June 2014 – Q1 - Feedback Assault, S.47, S.20, self- defence.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Criminal Law Basics Dr Peter Jepson. Woolmington v DPP (1935) The Crown must prove - beyond all reasonable doubt - that the defendant has the fulfilled.
Advertisements

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
Non Fatal Offences Against the Person
Topic 8 Trespass to the person test Topic 8 Trespass to the person test.
Non Fatal Key Issues.
Non Fatal - GBH Non Fatal Offences Against the Person © The Law Bank Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Non Fatal Offences – s.20 OAPA 1861 Wounding.
Non Fatal - ABH Non Fatal Offences Against the Person © The Law Bank Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Non Fatal Offences – s.47 Offences Against the.
Defences Alibi Best defence possible Best defence possible Proof that the accused could not have possibly committed the offence Proof that the accused.
CHAPTER 2: CRIME Area of Study 2: Criminal Law. The need for criminal law Read The need for criminal law, Definition of a crime, Elements of a crime,
Burglary. Lesson Objectives I will be able to state the definition of burglary I will be able to explain the actus reus and mens rea of burglary under.
Other offences under the Theft Act 1968 In this lecture, we will consider the offences of: Robbery; Burglary; Blackmail.
Topic 5 Non-fatal offences test. Topic 5 Non-fatal offences test Question 1 What is common assault?
Assault, Wounding and related offences By: Ricardo & Lydia.
Offences against the person
SELF- DEFENSE SAAD ALAIYADHI. FIRST RLS SECOND RLS.
Topic 4 Involuntary manslaughter. Topic 4 Actus reus Involuntary manslaughter has the same actus reus as murder (unlawful killing) but a different mens.
Offences against the person. The offences we will be covering are:  Assault  Battery  Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)  Grievous Bodily Harm and Wounding.
Public and private defences ‘Self-defence’ By Dr Peter Jepson Prior to the delivery of this PowerPoint … Read and precis pages of 'OCR Criminal.
Defences 1 In this lecture, we will: Consider the defences of: Consent Self defence Prevention of crime Explore the concept of reasonable force.
Duress by threats and duress by circumstance.  D is forced to perform the criminal act by someone else  Two types: Duress by threats and duress by circumstances.
Chapter 8: Defences. What is a defence? A lawful excuse for committing an offence. Evidence that you lacked the mens rea or that you lacked the actus.
 The list of excuses to absolve oneself of criminal responsibility.  For example: "I was framed," "The devil made me do it," "I didn't know it was a.
Defences Self-defence/Prevention of Crime. Lesson Objectives I will be able to state the definition of the defence of self-defence/prevention of crime.
Topic 7 Self-defence. Topic 7 Self-defence Introduction There are three situations where the use of force may be justified: Self-defence: this is a common-law.
Fatal Offences – Voluntary Manslaughter – Loss of Control.
Topic 5 Non-fatal offences. Topic 5 Assault Non-fatal offences: assault.
The Law Governing the Use of Force. The Use of Force The use of force on another is unlawful unless it is justified Justification requires a showing that.
Non-fatal offences against the person
LAW OF TORTS QUESTION ONE (a)State the difference between intentional and unintentional tort. Illustrate your answer with examples. (b)Explain briefly.
Defences Self-defence – Prevention of crime. Lesson objectives I will be able to state the definition of the defence of self-defence/prevention of crime.
S.20 Grievous Bodily Harm. General S.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Definition - “Unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily.
Mrs Howe Criminal Damage Criminal Law A2. Mrs Howe Criminal Damage Act 1971 Four Offences:- Four Offences:- Basic offence of criminal damage Basic offence.
Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person Assault and Battery.
Underlying principles of criminal liability
CHAPTER 9 – CRIMES AGAINST PERSON. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE  Malice – having the intent to kill or seriously harm another person or acting in an extremely reckless.
Criminal Damage. Lesson Objectives I will be able to state the definitions of the 3 types of criminal damage I will be able to explain the actus reus.
Assault and Battery. 2 separate offences One can be committed without the other Together they are called “common assault” Both common law offences But.
Exam Technique As you work through each offence use the following structure: I dentify – the appropriate offence/defence D efine – the offence/defence.
Grade Boundaries A* = 22/25 – 86% A = 20/25 – 79% B = 18/25 – 71% C = 16/25 – 64% D = 14/25 – 56% E = 12.5/25 – 50% Difference between each grade is only.
Actus Reus What is Actus Reus? - The act of the defendant.
S.47 – Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. General S.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment Need an assault.
Battery. Battery – Actus Reus Ireland; Burstow – AR = Application of unlawful physical force to another.
If so which one?. Raising a fist behind a person’s back as if to strike them but changing your mind.
Application Question Q3 – Discuss the criminal liability of Kai with respect to the incident with the digger (you should ignore the brain damage.
S.47 – Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. General S.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm Maximum sentence.
Non fatal offences against the person. Assaults There are four types of assaults to consider. What a particular defendant will be charged with will depend.
Ss20 and 18  Offences Against the Person Act 1861  The most grave of the non-fatal offences  s20 is a triable either way offence  s18 is indictable.
Criminal Liability Application Question June 2012.
Intentional Torts Chapter 19. Types of Damages Compensatory Damages- money awarded to compensate for monetary loss and pain and suffering Nominal Damages-
Violent Crimes.  Offences against the Person and Reputation- Part VIII of the Criminal Code  Violent in nature and cause harm to the human body  Also:
Offences Against The Person Act 1861 & Common Law Non Fatal Offences Against the Person.
Offences against the person. outline Covers 5 offences 1.Assault 2.Battery 3.Section 47 ABH 4.Section 20 gbh 5.Section 18 GBH with intent.
Battery Actus Reus - Ireland – AR = Application of unlawful physical force to another.
January 2013 Application Questions. Vlad was driving his car, which was fitted with foreign registration plates. He was lost and drove down a dead-end.
Non-Fatal Offences Evaluation
Additional Slides: Criminal Law
S.20 Grievous Bodily Harm.
Principles of criminal liability
Assault Definition - Ireland – D intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. Summary only offence. Maximum.
Necessity defence of self defence
Assault Learning Objectives Define Assault
June 2013 Application Questions
Evaluation of Self-Defence
Self Defence/Prevention of a Crime
Non fatal offences against the person
S.18 Wounding with Intent.
Blackmail.
Principles of criminal liability
Ireland Constanza Lamb Tuberville v Savage DPP v K Cunningham.
S.18 Wounding or GBH with Intent
Presentation transcript:

June 2014 – Q1 - Feedback Assault, S.47, S.20, self- defence

Grade Boundaries A* = 22/25 – 86% A = 20/25 – 79% B = 18/25 – 71% C = 16/25 – 64% D = 14/25 – 56% E = 12.5/25 – 50% Difference between each grade is only 2 marks

Potential Contents 1.Assault AND Self-Defence – Only one limits to weak clear 2.S.47 AND S.20 and/or S.18 – Only one limits to weak clear

2 potential contents 25 – 2 S 23 – 1S, 1C 20 – 1S, 1 some / 2C 17 – 1S / 1C, 1 some 13 – 1C / 2 some / 2S explanation only 11 – 1S explanation only / 2C explanation only 8 – 1 some / 1C explanation only / 2 some explanation only 6 – 1 some explanation only

Assault – Common Mistakes Too many people rushed through the AR part Some people thought the MR was about whether Beck intended to send the text or whether he intended to go to the cinema

Assault First define the offence - Ireland; Burstow – D intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence 5 parts to the AR: – Act – Cause – Apprehend – Immediate – Unlawful violence

Assault - AR 1. An Act Constanza – Words alone are enough for an assault – D stalked V and content of letters was an assault as V read them as threats – therefore other written communications like s and texts can also constitute assault Apply to facts of scenario 2. Cause Usual rules of causation apply – but no issues in this question, too many people spent far too long on this. Explain in 1 sentence and move on 3. Apprehend Longdon v DPP – V’s perception rather than D’s intention is important Apply to facts of scenario 4. Immediate Quite a wide interpretation of this - Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station - immediate does not need to be instantaneous Apply to facts – 20 minutes – but still fearful throughout 5. Unlawful Violence Force apprehended can be a mere touch, provided it is unwanted Must be unlawful – usually due to lack of consent Apply to facts

Assault - MR Matches the AR Savage: – Intention to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence; or – Recklessness as to whether the victim apprehends unlawful and immediate violence Not relevant whether B intended to go to the cinema only whether he intended to make A apprehend that he would Not about whether B intended to send the text – whether he intended the text to make A apprehend immediate unlawful violence

Answering Questions on Assault 1.Was there an act? What was it? 2.Did the act: – Cause (normal causation rules) – V to apprehend – Immediate – Violence/force? 3.Was there intention or recklessness to cause V to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence

S.47 – Common mistakes Lack of case law Being unclear about the “assault occasioning…” Wasting time on causation – no issues, simple sentence and move on MR – saying that A needed MR to the harm – it is only MR for the battery

S.47 – AR 3 parts: 1. Assault: Must be an assault or battery In this case battery – application of unlawful force 2. Occasioning: Causation – the assault or battery must occasion the harm No issues in this case – punch caused injuries – simple sentence and move on 3. Actual Bodily harm: Must be some form of physical or psychological injury caused to V Miller – “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim” but must be more than “transient or trifling” Chan Fook – harm must be more than trivial Apply to the facts – bruising, unconsciousness, loss of hearing – all injuries at least more than trivial and therefore ABH

S.47 - MR Savage - only need mens rea for the assault or battery D does not need to intend or be reckless as to any harm Venna – MR for battery = Intent or subjective recklessness to apply force to another

S.20/S.18 - AR Once S.47 is established, need to consider whether injuries are sufficient for S.20/S.18 Definition - “Unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument” In this case we would consider GBH Saunders – serious harm Unconsciousness, unless prolonged, not sufficient for GBH. Bruising more likely to be ABH. Hearing loss, especially if permanent, could be GBH Brown and Stratton – If V suffers minor injuries which, taken as a whole amount to serious harm, this will constitute GBH despite the fat that the injuries viewed separately would not be GBH In this case there are a combination of injuries so could be GBH

S.20/S.18 - MR S.20: – Cunningham - D must intend to inflict the harm or be subjectively reckless as to whether such harm will occur – Mowatt - Only need MR for some harm, not serious harm (do not need MR for the wound or GBH) – In this case, it would seem that A did intend to cause some harm S.18: – “With intent to do some grievous bodily harm” – Need intent, recklessness not enough – Saunders – D must intend serious harm (compared to some harm in S.20) – In this case, it was a “powerful blow” but only 1 blow, A was suffering from fear and panic – might have prevented him from forming the necessary intention for S.18

Self-Defence – Common Errors Not using Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Not using enough case law Saying it was a partial defence or that it would reduce sentence – total defence if successful

Self Defence Common law but restated in Criminal Justice and Immigration Act A person can use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances if he is: – Defending himself or his property against an actual or imminent attack; or – Defending another against such an attack

Self-Defence - Requirements 1.Necessity: It will be seen to be necessary if it is seen to be so in the circumstances which exist or which D genuinely believed existed (subjective) Gladstone Williams –defence will apply if based on what D genuinely believed was happening In this case, he was mistaken about who was chasing him, but his mistake was genuine Defence comes into operation even if attack has not yet taken place providing it is imminent D can get in with the first blow – Bird - D does not have to wait for an attack to start but can get in the first blow So in this case, it doesn’t matter that A struck C first as long as he believed the attack from C was imminent

Self- Defence – Requirements 2. Reasonableness Jury must decide whether, in all the circumstances, the D used reasonable force Palmer - Must recognise that a person defending themselves “cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action” Was it excessive force like in Clegg or Martin? S.76(6) – the degree of force used by D not to be considered as reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances S.76(7) – guidance as to whether degree of force used was reasonable in the circumstances: – A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and – Evidence of D having only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable force was taken In this case, A had fear of gang violence, there was an apparent chase (as far as A was concerned), he only struck C once without using a weapon – good case for self-defence