“It has long been established that any touching of another person, however slight, may amount to battery. Everybody is protected not only against physical injury but against any form of physical molestation.”
In R v Thomas (1985), it was stated, obiter, that touching the bottom of a woman’s skirt was equivalent to touching the woman herself. A battery can be committed even where defendants thought their behavior was affectionate. In the light of above cases we could say Ali is liable for battery under s. 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
To the third issue Ali’s defence There is no defense for Ahmed in the second issue. From the above statement we cannot find what the verbal words that make Ali so violent. Therefore it is not reasonable
…show more content…
The main verses here are: unlawful, wound, and suffering. The word “inflict” does not oblige an assault, as established in Beasley (1981), MPC v Wilson (1984) and R v Ireland and Burstow(1997). A “wound” must break through all the layers of the skin but it does not include internal bleeding according to JCC v Eisenhower (1983). The phrase “grievous bodily harm” in the s.20 definition means really serious harm, but does not have to be life-threatening agreeing to DPP v Smith (1961). Ahmed’s act can simply be directed as to “serious harm” as decision was held in Saunders (1985). However, the courts held that age, health and other issues relating to the victim can be measured when defining whether the injuries are equal to grievous bodily harm. Therefore will be very likely to come to the conclusion that when Ahmed took a knife and stab in Ali’s stomach causing deep cut, he met the actus reus of malicious wounding. The act of stab can be defined as an infliction, and Ali’s wound broke through all the layers of his skin. The mens rea of malicious wounding is the word “maliciously”, which sorts in s.20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861). This word has since been clear as intentionally or recklessly by Cunningham (1957), and either one will suffice. The defendant must therefore intend or been reckless as to some physical harm, but he does not have to …show more content…
The High Court has confirmed that the defendant must be acting to prevent a crime. The defendants in DPP v Bayer (2003) had attached themselves to tractors to prevent the planting of genetically modified maize. They genuinely believed that the crops would damage neighboring property. In their defense they sought to rely on self-defense. This defense was rejected because they were not seeking to prevent the commission of a crime, as the crops were going to be planted legally. In R v Keane and McGrath (2010) the Court of Appeal stated that self-defense may arise in a case where the defendant started a fight, but only where the violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the defendant did that, in effect, the roles were reversed. These defenses can usually only succeed if the defendant used reasonable force. What constitutes reasonable force balancing the amount of force used against the harm the accused required to prevent? If the force was unreasonable, often described as excessive, the defense is unavailable. In the case of R v Anthony Martin (2001) the defendant had been entitled to use force, but on the facts he had made a mistake about the amount of force he was entitled to use. The law imposes an objective test, so it does not matter if the defendant thought they were using a reasonable amount of force; what matters is whether objectively they
The use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if defender has reason to believe He/She/is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault battery
To prove tort of battery; Simon must establish that Caroline, Intentionally caused an offensive contact with him, that the force was direct and immediate, and the touching or contact was hostile.
Self-defense is not something that should be taken lightly. Its dictionary definition is, “the act of defending one's person when physically
According to RAINN, (2009) approximately 10 per cent of all victims of sexual assault and abuse are adult and juvenile males. In terms of the nature of assault, real figures include a compendium of reported incidents ranging from unwanted sexual touching to forced penetration. To qualify this statement, it must be understood that the percentage does not reflect a vast number of crimes that go unreported due to issues that will be discussed in the present paper.
The Stand Your Ground Laws states that A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and the person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or the person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or the person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful act...
The crime of indecent assault and battery occurs when an attacker, has non-consensual physical contact with a person in a sexual manner. This could be any unwarranted physical contact to a person’s private body. This assault is punishable to up to five years in prison.
2) This is because a violent act’s illegitimacy follows by definition, and if a disputed/borderline act is deemed justified then the act is non-violent by definition. This seems counterintuitive because most people see a justified killing of say, an active shooter by a police officer as an act of violence, albeit one that is morally permissible or even required. In other words, the intuition that it is legitimate does not seem to be at odds with the intuition that it is violent. In short, the legitimacy view seems to produce awkward consequences and it also seems unhelpful in practical
The four criminal law elements of self-defense are nonaggressor, necessity, proportionality, and reasonable belief. Nonaggressor is when the defender did not in any way provoke or stray an attack. When it comes to self-defense it is only available when it comes to unprovoked attacks. If one provokes someone they cannot use self-defense to defend themselves from the attack because they provoked it. However there is one exception and that is the withdrawal exception. The withdrawal exception is when the initial aggressor withdrawals completely from the attack they provoked they can defend themselves against their initial victims. An example of nonaggressor self-defense is Melody hanging out at the bar by herself and Samantha comes up to her trying
One form of infringement upon an individual’s natural rights is sexual abuse. Sexual abuse is an unfortunate reality in our society, and can be considered the ultimate form of torture, as there are several layers of physical, mental, and emotional damage. Sexual abuse can be defined as unwanted sexual contact in a situation involving at least two parties consisting of the victim and the offender. Some types of sexual abuse include unwanted light contact, such as kissing or touching; threatening or pressuring a person into sexual activity; molestation, regardless of child or adult; and violent sexual activity or rape (“What is Sexual Abuse”). There is prominent data supporting the prevalence of sexual abuse in the U.S, along with media attention of later confessions of both victims and perpetrators shows that the iss...
The main elements of assault would be an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim. The act for assault must be overt and direct. Words alone are insufficient, however if the words are part of a threat that influences the assault. A threat alone is not an aggravated assault, although if the threat is combined with a weapon or fist- it can become sufficient enough to constitute aggravated assault.
An estimated 39 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America today (Darness2Light, 2009a ). This figure continues to grow daily as perpetrators of this crime continue in this destructive path. The definition of child sexual abuse is the force, coercion, or cajoling of children into sexual activities by a dominant adult or adolescent. Sexual abuse of children includes touching (physical) sexually including: fondling; penetration (vaginal or anal using fingers, foreign objects or offenders organs; oral sex, or non-physical contact including: sexual comments; indecent exposures; masturbating in a child’s presence; child prostitution or child pornography (Child Welfare, 2009a).
It is very common for people to use the “Stand Your Ground” laws as an excuse for them to commit a murder or injure someone badly. “The doctrine of self-defense was never intended to protect individuals who stalk or pursue victims and then resort to deadly force when their victims fight back,” former NAACB leader, Benjamin Jealous said. Individuals could use
assault can graduate to a battery, but a battery cannot reduce to an assault if physical contact is
A question among researchers is what type of force is required to constitute sexual assault. Does non-physical sexual coercion count as sexual assault? Russell (1982) found that women described sexual coercion as different than sexual assault, showing that there is a major distinction in their minds of these types of sexual violence. Thus, her research team distinguished between use of physical force and non-physical coercion, even to the point of determining which actions constitute physical force. Their criteria for use of force included “such acts as pushing, pinning, and being held down by a husband’s weight so that the woman couldn’t move,” (p. 48). In chapter five of their seminal work License to Rape (1985), Finkellhor & Yllo present
J. M. Kelly, ‘The Malicious Injuries Code and the Constitution’. The Irish Jurist, vol. 4, New Series (NS) 221.