LW2225 semester essay skeleton answer PDF

Preview

Summary

Skeleton answer to possible problem question...

Description

a) During a party at his flat, John decided to play a practical joke. He put the place in darkness by removing the light fuses and called out in a grave voice: “Please don’t panic, but there is a serious fire in the kitchen. Everybody downstairs as soon as possible.” Sam, an epileptic, was pushed by the crowd of people behind him and fell down the stairs. He was severely bruised and so shaken that an epileptic fit was brought on. Meanwhile, having seen that Tom was responsible for pushing Sam, John decides to get revenge on Sam’s behalf by hitting Tom over the head with a glass bottle. Tom sustains a serious cut to his face. Sam makes a full recovery but Tom is left with a small, permanent scar. He also suffers from long-term depression as a result of the injury and thinks he is so disfigured that he becomes reclusive. Discuss the criminal liability of John. Battery It could be argued that an indirect battery has been committed by J against S, who was pushed by the crowd of people reacting to J’s actions. This could amount to the AR of battery ([indirect] application of unlawful force), as supported in DPP v K. (Note that Martin had originally suggested the possibility of being no need for application of direct force but it was a case of s.20, and the HL subsequently interpreted it as deciding that an assault/battery was not needed for conviction under s.20.) MR of battery requires intention or subjective recklessness as to applying unlawful force. Did J foresee that in carrying out his prank people might push each other in a rush to escape? s.47 If a battery can be proved, J might also be liable for s.47 in relation to S. AR – assault or battery (see above) Abh – S suffers an epileptic fit and bruising. This could amount to abh – refer to Miller and Chan Fook. Occasioning = ‘causing’. But for J’s prank would S have suffered the harm he did? If so, was J the legal cause? Was T’s act a free, deliberate and informed act breaking the chain of causation (Latif; Rafferty etc.). Probably not. If S’s injuries are attributable to his epilepsy then the thin skull rule applies and J must take his victim has he finds him. MR – same as for battery – see Savage; Parmenter. s.20 T suffers a cut. Could this amount to wounding under s.20? AR – wound = breaking of all layers of the skin (Moriarty v Brooks) MR – maliciously = foresight of some harm (Mowatt and Savage; Parmenter). As J hit T over the head with a bottle, presumably he foresaw some harm. T additionally suffers from depression. This additionally could amount to GBH. Bodily harm includes all parts of the body, including the nervous system and the brain (Chan Fook, confirmed in Ireland; Burstow) If an expert witness (Morris) can confirm this amounts to a recognised psychiatric illness rather than a mere psychological injury

(Dhaliwal) the depression could amount to bodily harm. Grievous = [really] serious harm (DPP v Smith). As the depression is long term and T becomes a recluse, this could be argued. s.18 If the AR of s.20 could be proved on either ground (wounding or GBH), it would be worth considering s.18, since all that distinguishes it is the MR. Requirement of intention to cause GBH. This could be direct or indirect. We are told that J decides to get revenge. This could imply direct intention to cause GBH. If it was only some harm that was desired, did J foresee GBH as a virtual certainty (Nedrick; Woollin)?...