal liability of Ashok for the bruising caused to Ben by the iron bar.” * Identify and define.
For the bruising caused to Ben by the iron bar, Ashok could be found criminally liable under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 s.47

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    The nature of crime

    • 1406 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The nature of crime embodies the offences made against the state representing society and the population. Within this concept is the operation of principles going to the rights of the victim and the accused in the criminal law process. This process encompasses the commission and elements of the crime going to the actus reus (action of the accused), mens rea (intention of the accused) and causal link to make out the crime; the criminal investigation by the police; the criminal trial process under the adversarial system; the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; and the verdict to sentencing options available to the judiciary. This can be illustrated in the case of R v Munter (2009) NSWSC whilst demonstrating the causation in the death of a man assaulted by Munter acting on the mistaken belief that this man was breaching water restrictions, but showing that his intention to kill was absent whilst his actions contributed to the outcome. In this case, Munter received a custodial sentence for manslaughter.…

    • 1406 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Mr Guzha

    • 538 Words
    • 3 Pages

    axtor 19 the court gave examples of where a driver of a vehicle could not be said to be to doing the act of driving voluntarily. These included where a driver lost control of his vehicle because he was stung a swarm of bees, or if he was struck on the head by a stone or had a heart attack while driving. Other examples of an involuntary act include where the defendant hits another person because of a reflex action or a muscle spasm. If another is where one person pushes a second person, causing them to harm into third person. In this situation the act of second person who has been pushed is involuntary. Even though has hit the third person, he has not committed the actus reus for any assault offence. This happened in the case of Mitchell 1983 ( see section 8.1.3) of course, the original ‘pusher’ can be liable.…

    • 538 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    essay for NFO in law

    • 1016 Words
    • 5 Pages

    First of all there is a battery with the initial contact that Jameela has on Ken. The AR of battery is “infliction of unlawful violence”. Battery is defined as being the slightest touch without permission as in the case of Cole v Turner, the knocking in to Ken is this touch without his permission. When she knocked into Ken this led to him to fall. This is an ABH as this battery led to further damage with Ken falling down. The AR of ABH is “common assault occasioning in actual bodily harm”. Miller defines this as “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the v”, in which the falling down would cause Ken to experience some discomfort with falling to the ground. However this fall resulted in Ken breaking his hip. This is a GBH S20 as this break would have caused him to go to hospital. The AR of GBH S20 is “causing wound or GBH”. There isn’t a wound and therefore there is only grievous bodily harm. The case of Smith defines grievous as meaning really serious harm which includes broken bones. The case of Bollom states that the seriousness of the harm scales with the age of the victim, as Ken in this scenario is elderly man the seriousness of the fall was serious as his body is weaker and therefore there is more damage that is done, affecting the graveness of the injury. Therefore the AR of GBH S20 has been established.…

    • 1016 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Alan believed that Bhu, a fellow student, had stolen his mobile phone. Alan saw Bhu at college, went up to her and said, “We sort out thieves like you.” As Bhu hurried away in a panic, Alan’s friend, Carol, sprayed Bhu with red paint. A small amount of paint went into Bhu’s eyes. She was taken to hospital where her eyes were treated to remove the paint. As she went home, and just before her sight was fully recovered, she tripped up a kerb and fractured her skull.…

    • 425 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    To be successful in his claim, Desi must demonstrate that there was an intentional negligent act which directly causes physical interference with the body of the plaintiff. In the context, there was an intentional and physical interference towards Desi by grabbing Desi’s arm and pull him closer to him. It was intentional as Graeme wanted Desi to follow him and Hetty to the on-site Security Office in order to calm the crowd and chaotic scene. Even though this act is accompanied by fault, but Graeme may likely to argue that he has the right to calm the crowd as a security guard. This argument by Graeme is most likely to be successful with the support from the case Rixon, Lord Goff said: “people may be subjected to the lawful exercise of the power of arrest; and reasonable force may be used in self-defence or for the prevention of crime.” Hence, Graeme would be likely to argue that although there was intentional and physical interference action towards Desi, the act was still lawful as he has the right to carry out such act with the purpose of calming the crowd. Thus, Desi will be most likely to fail to convict Graeme for…

    • 1498 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The defence will now require the provocative conduct on part of the victim to be a serious indictable offence…

    • 1121 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    ABH is a triable either way offence that could be tried in either the magistrates or Crown court. It carries a maximum punishment of 5 years in prison. The actus reus is either that the defendant committed the actus reus of assault or battery and that the assault or battery caused actual bodily harm.…

    • 3114 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Currently, an intention to kill or cause serious harm is sufficient mens rea for murder. The Commission notes that Parliament never intended a killing to amount to murder unless the defendant realised that his conduct may cause death. The widening of the mens rea to include intention to cause serious harm without the need for the defendant to be aware that death was likely has received much criticism and came about effectively by judicial error in the case of R v Vickers.…

    • 576 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Discuss the criminal liability of Kai with respect to the incident with the digger. (You should ignore the brain damage suffered by Lionel as a results of the injection)…

    • 83 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Delhi Gang Rape

    • 1760 Words
    • 8 Pages

    The victims, a 23-year old woman and her male friend, were on their way home after watching the film Life of Pi in Saket in South Delhi.[5][6] They boarded a chartered bus at Munirka for Dwarka that was being driven by joyriders at about 9:30 pm. The minor among the accused had called for passengers telling them that it was going towards their destination.[3][7] The woman's friend became suspicious when the bus deviated from its normal route and its doors were shut. When he objected, the group of six men already on board taunted the couple, asking what…

    • 1760 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Criminal Law Study Notes

    • 6111 Words
    • 25 Pages

    Concurrence  need to prove the simultaneous occurrence of both actus reus and mens rea to constitute a crime, except crimes of strict liability.…

    • 6111 Words
    • 25 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Task 2

    • 1094 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In relation to Bilal’s injuries of a fractured cheekbone and jaw as well as severe cuts to his face, I believe that Andy will be charged with S.18 GBH under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. S.18 is an indictable offence, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. However it could be argued that before Andy attacked Bilal, Andy caused Bilal to fear being attacked which comes under Section 39 Offences against the Person Act 1861 so could be charged with this offence as well as S.18.…

    • 1094 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    contract neglicence

    • 4053 Words
    • 13 Pages

    The plaintiff, an apprentice employed in the defendants' apprentice training school, was seriously injured by a practical joke played upon him by two fellow-apprentices. The Court of Appeal held the defendants not liable to the plaintiff in negligence, because his injury had occurred through an act of wilful misbehaviour which the defendants could not reasonably have foreseen.…

    • 4053 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Final Criminal Notes

    • 2988 Words
    • 15 Pages

    No additional mens rea required for the harm. It is not necessary for D to foresee the risk of ABH aslong as mens rea for the technical assault is present. R v Savage.…

    • 2988 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    ASSAULT

    • 2985 Words
    • 10 Pages

    The actus reus is the unlawful contact in applying force to another, or the act of creating fear of immediate unlawful contact.…

    • 2985 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Better Essays