vanessap
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Rose and Pablo have been married for a number of years and seem to be a fairly average thirty something couple with a nice house, a nice car, a cat and a dog; they made the decision to have a family about a year ago, although as yet, Rose has not become pregnant. They both achieved some success within their respective careers, although six weeks ago, Pablo was told that the company that he works for is having financial problems and that it is possible that he may be made redundant. Over the years, in order to keep their sex life interesting, they have partaken in some erotic role playing and some mild sadomasochism, however, on recent occasions Pablo had started to use rather more force on Rose than she was happy with and she had to ask him to stop hurting her several times. Rose thinks that the aggression in Pablo is due to the stress he is under at work; she makes the decision that until things settle down again, that she will re-start using contraception as she does not wish to get pregnant whilst their future is so uncertain. She does not tell Pablo however because she fears that he will become even more upset and angry!
Pablo notices that Rose appears to have lost interest in sex and has become distant and thinks that this is because she has fallen out of love with him; he thinks that she may be having an affair with another man. She works quite closely with a colleague called Quintin and Pablo has always suspected that Quintin may like Rose rather more than he should! Pablo becomes quite paranoid and jealous about his wife and starts to behave in a very erratic and volatile way, ringing her at odd times of day to check up on her and cross-examining her every move, especially when she has to work late. After a few weeks, this comes to a head when Pablo goes through Rose’s belongings and finds a half consumed packet of contraceptive pills; Pablo completely ‘loses the plot’ and, despite the fact that Rose tries to explain everything to him, the argument culminates with Pablo dragging Rose into the kitchen by her long blond hair and cutting it off with the kitchen scissors.


Advise Pablo as to his liability with regard to Rose,


I personally dont see how he is liable. I was simply going to argue that cutting someone's hair does not constitute criminal activity. Okay I just realised its domestic abuse
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Why wouldn't cutting someone's hair against their will be a battery?
0
reply
Tortious
Badges: 16
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by Forum User)
Why wouldn't cutting someone's hair against their will be a battery?
Confirmed - DPP v Smith [2006]. I haven't checked recently to see whether it's been overruled though.
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by Tortious)
Confirmed - DPP v Smith [2006]. I haven't checked recently to see whether it's been overruled though.
Even better than battery then, it's an ABH. Doubt it would have been overruled, it makes good sense (can't be bothered to check!)
0
reply
Tortious
Badges: 16
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by Forum User)
Even better than battery then, it's an ABH. Doubt it would have been overruled, it makes good sense (can't be bothered to check!)
Indeed. The fact that it's "dead" tissue shouldn't make any difference - you wouldn't say that stabbing a paraplegic in the leg isn't wounding because he can't feel it! :p:
0
reply
vanessap
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Forum User)
Even better than battery then, it's an ABH. Doubt it would have been overruled, it makes good sense (can't be bothered to check!)
What is the AR and MR here?
0
reply
vanessap
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Tortious)
Indeed. The fact that it's "dead" tissue shouldn't make any difference - you wouldn't say that stabbing a paraplegic in the leg isn't wounding because he can't feel it! :p:
What is the AR and MR here?
0
reply
Tortious
Badges: 16
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by vanessap)
What is the AR and MR here?
The offence is "assault occasioning actual bodily harm". It's implied (in bold) in the statute what this means, but you'll still need to know the definitions of a few of those terms. Where might you find those definitions?

Spoiler:
Show
Case law.
2
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by vanessap)
What is the AR and MR here?

(Original post by Tortious)
The offence is "assault occasioning actual bodily harm". It's implied (in bold) in the statute what this means, but you'll still need to know the definitions of a few of those terms. Where might you find those definitions?

Spoiler:
Show
Case law.
You need to get in the habit of learning the AR and MR of all of the offences that you study on your course. You can't answer a criminal law problem question without them. Some of them have statutory elements, some of them are wholly from case law, as Tortious says, this one is mostly case law. In fact, the statute is misleading as there doesn't need to be an assault (in the sense of the offence of assault). For example, it would be an assault occasioning ABH if I threw a rock at you while you were asleep, causing some grazing/bruising. But it would not be an assault.

Any decent criminal law textbook will set out the MR and AR and where those come from for each offence. It's been so long since I did Criminal Law I don't even remember which case defines them for this offence. Smith & Hogan is pretty clear, but in some respects getting these basic elements clear in your mind is easier from a basic textbook
1
reply
vanessap
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by Tortious)
The offence is "assault occasioning actual bodily harm". It's implied (in bold) in the statute what this means, but you'll still need to know the definitions of a few of those terms. Where might you find those definitions?

Spoiler:
Show
Case law.
Okay basically I say why it is ABH by citing the case and also saying the offence is created by section 47 of the offences against the person act.
0
reply
vanessap
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Forum User)
You need to get in the habit of learning the AR and MR of all of the offences that you study on your course. You can't answer a criminal law problem question without them. Some of them have statutory elements, some of them are wholly from case law, as Tortious says, this one is mostly case law. In fact, the statute is misleading as there doesn't need to be an assault (in the sense of the offence of assault). For example, it would be an assault occasioning ABH if I threw a rock at you while you were asleep, causing some grazing/bruising. But it would not be an assault.

Any decent criminal law textbook will set out the MR and AR and where those come from for each offence. It's been so long since I did Criminal Law I don't even remember which case defines them for this offence. Smith & Hogan is pretty clear, but in some respects getting these basic elements clear in your mind is easier from a basic textbook
Thank you
0
reply
1001Shab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
He is liable. Cutting a substantial amount of the other party's hair amounts to Actual Bodily Harm in contrary to s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This was in fact confirmed in DPP v Smith.
0
reply
RohanYnaik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Forum User)
Why wouldn't cutting someone's hair against their will be a battery?
Battery is a civil claim not a criminal one
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by RohanYnaik)
Battery is a civil claim not a criminal one
a) This was a post from 2014
b) You are wrong. Trespass to the person is a civil claim, battery is a crime (see e.g. Blackstone's Criminal Practice para B2.1).

I see from your profile you are from the U.S. This forum is used almost exclusively by UK students, and almost all legal questions are asking about the law of England and Wales.
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Are you travelling in the Uni student travel window (3-9 Dec) to go home for Christmas?

Yes (58)
29.15%
No - I have already returned home (24)
12.06%
No - I plan on travelling outside these dates (45)
22.61%
No - I'm staying at my term time address over Christmas (19)
9.55%
No - I live at home during term anyway (53)
26.63%

Watched Threads

View All