s47 crime or is that too minor?

If you were blinded in one eye because you had a stone thrown at you, would the accused be charged with a s47 crime? or is that too minor and it should be a
s20/18. I am talking about the non fatal offences against the person act, just incase it asks. Please give the reasons for your decisions :smile:

also, which court would the defendant be tried in?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 1

ahnaf.c

s18/20 are more severe than s47, not minor as you pointed out. blinding an eye would be s18/20, because its very serious harm (since broken bones are considered gbh). s18 or 20 would depend on existence/absence of ulterior intent.

Reply 2

sweetgyal24

Original post by ahnaf.c

hey, I know s20 and 18 are more serious then s47. I probably shouldn't have put them in the same sentence lol. So it's either s18/20 then? :smile:

existence of ulterior intent? :confused:

what do you mean by this?

I'm doing LLB law and I'm in first year. I did alevel Law. Are you doing Law at uni? :smile:

Reply 3

ahnaf.c

Original post by sweetgyal24

hey, I know s20 and 18 are more serious then s47. I probably shouldn't have put them in the same sentence lol. So it's either s18/20 then? :smile:

existence of ulterior intent? :confused:

what do you mean by this?

I'm doing LLB law and I'm in first year. I did alevel Law. Are you doing Law at uni? :smile:

sorry if this reply is coming late! was packing for home - end of term woohooo! lol
yes, im a first year LLB student at the LSE. I also did A-Level Law (for which im stigmatised constantly).

It will be a s18 offence if the thrower of the stone intended to cause serious harm. intention is crucial for s18. that is what i meant by ulterior intent. Although the words 'cause' and 'inflict' created some confusion, its not really relevant here. So depends on the facts of the case. For s20, as long as the defendant had foreseen some harm may be caused by his action (throwing the stone) the mens rea will suffice. actus reus is the same for both.

hope it helps!

Reply 4

sweetgyal24

Original post by ahnaf.c

lucky you! I still have a week to go!! I don't know why some people have issues with alevel law students :frown:

not being mean, but we seem to understand more of criminal law then the people who didn't do law at alevel don't you agree with me? :biggrin:

I'm at Westminster :smile:

I guess it would be a s20 offence then, because the defendant had thrown a stone at his girlfriend intending to "frighten" her. It would also be an assault wouln't it? But instead it hits someone else- a shopper. That would be transferred malice as well? ohh ok. Thanks for your help!

Reply 5

ahnaf.c

Original post by sweetgyal24

lucky you! I still have a week to go!! I don't know why some people have issues with alevel law students :frown:

not being mean, but we seem to understand more of criminal law then the people who didn't do law at alevel don't you agree with me? :biggrin:

I'm at Westminster :smile:

Im probably the only student at lse this year who has done A level law. Im serious - not joking. im not a 100% sure. but when we were asked at a lecture how many of us had done A level law, no one raised their hands (neither did i) :P
It helped me get into grips with things in the first week. even now perhaps when i read a problem question, i, almost immediately know which topics to read. Though it isn't that helpful either :/ im the dumbest in my batch :frown:

And yes, agree with the rest you said. Two issues here IMO:

1) D will argue there was only intention to "frighten", however its fairly obvious he was reckless as to causing some harm.

2) Not too sure about assault...reason being - if i stone came and struck me from somewhere it would be difficult to prove or explain that i saw it coming (though its very much possible! im sure it happened a million times as well). But, the facts, as you mention them make no such claim. Its quite possible that without notice a stone randomly comes and hits me. In that case I did not get the opportunity to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. just s20 i would say. you could raise the issue in your answer but then avoid talking too much about it.