on the Offences against the person act (OAPA) 1861. Many see the act as outdated and clumsy, its wording unclear and as being difficult to explain and prosecute under. The OAPA is used in 100,000 prosecutions every year. The Law Commission has attacked the OAPA for creating constant legal argument and delay because of unclear wording and wasting thousands of pounds in taxpayer's money in appeals. Both the Law Commission and the Government have looked at possible reforms for the act in order
Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 and Its Reforms 'It has been suggested by the Law Commission and others that section 18, 20 and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 should be repealed because they are unjust, ineffective, illogical and severely defective. In addition the offences, as they are defined, are incomprehensible to juries.' Explain and comment on these suggestions. In 1980 it was suggested by the Criminal Law revision Committee that the area of law concerning
“An Act to consolidate and amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to Offences against the Person.” [6th August 1861] (Legislation.gov.uk, 2016) The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is an act of parliament that is upheld in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The act defines how the law is implemented relating to ‘offences against the person’; in this instance meaning offences of violence. The act covers a variety of statues relating to different forms of violence ranging
The defendants must be advised according to the laws relating to the “Offences Against the Person Act 1861” (Hereinafter will be referred as OAPA 1861) and “Criminal Justice Act 1988” (Hereinafter will be referred as CJA 1998). In the given scenario, it is seen that Hamish is a friend of Callum. Callum asked for the compass from Hamesh. Hamesh hands it over and as Callum reaches to collect it, the needle of the compass pricks him(Callum) on the finger. It is mentioned that Callum suffers from haemophilia
It is clear from the facts it is a case of non-fatal offences against the person. They include assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm which is sometimes abbreviated as ABH, maliciously wounds or inflicts grievous bodily harm and the last one wounding or causing grievous bodily harm. We will start examining the most serious offences which are committed by Cyril then moving to the least serious offences which are committed by Moby. It is noted that for there to have liability both
What do you consider to be the Strengths and Weaknesses of the British Approach to the Regulation of Abortion? Abortion is a procedure carried out to terminate a pregnancy. In 1967, liberal Member of Parliament David Steel introduced the Abortion Act. This legally permitted abortion to be carried out by a medical practitioner in England, Scotland and Wales (Glennerster 2000). Since the implementation of this policy, numbers of abortion have gradually increased. In 2010 almost two hundred thousand
non-fatal offences is contained in the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (OAPA). The Offences Against the Persons Act 1861has been deemed unsatisfactory, and in 1998, the law commission issued a draft bill suggesting reforms to both structural and specific aspects of the offences. In the 1998 draft Bill, however, injury is defined as excluding “anything caused by disease”, except for the purposes of the offence of deliberately causing serious injury. The Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 was one
of hitting such a person. I volunteered, placing the apple on his head. H threw the dart but sudden gust of wind caused the dart to deviate from trajectory and hit I’s ear. I’s blood dripped onto I’s coat. The dart continued on to hit an electric cable, setting fire to a fete tent. SUGGESTED ANSWER In advising H of his criminal liability, the possible charges that can be brought against him are under the OFFENCES AGAINST PERSONS ACT 1861 for the injury caused against I, for criminal damage
accordance with s47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm ('ABH'). For conviction, prosecutors would demonstrate the actus reus and mens rea of ABH, in this case that Harry assaulted and caused the actual bodily harm to Rob and reckless or intended the assault. Lord Hope in R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45, stated that "prosecution does not follow automatically whenever an offence is believed to have been
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
A person who intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another shall be guilty of an offence. Consent to harm is not usually not a defence to a charge of assault causing harm under section 3 or causing serious harm under section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. However, consent to harm or serious harm may be a defence if the activity leading to that harm does not offend against public policy. If the consent is given to the risk of farm or serious harm with involves
Assault occasioning grievous bodily harm which the Section 20 OAPA 1861. According to the legislation of UK government, it states, “Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence or shall be liable… to imprisonment for not more than 5 years.“ In the definition, unlawful means that it offends the law or it is without consent or the defendant acted without lawful justification
Gross Negligence and Recklessness In imposing criminal liability for a failure to recognise the risks, obvious to a reasonable person, there are at least two factors: the level of risk involved The seriousness of the potential harm Only where the possible harm is more serious and the risk is more obvious, do we distinguish recklessness from carelessness and impose liability. In assessing this, other issues may come in: The social utility of the action Thus, the surgeon who performs
The Assault is defined as “where a defendant intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend the immediate unlawful violence” . The actus reus of assault is ‘where the defendant caused the victim to apprehend immediate violence’ . Logdon v DPP. In this case the Court held that assault had been committed as the victim had apprehended
and early 20th century had laws forbidding abortion. These laws were first adapted in 1861 from the Person Act in the UK, which was reformed in the UK in 1967. However, since then most states and territories have re-examined and reformed their laws on abortion in different ways.2 The current Queensland abortion laws are still almost identical to the Offences against the Persons Act introduced in England in 1861. In the early 1970’s Queensland, women had very limited access to abortion services due
of manslaughter under the Unlawful and Dangerous Act of Manslaughter. As prosecution the burden rests upon us and I shall see to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. Your Honour in order for a person to be found guilty under the Unlawful and Dangerous Act of Manslaughter, there is a such requirement that one must possess one of two factors. The first factor being Actus Reus, meaning ‘the guilty act’. It also falls upon there being a faliure to act. Your Honour, I make reference to the case of
The Term Recklessness and How It is Currently Applied to Offences in the English Law System In everyday language, Recklessness means to take an unjustified risk. However, its legal definition is not quite the same. To find out the meaning of Recklessness, careful direction is to be given to the jury. There are tow types of Recklessness, which were named after the cases they were defined in: R v Cunningham (1957), which is the Subjective version of Recklessness and MPC v Caldwell (1982)
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
Christine She is the principal of the offence, she stabs Victor when he was begging her not to hurt him. Her act is the most immediate cause of the actus reus of the offence. She is liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (Section 47 Offences Against the Person Act) and murder. Murder is a common law offence that requires proof that the defendant caused the death of the victim with the requisite mens rea. On the facts, there is no doubt that Chrisitne caused Victor's death. The mens rea
In the present case there are two possible prosecutions to discuss. Jerome may be guilty of ‘controlling or coercive behaviour’ under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. While Talia may be guilty of assault under section 20 or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861. The offence of controlling or coercive behaviour was created in 2015 after increasing political concern to strengthen the criminal law’s response to domestic abuse. In a report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate