There are many pertinent issues that have been pointed out in this scenario, which could be regarded as liability in Criminal Damage and Offenses against person. On the whole the whole scenario pertains to the improper actions by Malik and his failure to act. In summary these issues are:
• Has Malik Acted recklessly?
• Did Malik omit to fulfill the Duty Imposed by law ?
• Has Malik intended to cause GBH/ Wound?
• Has Malik caused GBH?
Has Malik acted recklessly?
In order to establish criminal liability a thorough analysis has to be made to the scenario so as to find the Actus reus and Mens Rea. Actus Reus is a guilty act whereas Mens Rea is a guilty state of mind. A point of actus reus can be found since flicking a cigarette is a guilty
…show more content…
Taking into the consideration the case of RVG , here Malik left without trying to put off the fire. It is important to point out whether or not Malik was the cause of the fire. Applying the ''but for test'', ''but for'' Maliks act, would the result have occurred? The answer is no. Therefore Malik may be liable.
However people who are responsible for creating dangerous situations are under a duty to end that danger when they become aware of it. The question to be asked is that whether Malik's omission caused the harm? Applying the case of R V Miller , here Malik has failed to take any steps which was within his power to extinguish the fire and his omission has given rise to a chain of events, the fire spread to the club, endangering many lives.
Taking the Criminal Damage Act into consideration, Malik may be liable under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act for destroy the property which belong to another person. He may also be charged for arson within section 1(3) of the Criminal Damage Act for having committed an offense by destroying property by fire. Applying the case of R v Caldwell , here It can also be seen that his abdication of taking reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of other has ended into endangering many lives.
Therefore he may be liable under section 1 (2) (b) of the Criminal Damage Act
…show more content…
In order to establish Grievous Bodily Harm, a clear distinction should be made between the actus reus and mens rea in the aforementioned issue.Where on one hand the actus reus is GBH/ Wound, on the other hand the Mens Rea is intention to cause GBH. However to apply intention there has to be a high degree of fault.
Applying the case of DPP V Smith ,Malik as a reasonable person should have pondered upon the possible harm that could have occurred.It can be seen that Malik deliberately lunged the broken bottle at Gavin which caused the latter bodily harm. Further applying the case of R V Mohan , it can be observed that a direct intent was contemplated on Malik's part to cause such a bodily harm. Thus Malik may be liable under the Section 18 of the Offenses Against Person Act 1961 for having wounded Gavin through the bottle which sliced deep into his cheek.Also Malik tried to resist arrest by assaulting Gavin since the latter said that he was calling the police.
From the aforementioned liabilities it can be perceived that Malik has caused many offenses and criminal acts where he had a guilty mind and committed guilty actions.He can be liable for many of his actions as discussed above. Thus it is on the Jury discretion to decide the
A series of events unfolded when George, running late for class, parked his car on a steep section on Arbutus drive and failed to remember to set the parking brake. The outcome of not remembering to set the parking brake caused many issues resulting in scrapping a Prius, breaking through fencing, people on the train sustaining injuries, and finally a truck that jack-knifed and caused a 42-car pileup. Could the parties that were injured, from George’s actions, be recovered from under the negligence theory? To understand if George is negligent, it is best to look at the legal issue, the required elements of negligence, the definition and explanation of each element of the case, and finally to draw a conclusion to determine if George is negligent.
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
In the Worcester Cold Storage fire the defendants were initially charged with six counts each of involuntary manslaughter. However the Superior Court dismissed the incitements because the court declared that the defendants did not have a duty to act (report the fire) and that their actions did not satisfy the standard of wanton and reckless conduct required for a manslaughter charge. However, in the appeal the commonwealth presented evidence that the defendants did have a duty to act and their behavior at the time of and after the fire shows a pattern of wanton and reckless behavior.
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,
1 Introduction On Tuesday 25 October, 2015, it was reported that a Sherriff’s Deputy (hereon known as ‘Deputy’) shot and killed a 13-year-old boy named Andy Lopez (hereon known as ‘Lopez’). To hold the Deputy criminally liable for this crime, the state would need to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he committed an unlawful and voluntary act, while simultaneously possessing the necessary criminal capacity and fault (also known as mens rea). The following essay shall assess the Deputy’s criminal liability and consider whether the Deputy has any defence, focusing particularly on the elements of the crime called unlawfulness and fault and expanding into negligence and intent.
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from harassment act. The essay commences with a brief description of assault, battery and false imprisonment. It goes further advising the concerned parties on the right to claim they have in tort law and the development of the law over the years, with the aid of case law, principles and statutes.
On February 24, 1992, the appellant, Mike Chan-Fook was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The appellant denied that any physical harm was received by the victim. The victim had jumped out of the window as an attempt to escape but had received injuries. It was argued that the victim’s mental state was altered by fear and panic due to the appellant’s actions towards him. This led the victim to jump out of the window and receive a fractured wrist and a dislocated hipbone.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
Causation: The act must have been the cause of the harm expressed in the crime (injury). In criminal law, the actus rea “an action” which the specific injury or effect is combined with mens rea “state of mind” to comprise the elements of guilt. An example of this is a person speeding in a work zone striking and injuring several workers.
The establishment of the Subjective definition of recklessness was through the case of Cunningham. In R v Cunningham D broke a gas metre to steal money contained within the metre, leading to a gas leak which caused D’s mother in law to become seriously ill. The subjective definition was developed here as D had been reckless as he had realised there was a risk of gas escaping and endangering someone, and went ahead with his action anyway. Therefore, demonstrating the subjective definition that a defendant to be guilty under Cunningham recklessness they must ...
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.
There is no criminal element of ‘motive' for any given crime. Intent can be reckless disregard of the law potentially violated or a specific mental purpose to have the crime take place.[5] Mens rea is synonymous with a person's blameworthiness or those conditions that make a person's violation sufficiently blameworthy to merit the condemnation of criminal conviction. The phrase includes all criminal law doctrines of blameworthiness, mental requirements of an offense, as well as excuse defenses such as insanity, immaturity, and duress, to name a few. Actus reusThere has to have been an act in order for a crime to be committed.
Criminal conduct is made up of two aspects mens rea and actus rea. When it comes to committing a crime, a person’s intent and the act they took to violate the law is important. In this essay I will be looking at the way actus rea and mens rea affect criminal prosecution and criminal liability. There are three aspects of a crime (1) the criminal act, which is also known as actus reus, (2) a culpable mental state or mens rea, and (3) a concurrence of the two. The criminal act or actus reus literally translates to “a guilty act” or a violation of the law.
In our given scenario we are asked to discuss legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in the grounds of negligence. Steve’s negligent driving caused a series of events that caused losses to the other people presented in the scenario and they take actions against Steve in the grounds of negligence. At first we must understand what negligence is. The tort of negligence provides the potenti...