Offences Against The Person Act 1861 (OAPA)

The defendants must be advised according to the laws relating to the “Offences Against the Person Act 1861” (Hereinafter will be referred as OAPA 1861) and “Criminal Justice Act 1988” (Hereinafter will be referred as CJA 1998).

In the given scenario, it is seen that Hamish is a friend of Callum. Callum asked for the compass from Hamesh. Hamesh hands it over and as Callum reaches to collect it, the needle of the compass pricks him(Callum) on the finger. It is mentioned that Callum suffers from haemophilia as a result he(Callum) suffers heavy bleeding. Thus by the above stated facts it can be argued that Hamesh could be liable for the injury of Callum under S20 of OAPA 1861 .The actus reus of S20 is committed by wounding or inflicting “Grievous bodily harm”(Hereinafter will be referred as GBH). In Moriarty v Brooks it is stated that,” Wound

Through this act, Callum could be charged under S39 of CJA 1988. The actus reus of S39 is committed by *** assault. According to Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner , “An assault is any act by which someone, intentionally or recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and personal violence.” …………….An assault requires some act or words, omission is not enough………. In Smith v Chief Superintendent of Police it is stated that, ”fear of immediate force is necessary; this does not mean instantaneous but imminent. In this scenario, Callum whispered to Hamish about the threat with the condition that if the librarian was not here. Thus Hamish knew that C will not be able to carry out his threat as long as the librarian is present. In R v Lamb it is said that there is no assault if the situation is such that it is apparent that the defendant(In this case Callum) cannot actually use force. Thus it is seen that the possibility to charge the defendant(Callum) under S39 of CJA 1998 is