People have a different view about defining an assault. However, the Queensland Criminal Code gives a different version of approach to this definition. Here it has been used to imply the act of touching, striking, moving and or, applying force to another person or an attempt to threaten the other person that also account to assault. Assault as opposed to striking has various defences that include accident, provocation and self-defence. It was until September 2014 that ‘striking’ introduced and inserted in the Queensland Criminal Code as ‘unlawful striking causing death.’
Section 1: s314A of “The Code” in Relation to s339
The other defences have been excluded in the new law, and therefore provocation is no difference. This is because the act
…show more content…
It is this point that brings about a clear demarcation between assault and striking. Currently, the law regarding accident requires that the accused individual raise evidence to proof the accident. On the other hand, the prosecutor should have disproved this beyond a reasonable doubt. He should show that the accused intended the event could have occurred, and he foresaw the possibility of the outcome. Therefore, this new law prevents individuals from trying to argue that although the strike was wilful and deliberate, the victim’s death was an …show more content…
The surrounding circumstances to the alleged fight and its degree are important for consideration as well. Following the remarks of Thomas J, jury should always perceive implied consent limits which sometimes acts like hair pulling, slap, and hand blows are limits at which this consents operate. If consent is absent, then that becomes the element of assault according to Justice Derrington . Consent to fight, therefore, nullifies consent to forceful application. For instance applying force even when the person is not in a position to defend him or herself. Alternatively, perhaps using a weapon is also outside the given consent. The cases of R v Van Den Bem and Kaporonowski v R event that lead to the death are the consequences of accused person that determines it . These events may lead criminal liability as the victim’s death. The victims consequence, therefore, is the acts consequence and not in itself the act. Where the case makes circumstances be lawful force as per s270, it makes the application of forceful law legal even if causes death to the other party and whether intentional or
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
The case of Graham v. Connor is about DeThorne Graham a diabetic that had an insulin reaction, and was pulled over and stopped by Officer Connor. The case is important because it has set the bar when it comes to other cases and the use of force and violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
Roper v. Simmons is a perfect example of the evolving role of the Supreme Court, the sources the Supreme Court used to reach the ruling in this case is quite questionable. While I agree with the Supreme Court about protecting the younger citizens of America the Supreme Court must have the law to back up their ruling. Though in this case they do not the Supreme Court used a combination of foreign policy, moral decency, and state laws as the legal foundation for this decision. None of these things are appropriate sources for deciding what is constitutional and what is not. The sources used for deciding the constitutionality of a case are the constitution and federal statues. While the case can be loosely tied in with the eighth amendment clause of “cruel and unusual punishment” there is no backing for the decision made. The Supreme Court with this case decided that it did not overturn the previous case of Stanford v. Kentucky, which ruled on this same issue fifteen years earlier. Yet the court stated that the prevailing moral code had altered therefore they changed their opinion. The truly shocking issue with this is that the neither law nor constitution had changed regarding this issue in the interceding fifteen years. The grave problem with this case is that the Supreme Court used the case of Roper V. Simmons to create law based of invalid sources.
On September 9th, 1993 at around two in the morning, 17 year old Christopher Simmons, 15 year old Charlie Benjamin and 16 year old John Tessmer met at the home of 29 year old Brian Moomey. Moomey drove the three teens to the house of 46 year old Shirley Crook. Tessmer refused to go with them and ended up going back to his house. Simmons and Benjamin went to the back of Shirley Crook’s house, found a window and cracked it open. When they reached though to unlock the back door and entered the house, Simmons turned on the hallway light. The light woke her and she yelled out, “Who’s there?” Simmons walked into her bedroom and told her to get out of bed and lay on the floor. They duct taped her mouth and eyes and wrapped an electrical cord around
Blackburn was candid that most of his clients were “in the (drug) life at some level” and many of them had prior arrests. For instance, Billy Wafer, was on probation for possession of marijuana at the time when he was accused of selling cocaine to Coleman. “I ain’t an angel but I’ve never sold drugs,” said Wafer. Wafer, unlike most of the other defendants, had his charges dropped because he had a rock solid alibi with time cards from his job. Also, his supervisor testified verifying he was at work when Coleman claimed he sold him cocaine.
The article “Is It Truly an Emergency? Missouri v. McNeely and Warrantless Blood Draws” discusses the constitutionality of warrantless blood draws in conjunction with automobile accidents that may or may not be the result of driving under the influence of alcohol. In Missouri v. McNeely the U.S. Supreme court approached the constitutional requirement that all searches must be conducted with probable cause within regards to the accident to support any arrest based on driving under the influence. The article reviews the case of Schmerber v. California as well in its critical overview of the implications of the Fourth Amendment
The 14th amendment gives people the right to life and liberty, therefore the Supreme Court made the wrong decision in Washington vs Glucksberg when they supported the states ban. This case has left many terminally ill patients suffering without the freedom to end their lives. Washington vs Glucksberg was a case where Dr Harold Glucksberg who was a physician brought in four patients, three of which were terminally ill. Dr Glucksberg argued Washington state 's ban on assisted suicide. This case is quite significant it stated that physician assisted suicide was a violation of the Due process law of the 14 th amendment. The due process clause states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
The crime of indecent assault and battery occurs when an attacker, has non-consensual physical contact with a person in a sexual manner. This could be any unwarranted physical contact to a person’s private body. This assault is punishable to up to five years in prison.
Assault is an intentional or reckless act that causes someone to put in fear of immediate physical harm, e.g. pointing a gun at the claimant by the defendant, the claimant need not know if the gun is real one. Assault must be intentional, direct and immediate. Battery is the intentional or reckless application of physical force to another person. While, false imprisonment is an unlawful restriction of the claimant’s freedom of movement by the defendant.
Dred Scott, an African American man who was born into slavery, wanted what all slaves would have wanted, their freedom. They were mistreated, neglected, and treated not as humans, but as property. In 1852, Dred Scott sued his current owner, Sanford, about him, no longer being a slave, but a free man (Oyez 1). In Article four of the Constitution, it states that any slave, who set foot in a free land, makes them a free man. This controversy led to the ruling of the state courts and in the end, came to the final word of the Supreme Court. Is he a slave or a free man?
This case was about a father by the name of Bob Latimer, this man had a daughter who was suffering with a disease called cerebral palsy. The disease was unfortunately entrenched with his daughter since her birth and was caused by brain damage. The disease made her immobile with the exception of the rare movements she showed through facial expressions or head movements. Twelve year old Tracey Latimer was in continuous pain every moment of her life and she was incapable of taking care of herself despite her age. She was bedridden and could not communicate with anyone in her family; she was more like a living corpse. Hoping only to better her condition, her family took her through several surgeries where some were successful but did not really benefit her in any way. Tracey had five to six seizures everyday and her condition would only get worse. All this was unbearable to her father Mr. Latimer like it would be to any loving father and it was then that he decided to end her pain and suffering. Latimer put Tracey into the cab of his truck and suffocated her. He did this by attaching a pipeline into the exhaust of the cab and this allowed carbon monoxide to enter the car which eventually leads to the painless death of his daughter. He was first convicted in 1994 of second degree murder with a life sentence term of 25 years and without parole for 10 years. Latimer then appealed his case to the Supreme Court and the previous decision was upheld. However, there was an error found in the procedure of the trial as some of the jury members were questioned on their beliefs in relation to the crime on the basis of religion, mercy killings, and etc. which then constituted the trial as unfair und...
suddenly jumps in front of her and drags her into an alley. The attacker strikes (A) and rips her clothes. Fortunately, (A) hits the attacker with a rock and runs to safety. The man’s actions do not amount to assault, they amount to a battery as he dragged the woman to an alley, stroke her, and ripped her clothes off with the intent of causing her harm. The acts of the woman are a measure of self-defense, and she cannot be held accountable for the infliction she may have induced to the man. If the man just followed her without having any physical contact with her, his actions would have constituted to assault, as he would inflict fear into the
In the case of R v Maloney (1985), the defendant and the Victim (stepfather of the defendant), were drunk when they decided to have a contest of who can load and fire a gun more quickly. The defendant shot the victim without aiming as the victim taunted the defendant to fire the gun. Lord Bridge held ‘Foresight of consequences as an element bearing on the issue of intention in murder... belongs, not to the substantive law but the law of evidence’ (Molan, 2001: 95), oblique intent here is held ...