Fairly urgent question: Was just looking at the mark schemes for some past papers and there is one where they are talking about assault and it says to may reference to S39 CJA. We haven't covered anything about this, so i was just wondering what the relevance is. Is it where the offence is defined, because we have always learnt that it is defined in common law..
Fairly urgent question: Was just looking at the mark schemes for some past papers and there is one where they are talking about assault and it says to may reference to S39 CJA. We haven't covered anything about this, so i was just wondering what the relevance is. Is it where the offence is defined, because we have always learnt that it is defined in common law..
Just put something like this...
Assault is a common law offence but there is now reference to it in the CJA 1988 (s39), it is a summary offence heard in the magistrates court and carries a maximum sentence of 6 months or a £5,000 fine.
Assault is a common law offence but there is now reference to it in the CJA 1988 (s39), it is a summary offence heard in the magistrates court and carries a maximum sentence of 6 months or a £5,000 fine.
Same for battery!
Do we have to say about the type of offence and sentences as well?? We've always just said, 'The most likely offence for ... to have committed is assault. This is defined in common law. The acts reus of assault is.....'
Do we have to say about the type of offence and sentences as well?? We've always just said, 'The most likely offence for ... to have committed is assault. This is defined in common law. The acts reus of assault is.....'
My teacher is an AQA examiner and she has said so :-)
What cases go with legal causation? I have it down as the Pagett case but that is usually in intervening acts, right?
I've just got R V Pagett and R V White- which is the one where the D tried to poison his mother with cyanide, but before the poison was able to take affect, she died of a heart attack, so he was not liable for her murder
What cases go with legal causation? I have it down as the Pagett case but that is usually in intervening acts, right?
Factual causation is Padgett and white.
Legal causation is substantive and operative cause + intervening acts So act of third party - smith Vs own act - Roberts Act of God Then mention thin skull rule
I've just got R V Pagett and R V White- which is the one where the D tried to poison his mother with cyanide, but before the poison was able to take affect, she died of a heart attack, so he was not liable for her murder
CAUSATION IN FACT (but for test) R V White R V Pagett INTERVENING ACT (X3) act of V act of 3rd party act of nature CAUSATION IN LAW (look at D contribution) = MORE THAN MINIMAL R V Smith R V Cheshire- which updated R V Smith R V Roberts- reasonably forseeable R V Williams- actions not reasonably forseeable so D was not liable MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE- not usually break chain of causation unless it makes Ds actions appear insignificant (were the actions forseeable? could it break the chain of causation?) I dont know if this will help??