When Elizabeth was “dropping large stones from a bridge onto the motorway”, she might has committed criminal damage under section 1(1) the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and is defined as follows:
“A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.”
The actus reus includes the terms “destroy”, “damage”, “property” and “belonging to another”, which Elizabeth has substantially done. Besides, it also includes “without lawful excuse”, which is provided under section 5(2) of the Act : (a) persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage o the property; or (b) in order to protect property and the means of protection would be reasonable. However, Elizabeth do not satisfied any lawful excuse. The men rea for this offence requires intention or recklessness of damaging or destroying the property. Elizabeth did not have a direct intention to damage or destroy the property, as her purpose was to “enliven her afternoon”. However, she might have caused the damage or destruction by recklessness. The recklessness was meant to connote foresight of consequence is apparent from the Law Commission’s Report, and is reinforced by the proposed definition of recklessness from Law Commission. Subjective test for recklessness is used in this case, which defined in Cunningham (1957). She would not commit an offence of criminal damage unless she subjectively reckless as to the risk of damaging the road.
If she has foreseen the risk and decided to take it, she has committed the offence. Subsequently, it would be the question tha...
... middle of paper ...
...ss he did not breached his duty of care.
Furthermore, Helen, who is Fred’s ex-wife, might be charged for murder, under the common law offence. The actus reus for murder is the act or unlawful omission caused death. The mens rea requires intention (malice aforethought) only. She has the intention to kill Fred by switching off the life-support machine, as she sneaked into the hospital overnight, and Fred died as a result. She would be charged for murder unless she has sufficient defence, for instance, loss of self-control and one of the statutory qualifying triggers is satisfied , and suffering from diminished responsibility , where it would reduced her offence from murder to manslaughter. However, there is no certain answer for whether it would be criminal liability to kill a person if he is in a hopeless condition and kept alive inly by an apparatus of some kind.
This language made is favorable for the jury to consider Dr. Ricketson’s negligence as not foreseeable. The rule for the NIED claim relates to “the alleged actual injury is for psychological distress alone,” and NIED claim achieves compensation for “persons who have sustained emotional injuries attributable to the wrongful conduct of others.” (Iturralde, 2013) Which would apply to Rosalinda because she was Aurturo’s caregiver.
In the Model Penal Code, section 2.01 discussed are the requirements of voluntary act; Omission as Basis of Liability; and Possesion as an Act. Mainly focusing on the “Voluntary” and “Involunatary” sections, first, stated is that “A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable. Secondly, stated are acts that are not voluntary wihin the meaning of this section following as, “A reflex or convulsion; a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep; conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion; and a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.” These requirements correspond with the Latin term “Actus Reus” which is a term used to describe a criminal act. Actus Reus is the wrongful dead that compromises the physical components of a crime. There is a fundamental principle stated in the case textbook that criminal liability always entails an “Actus Reus”, that is, “the commission of some voluntary act that is prohibited by law.”
The appellant, Jesse Mamo, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the respondent, Steven Surace. Whilst the respondent looked down to adjust the radio, a cow wandered on to the road, colliding with the vehicle . The appellant alleged that the respondent failed to use high beam or maintain a proper lookout. The respondent denied liability and pleaded contributory negligence. At trial, the Judge held that breach of duty of care had not transpired, as it was an unforeseeable risk causing an unavoidable accident, as the cow appeared too close to react. The Judge argued that the respondent acted appropriately toward ‘foreseeable risks”, which the cow was not part of.
Only an act that is defined by the validly passed laws of the nation state in which it occurred so that punishment should follow from the behaviour
Most young offenders get into trouble with the law only once. But the younger children are when they first break the law, the more likely they are to break the law again (Statistics Canada study, 2005). The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) attempts to acknowledge that different youth need different sentences within the justice system, while ensuring that it is fair and equitable for them. Many people, both in Canada, and around the world, believe that youth are not reprimanded harshly enough for the crimes they commit and that they are, in general, are able to squeeze through the justice system without punishment. Others, believe that the justice system does not treat youth fairly and punishes them without acknowledging that rehabilitation
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
An example of a general intent offense is robbery, which means taking something from someone by force, or by the threat of bodily physical harm. Some people may term theft as a specific intent crime. However, the purpose of the act depends on the law, either the intent was to completely deprive the owner of the object stolen, or force the victim to give up on the property. Pg.
suddenly jumps in front of her and drags her into an alley. The attacker strikes (A) and rips her clothes. Fortunately, (A) hits the attacker with a rock and runs to safety. The man’s actions do not amount to assault, they amount to a battery as he dragged the woman to an alley, stroke her, and ripped her clothes off with the intent of causing her harm. The acts of the woman are a measure of self-defense, and she cannot be held accountable for the infliction she may have induced to the man. If the man just followed her without having any physical contact with her, his actions would have constituted to assault, as he would inflict fear into the
It is considered to be a deliberate act on the defendant’s part to cause the harm that occurs. In my opinion the, this was not intentional. McDonald was not wilful in trying to harm Liebeck. Intentionally trying to hurt Liebeck would mean loss of revenue and reputation for McDonald and I firmly believe that is a risk they were not willing to take hence, why it is not intentional tort case. Also, to act with intent would mean to see someone coming and hurting them in the process. This was not the case for Liebeck, she bought the coffee and went back to the car and then the coffee
The intentional or accidental release of a hazardous material is responsible for major injury or fatality
However, she would have been aware of a high probability of serious injury or death and therefore was found guilty of oblique intention. In this case causing harm was not intended but resulted.
Attempted murder, involved the voluntary act of Jack pointing a gun and firing it (act) at Bert that resulted in (causation) death of Pratt (social harm), which proves the elements of actus reus. ...
The establishment of the Subjective definition of recklessness was through the case of Cunningham. In R v Cunningham D broke a gas metre to steal money contained within the metre, leading to a gas leak which caused D’s mother in law to become seriously ill. The subjective definition was developed here as D had been reckless as he had realised there was a risk of gas escaping and endangering someone, and went ahead with his action anyway. Therefore, demonstrating the subjective definition that a defendant to be guilty under Cunningham recklessness they must ...
To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.
2.4.3. Previous criminal convictions The other important matter included in the individual’s conduct concept is the element of the previous criminal convictions of the individual concerned. Under the CDR, these convictions shall not ‘in themselves’ constitute justification for expulsion or exclusion on grounds of public policy or public security.