Criminal law problem question on liability help!!

Watch this thread
vanessap
Badges: 4
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#1
After this fight Pablo storms out of the house and walks to the pub to have a drink and calm down and think about what his girlfriend Rose had said to him. Unfortunately, Quintin(the man he thinks his girlfriend is cheating with) is sat at the bar when Pablo gets there and puts Pablo in an even worse mood. Pablo buys a drink and decides to tell Quintin what he thinks of him. The two of them end up having a heated argument, during which Quintin denies having an affair with Rose and tells Pablo that he is ‘mental’ because he (Quintin) is gay and would rather have sex with Pablo than Rose! At this, Pablo really loses control and smashes his beer bottle over Quintin’s head and causes three small lacerations to his face; he stands in the middle of the bar swinging the broken bottle around, shouting that he has ‘had enough of people shafting him’! The barman has already called the emergency services, The police and ambulance arrive and the police attempt to arrest Pablo, who by this time is in the corner of the room holding people off with a barstool. He puts up a fight and lashes out at PC Todd with the barstool and causes quite serious bruising to his arms and chest. PC Todd is treated for upper body bruising and has to take a couple of days off work because of the pain he is experiencing.

In respect to Pc todd Pablo is liable under s.18 of the offences against the persons act for gbh . However I dont think this is right because one requirement is that the D must be avoiding arrest but we arent sure if he is and also we was there intent to cause harm? Basically I feel like it should be s.20 as the harm done to pc todd is not so serious .
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 8 years ago
#2
(Original post by vanessap)
In respect to Pc todd Pablo is liable under s.18 of the offences against the persons act for gbh . However I dont think this is right because one requirement is that the D must be avoiding arrest
Avoiding arrest is not a requirement of s 18. Intending to prevent the arrest of any person is one of the two mentes reae for s 18, the other is simply 'intent to cause GBH'.

I agree that the injuries are probably insufficient for s 18, but that means that they are also insufficient for s 20 as well since the degree of injury is the same in both sections and the only difference is the mens rea... did you mean s 47?
0
reply
vanessap
Badges: 4
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#3
(Original post by Forum User)
Avoiding arrest is not a requirement of s 18. Intending to prevent the arrest of any person is one of the two mentes reae for s 18, the other is simply 'intent to cause GBH'.

I agree that the injuries are probably insufficient for s 18, but that means that they are also insufficient for s 20 as well since the degree of injury is the same in both sections and the only difference is the mens rea... did you mean s 47?
Im not sure if its s 47.
Basically what I am trying to say is that it is unclear if pablo is trying to avoid arrest or not. Also the injury Pc todd suffered are far to little for him to be charged with gbh . I think he could be charged with battery but I need points to say why it cant be s.18.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

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

How are you feeling about your SQA results?

They're better than I expected (20)
31.75%
They're what I expected (19)
30.16%
They're worse than what I expected (24)
38.1%

Watched Threads

View All