Problem Question 1 - Criminal Law PDF

Preview

Summary

Question 1Alan The first defendant to be considered is Alan. The most relevant issue relating to Alan is the text message that he sent to Ralph ‘containing a cut-throat symbol’ in it. Therefore, the most likely offence Alan would be liable for is common assault. A common assault, which comes under s...

Description

Question 1

Alan The first defendant to be considered is Alan. The most relevant issue relating to Alan is the text message that he sent to Ralph ‘containing a cut-throat symbol’ in it. Therefore, the most likely offence Alan would be liable for is common assault. A common assault, which comes under s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force on his person (Collins v Wilcock). I n order to establish liability, the actus reus and mens rea must be proven. The actus reus must be described through the perspective of the victim (Smiths v Chief Supt Woking Police Station), s o it can be said that Ralph apprehended immediate physical violence after receiving the text message, being that he was ‘frightened’. As for the mens rea, it requires either an intention to cause apprehension of

 he immediate unlawful violence or subjective recklessness (R v Savage & Parmenter). T subjective recklessness requirement means that it is viewed from Alan’s perspective and he should be aware that Ralph might fear immediate physical violence through the emoji.

It is also possible that Alan is convicted for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861. R v Burstow tells us that psychological disturbance can constitute ABH or grievous bodily harm (GBH), provided that there is sufficient medical evidence. Thus, as the problem states that Ralph was ‘frightened’ and instantly called the police suggests that he could still be traumatised and be suffering psychological disturbance from his previous encounter with Alan. However, this is up to the prosecution to decide and there is not enough information on the facts to confirm this.

Overall, Alan would most likely be prosecuted under the offence of common assault, but could potentially face charges for assault occasioning ABH if the prosecution finds that Ralph suffered psychological damage.

Ed Secondly, this problem will examine the actions of Ed, who upholds several offences. The first being where he followed Pete ‘unwilling to let the matter go.’ This act could promote a conviction under common assault as there is proof that Pete would have apprehended immediate physical violence by Ed following him without his consent. The mens rea element is also satisfied because, without a willingness to accept Pete’s apology, Ed seemingly had an intention to cause apprehension of immediate physical

 urthermore, the conviction for common assault violence (R v Savage & Parmenter). F can also apply to the lead up to the fight, where Ed asked Pete to ‘settle this like men if

 ne.’ By Pete responding with ‘ok, let’s do it’, it can be shown that he you are o apprehended violence by being pressured into the fight through Ed’s words, thus forming the actus reus of the offence. In turn, the mens rea element is fulfilled as Ed’s words as well as the non-consensual act of following him around the pub, give the clear intention of causing apprehension to immediate violence. Lastly, the fight that occurs

 inor bruising can still ended with ‘bruising to [Pete’s] face and nose.’ As per R v Miller, m constitute actual bodily harm. Consequently, the actus reus would be causing the bruising that amounts to ABH, and the mens rea would blatantly arise from the intention to cause physical violence as they are both participating in a fistfight and intend to hurt each other.

As a result, Ed can be charged for common assault under two circumstances, and assault occasioning ABH for the other.

Kate

Thirdly, the offences accomplished by Kate will be examined. The main issue in relation to Kate is whether Kate grabbing hold of Pete to stop him from fighting can amount to criminal liability. According to Cole v Turner, i t was established that the merest amount of touching can be enough to constitute a battery, as long as there is no element of consent. A battery is defined as the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person

 ate satisfies the actus reus element of direct physical contact when (Collins v Wilcock). K she grabs Pete and adheres to the mens rea due to the intention to make direct physical contact with him after Pete agrees to the fight. Therefore, Kate could be charged with common battery under s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

It is probable that she can submit a statutory defence under s.31 of The Criminal Law Act 1967. This section essentially entitles her to use ‘reasonable force to prevent a criminal offence from being committed’. Here, Pete having a fight with Ed is clearly going to be a criminal offence that she was trying to prevent. In summary, Kate could potentially be held under conviction for a battery, but she could also succeed in a claim for a statutory defence.

Pete Fourthly, arguably the key defendant of this scenario, is Pete; who has the possibility of being charged for two different offences. The first issue arises after Ed ‘trips and falls onto a lamp, causing him to chip off his front teeth.’ Prima facie, this could constitute an offence for wounding or inflicting GBH. Yet, the actus reus may not be sufficient enough to be liable for GBH as the dentist found ‘no harm to the roots of Ed’s teeth.’

Subsequently, it is more likely that Pete would be found liable for assault occasioning ABH. The actus reus for this offence is satisfied where Pete attempts to throw a punch at Ed, thus causing Ed to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. As for the mens rea, this is satisfied by proof that Pete was acting recklessly. Through the application of R v Mowatt, it can be determined that Pete doesn’t have to have actually foreseen the

extent of the harm that would have been caused, he just has to have been at least aware of the possibility of causing some harm to be proven to act recklessly.

Additionally, a potential defence that Pete could use is to argue that Ed had consented to the fight, being that it was his idea, and he should not be held liable on that basis. In the case of R v Donovan, it was established that a victim cannot validly consent to physical harm if it amounts to ABH or worse unless the activity comes within the range of policy-based exceptions. In this case, it seems unlikely that pub fights would fall within policy-based exceptions so Pete can probably not rely on Ed’s consent to the harm.

With regards to the second issue, where Pete shrugs off Kate causing her to ‘fall to the floor’, the highest offence that can be considered is wounding or inflicting GBH, under s.20 of the OAPA 1861. The actus reus is achieved as Pete caused a ‘gash’ on Kate, thus causing a break in the surface of her skin. The mens rea from s.20 refers to the ‘malicious’ wounding or infliction of GBH. ‘Maliciously’ denotes two different states: 1) intention and 2) subjective recklessness. R v Mowatt suggests that simply the foresight of some harm will suffice. Therefore, this seems fairly difficult to prove as there is not enough evidence on the facts to infer exactly what Pete was thinking when making a ‘stronger, sharper movement.’

Ultimately, the most obvious charge Pete could face is for assault occasioning ABH, and in any event, where Pete shrugging of Kate cannot amount to infliction of GBH, it is probable that it can fall under s.47 of the OAPA act too.

Beth The last defendant to be advised is Beth. There are two clear issues here. The first being that Shazia began to experience painful headaches and regular abdominal pain for three months as a result of contracting Typhoid. Under s.23 of the OAPA, it can be

suggested that Beth maliciously administered Typhoid to Shazia. The act denotes that there must be proof that Beth unlawfully and maliciously administered to Shazia, any poison or otherwise destructive or noxious thing, so as to endanger her life or inflict GBH on her. ‘Administration’ here is very liberally interpreted and in this case, can be as simple as not wearing gloves or touching the food. The fact that Beth had been given instruction by the doctors ‘not to prepare food that others would eat’, shows that Beth was aware and therefore satisfies the mens rea requirement of ‘malicious’, being that she could evidently foresee the risk of some harm.

The second issue is that Shazia has been suffering from regular unhappiness. In R v Ireland, i t was confirmed that psychological harm can amount to ABH or GBH depending on expert evidence. Therefore, the prosecution would have to prove how unhappy Shazia really is and if it is enough to be able to amount to ABH or GBH.

In conclusion, it seems most likely that she would be charged under s.47 of the OAPA with regards to ABH or GBH....