To: Partner of Kramer, Olayode, and Taggart LLP From: Ms. Ulven, Trainee Solicitor at LLP Date: 21.04.24 Subject: Nigel Harland-Evidence regarding charges and defenses. Q1. Nigel Harland attacked Martin Gallagher on December 22nd, “ferociously” “punching and kicking [him] with all his might.” Martin sustained multiple injuries including “cuts. bruises, a broken arm, and broken ribs.” This evidence indicates Harland has committed an offense under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA). The relevant charges to consider are sections 47, 20, and 18 of the Act. Section 47 of the OAPA requires the defendant to commit an assault or battery, amounting to actual bodily harm (ABH) by interfering with the victim’s health or comfort. Harland's …show more content…
The mens rea for this offense necessitates intent or recklessness. Notably, in the context of offences, recklessness can be satisfied by intoxication, whereby reducing oneself to an intoxicated state is a ‘reckless course of conduct’ capable of constituting the necessary mens rea. By reasonable assumption, Nigel Harland was intoxicated at the time of his offence. Following Taj, the phrase ‘attributable to intoxication’ includes where ‘the effect, [of earlier drug-taking] can be shown to have triggered subsequent episodes of paranoia.’ It follows that, because Harland began to “loose grip on reality” after smoking a “large quantity of marijuana,” his subsequent state of prolonged psychosis, ongoing at the time of the attack, was an ‘immediate and proximate consequence’ of his prior substance usage. Consequently, in the eyes of the law, Harland was voluntarily intoxicated at the time of his offence amounting to recklessness and constituting the necessary mens rea. It is arguable however that the totality of the injuries suffered by Mr. Gallagher exceed ABH, amounting to very serious harm, and consequently, grievous bodily harm (GBH), qualifying a section 20 offense, whereby the defendant
(3 points) What kind of defenses has the defendant raised? Or, if the case is over, what defenses did the defendant raise? If not clear in the article, what are the likely defenses?
The Crown gave notices pursuant to ss 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act (EA) 2008 (Vic), intending to lead the Evidence against the appellant at trial. The trial judge ruled that the coincidence evidence was admissible but the tendency evidence was inadmissible.
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
R N Howie and P A Johnson, Annotated Criminal Legislation NSW, 2011-2102, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2012) 17769-1774
On the basis of this evidence, Kenneth Garlow was charged with murdering Elizabeth. Dats between his murder charge and appearance in court, a new and
Frye v. United States and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals are both legal decisions that set forth standards as they pertain to the admissibility of scientific or forensic evidence, and the admissibility of expert witness testimony. Both cases deal with the admissibility of evidence in judicial proceedings, and prevent prosecutors from abusing the use of expert witnesses and testimony. Due to a loophole that dismisses recent scientific advances when applying the Frye Rule, the Supreme Court revisited Frye, and “took the occasion to issue guidelines for deciding the admissibility of scientific evidence” (Gaensslen, Harris, & Henry, 2008, p. 53). The decision resulted in a five-prong approach called the Daubert Standard.
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
Mitchell, Barry, ‘Multiple Wrongdoing and Offence Structure: A Plea for Consistency and Fair Labelling’ (2001) 64(3) Modern Law Review 393, 395.
2. What is the difference between a'smar Aggravating Factors Several aggravating factors exist in the case of R v. Onalik, most of which stem from the actions of the offender, Daniel Onalik, both during and after the violent assault on the offender on the night of May 11th, 2022. Firstly, the offender in the case was his uncle, with whom Onalik had gotten into a fight while both men were under the influence of alcohol. Since the victim was his uncle, he would be a person in his life in a position of power and authority. Additionally, Onalik provided no degree of assistance after he had smashed his uncle’s head against the floor multiple times, telling police that “he got what he deserved.”
At the behest of Solicitor General John Les, an inquiry was launched in February o...
Bailey Press --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] (2000) 2 All ER 289, [2] QB 133 [3] (1965) 2 QB 29 [4] 15 Ch D 96 [5] Law Com. No. 164 (1987), para.
The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held in the house of lords. The judges on this were- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date of the judgment was 16th may 2002.
Ashworth A and Horder J, Principles of Criminal Law (7th edn, Oxford University Press 2013)
Anderson, T 2008, Defend yourself: facing a charge in court, 2nd edn, The Federation Press, Sydney, NSW, p. 7, viewed 25/03/2012, ?>
in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law