Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is there criminal liability here (threats)? Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Jay is in a casual relationship with Oliver, but wants more. Gregory is a friend of Jay's from university, and the two have known eachother for around a year and can be said to be 'good friends.' One chilly night in December, Jay decides to take Oliver on a date or sorts to a trendy city centre bar, where by chance they run into Gregory and Andromeda, a friend of Gregory's.

    Jay leaves the three to chat whilst he buys shots for them; each of the four drink three shots each whilst Jay secretly takes three Vallium prescriptions to ease his nerves.

    Four hours later and the four are dancing to some music in the bar; all can be said to be 'tipsy' ... Jay looks over to a couch and see Oliver and Gregory kissing passionately and in a sexual embrace. Jay pretends not to care (he was only in a 'casual' relationship with Oliver, remember) and continues to dance, whilst secretly shaking with rage.

    Jay can't take it anymore; he stops dancing with Andromeda on the dancefloor and screams "What does that spiteful pig think he is doing? I am so angry, I want something bad to happen and I want it to happen now." Andromeda asks Jay if he means what he says to which he replies "yes, I have enough pills in my pocket to kill all four of us. I am going to lace Gregory's drink with enough of this **** to teach him not to mess around with me."


    Is Jay criminally liable for anything? It seems he has made a genuine threat to spike somebody's drink.

    Jay didn't end up spiking anybody's drink, it was just an angry threat. But has there been a crime?
    • Offline

      16
      Well I think it ranks alongside threatening to kill someone. It most likely will get nothing more than a caution I would imagine if anyone honestly cared enough to report it.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Mens rea: yes (arguably)
      Actus reus: no

      = no criminal liability
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by liaf)
      Mens rea: yes (arguably)
      Actus reus: no

      = no criminal liability
      But surely Jay has caused someone to apprehend the application of immediate and unlawful violence?

      Jay, I should reveal, is actually a real person and this is a real situation. Also, to point out - Gregory was aware of Jay's plans.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by lesbionic)
      But surely Jay has caused someone to apprehend the application of immediate and unlawful violence?

      Jay, I should reveal, is actually a real person and this is a real situation. Also, to point out - Gregory was aware of Jay's plans.
      If Gregory was aware of Jay's plans then Jay may be criminally be liable for "common assault". (legally defined)
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by lesbionic)
      But surely Jay has caused someone to apprehend the application of immediate and unlawful violence?

      Jay, I should reveal, is actually a real person and this is a real situation. Also, to point out - Gregory was aware of Jay's plans.

      Jay could be liable for a S.39 assualt against Greg (If Greg feared/acknowledged that he might get hurt)

      Jay wouldn't be liable for the threat against the other two, because they're unaware of the threat.

      You're right though, there doesn't need to be a actus reus for the planned revenge because he has committed the actus reus of 'assault' against Greg
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      Why are we answering this like a A-level law question?

      Surely, if this is a real scenario then our knowledge is pretty basic compared to that of a lawyer.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by pinda.college)
      Jay could be liable for a S.39 assualt against Greg (If Greg feared/acknowledged that he might get hurt)

      Jay wouldn't be liable for the threat against the other two, because they're unaware of the threat.

      You're right though, there doesn't need to be a actus reus for the planned revenge because he has committed the actus reus of 'assault' against Greg
      Yeh I was thinking of a s.39 charge. Greg just needs to apprehend the application of imemdiate and unlawful violence right?

      Oh dear... poor Jay
      Offline

      10
      ReputationRep:
      I don't know, but probably, since it is technicaly threatening to commit multiple murders :dontknow:
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by pinda.college)
      Jay could be liable for a S.39 assualt against Greg (If Greg feared/acknowledged that he might get hurt)

      Jay wouldn't be liable for the threat against the other two, because they're unaware of the threat.

      You're right though, there doesn't need to be a actus reus for the planned revenge because he has committed the actus reus of 'assault' against Greg
      Yes, this becomes the case when Gregory is aware of the threat. But the offence is "common assault" as there is not the bodily contact required for "assault".
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by pinda.college)
      Why are we answering this like a A-level law question?

      Surely, if this is a real scenario then our knowledge is pretty basic compared to that of a lawyer.
      Well I can't go to a lawyer, nor can Jay. It's all rather... muddy a situation tbh.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      Possible assault if Jay feared what had been said.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by lesbionic)
      Yeh I was thinking of a s.39 charge. Greg just needs to apprehend the application of imemdiate and unlawful violence right?

      Oh dear... poor Jay
      *shrugs*
      It'll teach him to keep his thoughts to himself then. Seriously, who tells people that they're going to spike someone's drink? :facepalm2:
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Puma)
      Possible assault if Jay feared what had been said.
      But are there any partial defences to non fatal offences such as assault? Jay was intoxicated with alcohol and prescription drugs.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Drunk Punx)
      *shrugs*
      It'll teach him to keep his thoughts to himself then. Seriously, who tells people that they're going to spike someone's drink? :facepalm2:
      Everyone is free to think the most evilest of thoughts!
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by lesbionic)
      But are there any partial defences to non fatal offences such as assault? Jay was intoxicated with alcohol and prescription drugs.
      Not if the intoxication was voluntary.....
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by liaf)
      Everyone is free to think the most evilest of thoughts!
      Yeah, but he made the mistake of announcing it to someone :lol:

      Don't get me wrong, I think some pretty terrible thoughts on a day to day basis... but I'd never tell anyone about them.
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by lesbionic)
      But are there any partial defences to non fatal offences such as assault? Jay was intoxicated with alcohol and prescription drugs.
      Yes, but it must impaire his mind from making rational decisions and blah blah blah. I think it's the perfect opportunity to tell you, your avatar is freaking me out
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by lesbionic)
      But are there any partial defences to non fatal offences such as assault? Jay was intoxicated with alcohol and prescription drugs.
      Is anyone actually suing/charging/persecuting/whatever it is you do to people/doing anything about it?
      Or is this all a "just in case someone does press charges" fyi?
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Drunk Punx)
      Is anyone actually suing/charging/persecuting/whatever it is you do to people/doing anything about it?
      Or is this all a "just in case someone does press charges" fyi?
      Noone is pressing charges *yet* but Andro and Greg are spitting feathers at the moment...
     
     
     
    Reply
    Submit reply
    TSR Support Team

    We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

    Updated: December 23, 2010
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.