Paul is liable for the offence of burglary as defined with the Theft Act (TA) 1968 section 9 for attempting to steal Victoria’s ‘personal diary’ from her home. The actus reus of burglary requires that Paul ‘enters any building… as a trespasser’. ‘Building’ is given its ordinary meaning , which Victoria’s home constitutes. ‘Entry’, In R v. Collins , was said to have to be ‘effective and substantial’ however Simester submits the test should be a ‘de Minimis’ rule of a ‘trivial or practically negligible entry’ after conflicting case law. Paul entering Victoria’s house, via ‘an unlocked… bathroom window’ is sufficient enough to constitute entry. Paul enters as a trespasser, by doing so knowingly without authorisation or consent or recklessly …show more content…
Paul clearly intends the penetration as shown by his purpose of ‘getting what he really wanted’ from Victoria. Reasonable belief is outlined in section 1(2) of the SAO 2003 as in ‘regard to all the circumstances including… ascertaining wither B consents’. . Paul does not have a reasonable belief, where he subjectively knows or is reckless as to Victoria’s lack of consent or does not consider consent. The section 75(2)(d) presumption, which also rebuts reasonable belief in consent, shows Paul likely had knowledge Victoria was not consenting because she was ‘passed out. At the minimum Paul makes no attempts to ascertain consent and is therefore reckless as to whether she consents. Victoria not consenting to penetration and Paul lacking reasonable belief of consent from the 75(2)(d) presumption, makes Paul liable for the offence of rape.
Paul has no defences available in regards to rape, Kamaki shows any degree of consciousness from the victim, requires further consideration of consent, however it appears unlikely Victoria displayed any consciousness prior to waking up. It is unlikely that any reasonable belief’ in consent could be inferred Paul and Victoria’s ‘an on-again off-again relationship’, due to her earlier rejection and Paul being informed of her new
…show more content…
This case found the law had taken a wrong turn and hence removed JEL. This meant liability as an accomplice requires intention to aid or encourage, with foresight merely acting as evidence of this intention. This case also established that recklessness, as raised within Carter v. Richardson , is not sufficient for the mens rea of accomplice liability. Knowledge or foresight of the offence committed is required for liability. Had this case occurred prior to Jogee the judgement in 2016, where JEL was still alive, the outcome of Selma’s secondary liability following Pauls rape of Victoria could be determined differently, although arguably would not be ultimately
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
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...
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
Taking a deeper look into a story can help a reader see and understand a story better. By looking into a story, the little details stand out about the characters. The reader can understand so much better when reading between the lines. By reading between lines the reader can learn more about the characters in the story and understand them better. Also the setting in the story is more clear and easier to see. When taking a farther look into the story, the conflicts the character face make more sense. Every word an author puts in a story is important. So by knowing the symbols with in the story help the reader understand why it is there. In Willa Cather’s short story, Paul’s Case, allows readers to see the themes more clearly and through challenging consequences of the characters’ actions, the difficulty of reaching one’s dreams, and the hardships of facing depression. Basically, Cather writes about Paul’s, the main character, troubles within.
For instance when Alayn and John, being law students, recall a law that allows them to legally rape Symkyn’s daughter or wife in exchange for their lost grain; “gif a man in a point be agreved, that in another he sal be releved” (4181-4183). The two student’s intentions to rape Symkyn’s daughter in exchange for the lost corn are revealed by “syn I sal have neen amendement agayn my los, I will have esement, by Goddes sale, it sal neen other bee” (4185-4187). Later on John will also rape Symkyn’s wife in order to appear as just as much of a man as Alayn is after copulating Malyne. In this tale, the interaction between the students and the women is not scrutinized as rape. This is because legally “in a case that would otherwise constitute rape under prevailing law, there is no rape is the perpetrator is married to (or co-habiting with) the victim” (1-2 Burgess-Jackson), and now John and Alayn are technically co-habiting Symkyn’s house where the women they ‘raped’
Then again the law states that when intoxicated one can not give consent and as other crewmates/sailors claimed that the two had been drink consent the junior couldn't of given consent. Cooper also could’t use that he truly thought that his junior had consented as it can’t be a defense if he himself was also intoxicated during the incident.Cooper did have oral sex with his junior and the junior claimed that he had no idea it was happening until he had awaken from his slumber. Now for Cooper’s 22 month sentence I personally think it might be a bit too much as all Cooper had supposedly done to his junior was give him oral sex, onces the junior had an idea of what was going on he quickly/easily stopped Cooper from continuing and Cooper didn't use any essives forces during the whole incident. If I were to give Cooper a sentences It would be closer to 8 months in prison rather than 22. I find it unfair that Cooper would have to go to prison for 22 months for an honest mistake and he didn't even force himself onto the victim, cause any injuries or even tried to continue his sexual assault after the victim had stopped him. Even if it was an honest mistake he was indeed intoxicated thus his sentences would be longer than if he were to receive a sentences while not being
In terms of the trespassing charge, Paul cannot be successfully charged for this. Paul is on an open corner of First
Throughout Paul’s Case, it is undeniable that Paul was incredibly egocentric. His mannerisms and attitudes portrayed a mind that is solely focused on his own needs and desires. Not once in the story did he pause to consider the effect his actions and insolence had on those in his life, except, perhaps, to worry about a punishment he might receive. As he returned home from his job, for example, he felt no concern over his father’s worry for him, and simply dreaded the lecture he knew may receive. Too a point, a certain amount of self-serving egocentrism is typical for many people, particularly teenagers. However, Paul’s mental state was not healthy or typical. He caused discomfort and anger in his authority figures, drove his peers away, and was unable to form a connection with his family. Those that he respected and admired no longer became real people after his imagination took hold. Instead, his mind morphed them into romanticized symbols of wealth, power, and the exotic. This fantasy and his pervasive self-centeredness may have be a form of self-defense.
Paul is one of my favorite characters in the Bible. He lived his life with so much joy and, honestly, set the tone for Christians throughout history. Paul lived his life so well that his story should inspire us all to live with joy through everything. Paul was a man of real joy, and he taught four vital lessons while in prison through the letter in Philippians.
“Rape is an act of violence in which sex is used as a weapon” (Benedict, 1992, p.14). Rape is used to control one’s victim in the same way a gun is used to control a store clerk in a robbery. Both are methods of control in order to get what one wants. The majority of men cannot even sustain an erection or ejaculate during the commission of a sex crime (Men against Sexual Violence, 2003). Contrary to popular belief, rape is not the fulfillment of an overly stimulated libido; it is primarily a tool to exert power over a victim.
The aim of the project is to contribute to the scholarly discussion about the meaning sarx (σάρξ) in Paul’s letters, and to outline how different interpretations may be suggestive of Paul’s project in terms of anthropology and cosmology. The hypothesis I will investigate is that σάρξ may be a resource in the construct of collective identity, as a concept incorporated in the logic construct of humans as being a part of the created order. For instance, Paul speaks of Jesus as belonging to the tribe of David according to the σάρξ, and he speaks of his own kin as ascendants of Abraham according to the σάρξ. However, the word may have different meanings in different settings and the semantic componential structure needs to be identified in each
Attempt is defined under the Ciminal attempts act 1981 as 'if with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a
The principles of necessity and compulsion are often used as a defense for murder or other crimes. It is, however, apparent that the application of these principles within the laws and the application of South Africa and England differ as the underlying principles remain the same. I will be analyzing cases from both countries that have used necessity and compulsion as a defence and make recommendations of how this principle is used as an excuse to criminal liability in certain circumstances with regards to the laws of each country.
For File 1, the legal issue is whether the accused, A, can be convicted of sexual assault. Is complainant’s consent to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse vitiated by fraud when her partner knows that he has gonorrhea and fails to disclose this information? According to s. 265, specifically s. 265(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, a person commits sexual assault through an act of intentionally applied force that is sexual in nature where there is a lack of consent by reason of fraud (Cuerrier, para. 94). There is always force applied during sexual intercourse, so the first requirement of sexual assault is fulfilled. For the requirement that there be a lack of consent, in R. v. Cuerrier, the court said that the common law requirement that fraud must relate to the nature and quality of the act was a much too rigid definition of fraud. In this case, if that requirement for fraud still stood, the accused’s failure to disclose his gonorrhea status would be insufficient to vitiate the complainant’s consent because it did not change the nature or the quality of the sexual act(R. v. Cuerrier, 105). Instead, the Court tied fraud committed in a criminal context to fraud as it is treated in a commercial context (Cuerrier, para. 103) and defined fraud based on the presence of two conditions: dishonesty and deprivation resulting from the dishonesty (Cuerrier, para. 126-128). In this case, the dishonesty requirement, which was the non-disclosure of gonorrhea status, is definitely present. In addition, the second requirement of fraud is also satisfied in this case. In the Cuerrier case, failure to disclose the presence of HIV was found to put the victims at a significant risk of serious bodily harm (Cuerrier, para. 128). Since gonorrhea is even more infectious than HIV and can cause serious and permanent, possibly even life threatening, health problems if left untreated, failure to disclose this status definitely put the complainant at a significant risk of serious bodily harm.