When Elizabeth was “dropping large stones from a bridge onto the motorway”, she might has committed criminal damage under section 1(1) the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and is defined as follows:
“A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.”
The actus reus includes the terms “destroy”, “damage”, “property” and “belonging to another”, which Elizabeth has substantially done. Besides, it also includes “without lawful excuse”, which is provided under section 5(2) of the Act : (a) persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage o the property; or (b) in order to protect property and the means of protection would be reasonable. However, Elizabeth do not satisfied any lawful excuse. The men rea for this offence requires intention or recklessness of damaging or destroying the property. Elizabeth did not have a direct intention to damage or destroy the property, as her purpose was to “enliven her afternoon”. However, she might have caused the damage or destruction by recklessness. The recklessness was meant to connote foresight of consequence is apparent from the Law Commission’s Report, and is reinforced by the proposed definition of recklessness from Law Commission. Subjective test for recklessness is used in this case, which defined in Cunningham (1957). She would not commit an offence of criminal damage unless she subjectively reckless as to the risk of damaging the road.
If she has foreseen the risk and decided to take it, she has committed the offence. Subsequently, it would be the question tha...
... middle of paper ...
...ss he did not breached his duty of care.
Furthermore, Helen, who is Fred’s ex-wife, might be charged for murder, under the common law offence. The actus reus for murder is the act or unlawful omission caused death. The mens rea requires intention (malice aforethought) only. She has the intention to kill Fred by switching off the life-support machine, as she sneaked into the hospital overnight, and Fred died as a result. She would be charged for murder unless she has sufficient defence, for instance, loss of self-control and one of the statutory qualifying triggers is satisfied , and suffering from diminished responsibility , where it would reduced her offence from murder to manslaughter. However, there is no certain answer for whether it would be criminal liability to kill a person if he is in a hopeless condition and kept alive inly by an apparatus of some kind.
This language made is favorable for the jury to consider Dr. Ricketson’s negligence as not foreseeable. The rule for the NIED claim relates to “the alleged actual injury is for psychological distress alone,” and NIED claim achieves compensation for “persons who have sustained emotional injuries attributable to the wrongful conduct of others.” (Iturralde, 2013) Which would apply to Rosalinda because she was Aurturo’s caregiver.
In the Model Penal Code, section 2.01 discussed are the requirements of voluntary act; Omission as Basis of Liability; and Possesion as an Act. Mainly focusing on the “Voluntary” and “Involunatary” sections, first, stated is that “A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable. Secondly, stated are acts that are not voluntary wihin the meaning of this section following as, “A reflex or convulsion; a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep; conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion; and a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.” These requirements correspond with the Latin term “Actus Reus” which is a term used to describe a criminal act. Actus Reus is the wrongful dead that compromises the physical components of a crime. There is a fundamental principle stated in the case textbook that criminal liability always entails an “Actus Reus”, that is, “the commission of some voluntary act that is prohibited by law.”
The appellant, Jesse Mamo, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the respondent, Steven Surace. Whilst the respondent looked down to adjust the radio, a cow wandered on to the road, colliding with the vehicle . The appellant alleged that the respondent failed to use high beam or maintain a proper lookout. The respondent denied liability and pleaded contributory negligence. At trial, the Judge held that breach of duty of care had not transpired, as it was an unforeseeable risk causing an unavoidable accident, as the cow appeared too close to react. The Judge argued that the respondent acted appropriately toward ‘foreseeable risks”, which the cow was not part of.
In order to be convicted on a criminal charge, proof is required of three things; actus reus, mens rea and causation. The accused must have the criminal state of mind relevant to the crime he is accused of. Intention is a far more blameworthy aspect than recklessness,
Most young offenders get into trouble with the law only once. But the younger children are when they first break the law, the more likely they are to break the law again (Statistics Canada study, 2005). The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) attempts to acknowledge that different youth need different sentences within the justice system, while ensuring that it is fair and equitable for them. Many people, both in Canada, and around the world, believe that youth are not reprimanded harshly enough for the crimes they commit and that they are, in general, are able to squeeze through the justice system without punishment. Others, believe that the justice system does not treat youth fairly and punishes them without acknowledging that rehabilitation
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
It is considered to be a deliberate act on the defendant’s part to cause the harm that occurs. In my opinion the, this was not intentional. McDonald was not wilful in trying to harm Liebeck. Intentionally trying to hurt Liebeck would mean loss of revenue and reputation for McDonald and I firmly believe that is a risk they were not willing to take hence, why it is not intentional tort case. Also, to act with intent would mean to see someone coming and hurting them in the process. This was not the case for Liebeck, she bought the coffee and went back to the car and then the coffee
Only an act that is defined by the validly passed laws of the nation state in which it occurred so that punishment should follow from the behaviour
However, she would have been aware of a high probability of serious injury or death and therefore was found guilty of oblique intention. In this case causing harm was not intended but resulted.
The subjective definition of recklessness is where the defendant takes an unjustified risk and was actually aware of the consequence, has been seen here to be the best approach when understanding reckless behaviour. Although within criminal law, the term recklessness has a second definition which is known to be objective recklessness. The objective definition argues that a person is reckless when the defendants take an unjustified risk and was actually aware or should have been aware. This essay establishes that the subjective definition of recklessness takes into account the individuals characteristics, the mental state of a defendant but also help to understand certain cases like rape. It has also been established here that elements of the objective definition is an extension from the subjective definition of recklessness, which therefore allows the subjective side holds greater weight and in terms of looking at if the reasonable man may have be incapable of foreseeing a consequence. Thus, it has been argued here that the subjective definition of recklessness in criminal law must be maintained.
An example of a general intent offense is robbery, which means taking something from someone by force, or by the threat of bodily physical harm. Some people may term theft as a specific intent crime. However, the purpose of the act depends on the law, either the intent was to completely deprive the owner of the object stolen, or force the victim to give up on the property. Pg.
To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.
The intentional or accidental release of a hazardous material is responsible for major injury or fatality
2.4.3. Previous criminal convictions The other important matter included in the individual’s conduct concept is the element of the previous criminal convictions of the individual concerned. Under the CDR, these convictions shall not ‘in themselves’ constitute justification for expulsion or exclusion on grounds of public policy or public security.
A crime consists of an actus reus and a mens rea, in order to obtain a conviction of a criminal charge there must be a concurrence between the actus reus and mens rea. The elements of a criminal act (actus reus) are: act, cause, social harm or omission condemned under a criminal statute (Lippman, 2012). The elements of mens rea: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently (Lippman, 2012). Attempted murder is the failed attempt to kill another human being deliberately, intentionally or recklessly (USLegal, 2014). “Georgia Code Title 16, Section 16-4-1: A person commits the offense of criminal attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he performs any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime. Section 16-4-2: A person may be convicted of the offense of criminal attempt if the crime attempted was actually committed in pursuance of the attempt but may not be convicted of both the criminal attempt and the completed crime….” (Young, 2014, para. 1-2).