Introduction
The purpose of this report is to examine the influences which affect unlawful reform in the United Kingdom (UK). ‘Unlawful Conduct is any conduct that is contrary to, or forbidden by law’ (Arthur, 2011).
Conduct may be considered unlawful in a number of ways. Unlawful conduct can range from dropping litter to actual bodily harm.
There are 2 categories which form unlawful conduct, and these are criminal and civil wrongs:
In civil law, a private person, otherwise known as the claimant, commences litigation. Usual remedies, upon conviction of a person’s litigation usually involves financial recompense, otherwise known by the defendant as ‘damages’. In order for litigation to be proved successful, depends on the claimant’s ability to provide a burden of proof. Moreover, the standard of proof is based upon a balance of probabilities, thus meaning the evidence must be greater than 50%, this is also known as the preponderance of evidence.
In criminal law, there is a wide scope of sanctions available to the state, ranging from community service to incarceration. The Crown Prosecution System (CPS), must provide a burden of proof on behalf of the state to prove the defendant guilty. In criminal proceedings the standard of proof, must be ‘Beyond Reasonable doubt’; there must be no doubt to whether a person is guilt or not.
To determine the fault in criminal law depends of establishing two elements. The Actus Reus, meaning ‘guilty act’; must be shown to prove the physical components of a crime. The second element, is the Mens Rea, meaning guilty mind proves the state of mind of the defendant. In order for criminal liability to be proved, both elements must be established.
In criminal wrongs, the house of lords has...
... middle of paper ...
...intend to directly cause harm to an individual, they may do so, if it is proven that the conduct of the crime was to inflict a harm. Moreover, there may be an Actus Reus of a legal wrong, more specifically the example of throwing a brick; it is not illegal to throw a brick, but should that brick hit someone and inflict harm, it may become a criminal act.
Word Count: 2039
Bibliography
The Open University (2011). Block 2 ‘legal personality’, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
The Open University (2011) ‘Reader 1’, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Web Content: Tony Nickleson Case, ‘A right to die?’ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-19341571 Last Accessed: 3 December 2013.
Web Content: Defamation Case ‘ Keith Smith v Williams [2006]’ http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw.aspx?EntryID=12855 Last Accessed: 3 December 2013.
Winship was convicted on a preponderance of evidence of stealing one-hundred and twelve dollars from a lavatory locker. The sentencing for Winship’s delinquent act was six years in a reformative setting. While the family court judge felt the level of proof needed to prove guilt was a preponderance of evidence, the supreme court felt higher level of proof was crucial. The United S...
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
R N Howie and P A Johnson, Annotated Criminal Legislation NSW, 2011-2102, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2012) 17769-1774
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,
In conclusion, as shown throughout this paper, evidence is needed to convince jurors to give a verdict of guilt or not guilt. Evidence comes in several forms such as physical evidence, substantial evidence. When evidence is presented, it acceptance in trial depends on relevant to the case to be admissible. “Relevance refers to any material fact or evidence having a tendency to make the existence of a matter at issue more probable than it would be without said fact (probative value)”(Britz, 2008, p. 344).
Subsequently, one of the main components of the procedural limitation is innocent until proven guilty, which brings about the right to a Grand Jury- a panel that determines whether or not there is a need to go to trial. As a result, a guilty verdict in criminal cases is determined with evidence that is sufficient and that must be proved “‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” (pg.131), so there is an immense need to increase the chances for the respect of “reasonable doubt” (pg.
These interests are violated by the intentional torts of assault, Battery, trespass, False Imprisonment, invasion of privacy, conversion, Misrepresentation, and Fraud. The intent element of these torts is satisfied when the tortfeasor acts with the desire to bring about harmful consequences and is substantially certain that such consequences will follow. Mere reckless behavior, sometimes called willful and wanton behavior, does not rise to the level of an intentional
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.
The “mens rea” of first degree murder is that the person, with time and intent, planned out or premeditated the murder. The “actus reas” of first degree murder is the actual act of committing the murder after planning it (Lippman, 2006).
There are a plethora of conditions that give rise to law reform, such as changing social values, new technology, and the failure of existing laws. Changing social values in our society is probably the most detrimental condition in regards to law reform due to the fact that society has a significant role in determining the laws that are actualized. If the preponderance of society does not believe in a law, or believes a law should be implemented, then the law will be amended to reflect the views of society. For example, before the notion of gay marriage came into consideration to become law in Australia, most people shunned the idea of making this a law as many believed it was unacceptable. In spite of this however, society’s values have significantly changed since then, resulting in the amendment of the law in New Zealand to suit these new values. Furthermore, another pivotal condition that gives rise to law reform is that o...
Tort are wrongs,these wrongs include an intentional punch,all torts involve conduct that falls below some legal standard.
Lippman, M. (2012). Contemporary Criminal Law Concepts, Cases and Controversies (3rd ed.). [Vitalsouce Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781452277660/5/3
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.
Where compensation takes the form of a monetary award, it adequately satisfies the plaintiff for any financial harm caused . For example...
Burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is standard of proof from the prosecutor, which must be surpassed to convict an accused.