June 2013 Application Questions

Amir saw Carla, a teenager, whom he knew was easily frightened Amir saw Carla, a teenager, whom he knew was easily frightened. Amir offered to give Carla a lift home in his car. As Amir sped off down the road, they discussed “The Prisoner”, a television programme which they both liked. Amir suddenly said, “Now you’re my prisoner!” Carla immediately panicked, opened the passenger door and jumped out of the moving car. Carla fell and hurt her wrist. When she got home, her wrist was very sore, so her mother took her to hospital. She was treated by a doctor who incorrectly put her wrist in a splint. As a result, Carla suffered permanent damage to her wrist. The permanent injury would not have happened if she had been properly treated.

In relation to criminal liability of Amir: Outline the law relating to assault and discuss whether Amir would be guilty; What different would it have made if Carla had taken Amir’s statement as a joke and not panicked or jumped from the car?

Identify: Amir could be liable for the offence of assault Define: Assault is a common law offence although it is recognised in S.39 Criminal Justice Act as a summary offence. Assault was defined in Ireland as when D intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence Explain: We first need to establish that there has been an act which can be actions, gestures, words or silence. Ireland – words are enough for an assault Apply: In this case Amir’s act was to say “Now you’re my prisoner!” to Carla. E – we then need to consider whether this act caused Carla to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. Considering apprehension first, Carla does not need to fear unlawful violence only to apprehend which means an expectation or anticipation. It also doesn’t matter if D made his threat as a joke if V believed him –(Logdon) A –we are told that Carla “immediately panicked, opened the passenger door and jumped out of the moving car” so was clearly apprehending unlawful violence caused by Amir’s words and believed what he said. E – We then need to establish whether the violence that Carla apprehended was immediate. This has been given a wide interpretation under Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station and immediate does not need to be instantaneous A – As we are told that Carla was panicking and that she jumped out of a moving car, clearly she was apprehending immediate violence E – Next we must establish that the violence that Amir apprehended was unlawful violence A – the violence Carla was apprehending could have been kidnap or sexual assault, which is clearly unlawful violence E – The mens rea for assault is intention or recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence (Savage) and recklessness is Cunningham recklessness which means D must realise that his acts or words could cause V to apprehend violence, but goes ahead anyway. A – We do not know if Amir intended Carla to apprehend immediate violence but by saying these words to Carla, particularly when knowing that she was easily frightened must have meant that Amir realised that his words could have caused her to apprehend violence, yet he took that risk which would make him at least subjectively reckless which is sufficient for the MR of assault. C- It would appear that Vlad would be liable for assault.

If Carla had taken Amir’s statement as a joke and not panicked or jumped from the car, this would have made a difference to Amir’s liability. Whether or not she jumped out of the car itself is not relevant for the offence of assault (except to show she was apprehending violence). However if she had taken Amir’s statement as a joke and not panicked this would have meant that one of the key elements of the AR of assault, that she apprehend immediate unlawful violence, would be missing as Carla would not be expecting or anticipating any violence.

Briefly explain the rules on causation and briefly discuss whether Amir has caused the permanent damage to Carla’s wrist Factual causation is where the consequence would not have happened “but for” D’s act. In Pagett D used his girlfriend as a human shield while he shot at armed police, who fired back and killed his girlfriend. D was convicted as she would not have died “but for” his actions. In this case, had Amir not scared Carla, she would not have jumped out of his car while it was moving and would not have needed to go to the hospital where the treatment led to the permanent damage to her wrist, therefore factual causation would be satisfied Legal causation means that the link between act and the consequence, the “chain of causation”, must remain unbroken. D’s actions must remain the “operating and substantial” cause of the circumstance (Smith). There must also not be a Novus Actus Interveniens which breaks the chain of causation. For an NAI to break the chain of causation, D’s act needs to no longer be a significant cause of the consequence. In Jordan it was held that medical treatment which was “palpably wrong” would break the chain of causation and there was no legal causation. In this case, we would have to consider whether the medical treatment Carla received was bad enough to be “palpably wrong” or whether her initial injury to her wrist was still operating and substantial when she suffered the permanent damage. I would argue that it was not bad enough to be “palpably wrong” and her wrist was already injured so was an operating and substantial cause of her injury, even if not the only cause An NAI by V can also break the chain of causation but only if it is not reasonably foreseeable . In Roberts a female passenger injured herself by jumping out while it was moving after D had made sexual advances to her. D was convicted as the court held that the result was reasonably foreseeable and therefore didn’t break chain of causation. Whereas in Williams D jumping out of the car was found to break the chain of causation as his response to thinking he was being robbed was seen to be “daft” and unforeseeable. In this case, if Carla believed that she was about to be kidnapped or sexually assaulted, then jumping out of the car would be a reasonable foreseeable consequence of Amir’s actions and therefore would not break the chain of causation Finally there is a general principle, the thin skull rule, that you have to take your victim as you find him (Blaue) Therefore, the fact that Carla was easily frightened, which may have made her more likely to jump out of the car, would not affect the chain of causation as Amir would have to take her as he finds her. Therefore, Amir has caused the permanent damage to Carla’s wrist