Tort And Criminal Law: R V. Buswell

1765 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Criminal justice strict liability offenses

In both tort and criminal law, strict liability exists when a defendant is in legal jeopardy by virtue of an wrongful act, without any accompanying intent or mental state. In criminal law, possession crimes and statutory rape are both examples of strict liability offences.
Strict liability crimes are those in which the defendant is held liable for a criminal offense he committed, even if mens rea is absent. Though the defendant did not intend any harm by his actions and was completely unaware that he was committing an illegal act, the doctrine of strict liability holds him liable for the criminal offenses committed. Strict liability offences are minor in nature, e.g. speeding. For these offences it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove …show more content…

Instan The accused lived with her aunt who was aged 73 years. The sunt suffered from a disease, last ten days of her life she had not been supplied with food or medication by the accused that added to the early death. The accused was convicted with manslaughter. The accused was under a moral obligation to the deceased from which aroused a legal duty towards her, that legal duty the prisoner has willfully and deliberately left unperformed.
In R v Buswell [1972]
Buswell concerned the possession of drugs. The drugs had been medically prescribed by his doctor. He thought his mother had destroyed them when washing his jeans. They were discovered in his room by the police. Finding him not guilty, the Court of Appeal held that they continued to be in his lawful possession, even though he thought they had been destroyed

In Harrow London Borough Council v. Shah (1999) the offence of selling National Lottery tickets to a person under the age of 16 was found to be an offence of strict liability. The Divisional Court justified this by stating that the legislation dealt with an issue of social concern. These crimes overlap with regulatory offences in subject area but, unlike regulatory offences, may carry severe maximum penalties. Despite such higher penalties, strict liability is seen to be a necessary provision given the need to promote very high standards of care in areas of possible

Show More
Related

  • R V Caslake Case Summary

    564 Words  | 2 Pages

    The defence argued that because the detention was unlawful, any arrest or search that flows from the detention should be regarded and was similarly unlawful. The Crown referred to common law power of arrest and search. As of R.v,Caslake’s case, it clearly stated that in the situation of an arrest, it is generally permitted that upon lawful arrest, police have the power to search a person for officer safety reason as well where there is “some reasonable prospect of securing evidence of the offence for which the accused is being arrested” and to secure that evidence. However, in the situation of Mr.Nanokeesic’s detention it is considered to be unlawful. The police did not have grounds to suspect that Mr.Nankeesic had provided a false name to them, as well, the fact that Mr.Nanokeesic ran

    Read More

  • Montague V. Amn Health Care Case Summary

    601 Words  | 2 Pages

    Vicarious liability assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular relationship to the person who did

    Read More

  • The Case Of Billy Wafer V. Coleman's Case

    889 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Parson Case Study

    860 Words  | 2 Pages

    Registered Nurse Pausits, a defendant out of the many involved with Parson’s case, has failed to provide Randy Parson with the correct prescription drug during his stay at Standish. The Plaintiff wanted to prove that she unsuccessfully administered medication to Randy Parsons and that a reasonable jury can conclude the fact Pausits was aware of the risks to Parsons. The court has reversed the grant of summary judgment to Nurse Pausits, because this case would rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff Parsons revealed that Pausits perceived facts to infer substantial risk to Randy Parsons and drew the inference. She had to state she was aware, which she did, of a substantial risk. Evidence has shown that Nurse Pausits could have gotten Dilantian for Randy Parson if she viewed the situation as an emergency. Pausit’s case has discovered confirmation that she administered 100mg of Dilantin to Randy Parsons August 27, at 6:00 p.m. However, in Randy’s toxicology report, no Dilantin was shown in his body for 3 days before his death, which was August 28. Wellbutrin was shown in Randy’s body instead of Dilantin, which is a form of an anti-depressant that helps people suffering from seizures and can prevent causing a seizure. Displayed that Pausits signed Randy’s Medication Administration Record (MAR), when the prison log showed that Registered Nurse Alexander performed the medication August 27, raises a red flag as to who performed the medication and what prescription was given. The Plaintiff provided enough evidence towards Pausits in that she has unsuccessfully administered the medication to Randy and that Pausits was aware of a substantial risk to Randy Parsons. Because of this, a jury can place more significance on the t...

    Read More

  • Essay On Gross Negligence Manslaughter

    1402 Words  | 3 Pages

    Gross negligence murder has been alluded as an automatic homicide, in which the defendant has no aims to enjoy a wrongdoing. The defendant is past all sensible uncertainty the reason for the passing; in any case, he neither expects to bring about physical damage or demise to anybody nor any grim plans to execute an individual. This mirrors that the defendant is said to not have the expectation for homicide. In legitimate terms, the defendant has no proposition of homicide. Gross negligence homicide has four crucial components, which are recorded as underneath:

    Read More

  • The Case Of DPP V Carr

    1850 Words  | 4 Pages

    The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.

    Read More

  • The Purpose of Tort Law in the Irish Legal System

    2424 Words  | 5 Pages

    In this essay I will endeavour to outline what the intended purpose of tort law is in the Irish legal system and how it has come about over centuries. I will include a brief outline of the meaning of tort law and the different kinds of Tort, I will also include a brief summary of the sister laws of tort, that being criminal and contract law.

    Read More

  • Litigation of R. v. Buhay

    1197 Words  | 3 Pages

    The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.

    Read More

  • Tort Case Study In Common Law

    982 Words  | 2 Pages

    Tort, one of the crucial subjects of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, is an action which causes another person or party to suffer harm or loss []. The person who has committed a tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Although crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes [] simply because a tort may not have broken a law. In fact, one must understand that the key idea of tort is not to punish the tortfeasor(s) but rather to compensate the victim(s).

    Read More

  • Responsibility in The Legal Environment of Business

    746 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...as charged for selling to an police officer while on duty. The clerk had no idea that the police officer was still on duty because the officer had taken off his arm-band. The author stated, the offense of strict liability is not intentionally. Which is true how can someone be held accountable for other people actions if they had no idea what is going on. People are not mind readers and people should be held accountable for their own actions.

    Read More

  • Criminal Law: Actus Reus

    1144 Words  | 3 Pages

    With the rapid increase in crime rates, the defendants must act recklessly or intentionally to be held guilty. Crimes can be classified into two types of intents; general, and specific intent.

    Read More

  • Tort Of Negligence Case Study

    789 Words  | 2 Pages

    When something goes wrong, law will step in, in a case no one is directly at fault, otherwise negligible, one may be able to seek appropriate remedies. Negligence, A failure to act with the level of care that would be expected to do a task. There are three elements of negligence. (Lawhandbook.sa.gov.au, 2017)

    Read More

  • Automatism, Insanity and Diminished Responsibility

    1568 Words  | 4 Pages

    A defence in criminal law arises when conditions exist to negate specific elements of the crime: the actus reus when actions are involuntary, the mens rea when the defendant is unaware of the significance of their conduct, or both. These defences will mitigate or eliminate liability from a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of said defences. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application.

    Read More

  • An Omission

    409 Words  | 1 Pages

    A practical example of this is demonstrated in the case of R v Lowe. Whereby the parents failed to call the doctor. when their child fell ill. The special relationship between the child and the father made the father criminally liable where he failed to act. under his duty of care.

    Read More

  • Compulsion Case Study

    2046 Words  | 5 Pages

    The principles of necessity and compulsion are often used as a defense for murder or other crimes. It is, however, apparent that the application of these principles within the laws and the application of South Africa and England differ as the underlying principles remain the same. I will be analyzing cases from both countries that have used necessity and compulsion as a defence and make recommendations of how this principle is used as an excuse to criminal liability in certain circumstances with regards to the laws of each country.

    Read More

More about Tort And Criminal Law: R V. Buswell

Open Document