Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi everyone, I am new to this forum.

    Basically I messed up my Criminal Law module, I got 47. Somehow I managed to get 75 in my Consitutional module. So I am in the middle of a new resit paper and I am havign trouble finding the relevant law to apply- and yes I have been through the lecture notes and I have sat on this chair from 10am this morning and I have very little done.
    I am doing a problem question:
    Bryan and William have been in a relationship for 12 years. The relationship has beendifficult at times because Bryan has a very short temper and often, when he has a stressful day at work, comes home and takes it out on William by putting him down and verbally abusing him.
    One night after Bryan gets home late, William accidentally drops a glass in the kitchen. He can tell that Bryan is angry but Bryan says nothing and instead walks out to the hallway to retrieve his shotgun. He brings this back into the kitchen, sits down, and begins silently polishing it. He does this for half an hour and when Williams tries to get up and leave, Bryan insists that he stay. There are no bullets in the gun, or indeed the house, but William does not know this. The next day William has severe stomach pain and goes to the hospital. The doctor tells him that he has developed kidney stones and that this is due to a previously undiagnosed anxiety disorder.
    Bryan returns from work that night and William does not tell him about his visit to the hospital. When Bryan explodes with rage soon after because William has burned the lasagne, William can take it no longer and smashes the heavy ceramic dish containing the lasagne over Bryan’s head. He does this repeatedly until it has smashed into small pieces. He then calls an ambulance for Bryan who is not moving and covered in blood. Bryan is seriously concussed and requires surgery for a split skull.
    William picks Bryan up from the hospital some weeks after. Bryan is on a heavy dose of morphine for the pain. When they go to bed that night Bryan says to William, ‘I told the Police I didn’t remember what had happened, but I do.’ He then initiates anal intercourse with William. William is reluctant, but feels sorry for Bryan so goes along with it. However, after a few minutes he says ‘Bryan, I don’t feel comfortable.’ Bryan continues, and William begins to cry. Afterwards, William falls asleep but Bryan penetrates William anally again, this time with his fist. William wakes up and calls the police.

    I have to find out the criminaly liability and any available defences. So far I have found that:
    -Bryan is liable for threats to kill under OAPA s16
    -William is liable for injurying Bryan's skull under OAPA s20- but does William's anxiety constitute insanity as a defence? Is duress a defence to him because of the previous threats to kill from Bryan with his shotgun? Can a defence of duress apply if the situation is removed to a previous time, i.e threat that Bryan will go and get the gun and shoot him? (even though William does not know it is loaded, it is still a threat)

    I am fine with the rest of it and the issues on consent and intercourse, but I really need some guidence, I have thought about it all day and I am at my wit's end. I am not asking any of you to write the answer for me, more to point me in the right direction. I have emailed the tutors and they have been absolutely useless.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    NI legislation is different. I mean, the wording is the same but the numbering is different as is some of the sentencing. So don't be citing the wrong sources of law! That's the first thing.

    There are also other potential liabilities. For instance when Bryan retrieves and polishes his gun in front of William this is an assault. There is intent here as he prevents William from leaving so it is clear there is a desire to instill fear. Deliberately causing fear with intent is an assault.

    However, (I'd like other people's views on this) I think because this fear contributes to/causes William to suffer from a sore stomach and ultimately kidney stones then this is assault occasioning actual bodily harm at the very least. Though it could be assault occasioning grievous bodily harm.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mrs Law)
    NI legislation is different. I mean, the wording is the same but the numbering is different as is some of the sentencing. So don't be citing the wrong sources of law! That's the first thing.

    There are also other potential liabilities. For instance when Bryan retrieves and polishes his gun in front of William this is an assault. There is intent here as he prevents William from leaving so it is clear there is a desire to instill fear. Deliberately causing fear with intent is an assault.

    However, (I'd like other people's views on this) I think because this fear contributes to/causes William to suffer from a sore stomach and ultimately kidney stones then this is assault occasioning actual bodily harm at the very least. Though it could be assault occasioning grievous bodily harm.
    Thank you for your response!

    I have had a think about it and I think I got it wrong on threats to kill. Clearly it is assault and the harm William caused to Bryan is OAPA S18 and not S20.

    What do you think about the defences for s18? Anxiety does not warrant a defence of insanity, intoxication or diminished responsibility. But what about non-insane automatism? Surely Bryan contributed greatly to the causation of William's anxiety and given the situation of the assault before with the gun, could it be argued that he did what any reasonable person would have done?

    I am so baffled with this question, I can see endless possibilities and never a clear answer. I'm not cut out to be a criminal lawyer! I did thoroughly enjoy Constitutional and the Judicial Review module..this however, I don't understand how I can do so well in other modules and then this I am absolutely hopeless at..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by julie_jackson)

    What do you think about the defences for s18? Anxiety does not warrant a defence of insanity, intoxication or diminished responsibility. But what about non-insane automatism? Surely Bryan contributed greatly to the causation of William's anxiety and given the situation of the assault before with the gun, could it be argued that he did what any reasonable person would have done?
    The first thing to be noted here is that a doctor has confirmed that William is suffering from an anxiety disorder.

    But I don't think you can use non-insane automatism, though I could be wrong. The reason I say this is because for it to be non-insane automatism there must be three requirements.

    1.There must exist an involuntary action arising from external source or reflex action
    2.The action must be completely involuntary
    3.The automatism must not be self-induced


    You can read more about it here: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Non-...automatism.php
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mrs Law)
    The first thing to be noted here is that a doctor has confirmed that William is suffering from an anxiety disorder.

    But I don't think you can use non-insane automatism, though I could be wrong. The reason I say this is because for it to be non-insane automatism there must be three requirements.

    1.There must exist an involuntary action arising from external source or reflex action
    2.The action must be completely involuntary
    3.The automatism must not be self-induced


    You can read more about it here: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Non-...automatism.php
    Thanks for the link! I've read up and ruled out non-insane automatism. I've ruled out Duress,marital coercion, consent, diminished responsibility and intoxication. All I am left with is self defence, which I don't think is plausible, unless it can be argued that William feared that Bryan would go and get the shotgun. It's a tricky question indeed. Not really sure if this has been a particularly odd scenario to see if I can use one of the aforementioned defences partially..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by julie_jackson)
    Bryan and William have been in a relationship for 12 years. The relationship has beendifficult at times because Bryan has a very short temper and often, when he has a stressful day at work, comes home and takes it out on William by putting him down and verbally abusing him.
    One night after Bryan gets home late, William accidentally drops a glass in the kitchen. He can tell that Bryan is angry but Bryan says nothing and instead walks out to the hallway to retrieve his shotgun. He brings this back into the kitchen, sits down, and begins silently polishing it. He does this for half an hour and when Williams tries to get up and leave, Bryan insists that he stay. There are no bullets in the gun, or indeed the house, but William does not know this. The next day William has severe stomach pain and goes to the hospital. The doctor tells him that he has developed kidney stones and that this is due to a previously undiagnosed anxiety disorder.
    Bryan returns from work that night and William does not tell him about his visit to the hospital. When Bryan explodes with rage soon after because William has burned the lasagne, William can take it no longer and smashes the heavy ceramic dish containing the lasagne over Bryan’s head. He does this repeatedly until it has smashed into small pieces. He then calls an ambulance for Bryan who is not moving and covered in blood. Bryan is seriously concussed and requires surgery for a split skull.
    William picks Bryan up from the hospital some weeks after. Bryan is on a heavy dose of morphine for the pain. When they go to bed that night Bryan says to William, ‘I told the Police I didn’t remember what had happened, but I do.’ He then initiates anal intercourse with William. William is reluctant, but feels sorry for Bryan so goes along with it. However, after a few minutes he says ‘Bryan, I don’t feel comfortable.’ Bryan continues, and William begins to cry. Afterwards, William falls asleep but Bryan penetrates William anally again, this time with his fist. William wakes up and calls the police.

    I have to find out the criminaly liability and any available defences. So far I have found that:
    -Bryan is liable for threats to kill under OAPA s16
    -William is liable for injurying Bryan's skull under OAPA s20- but does William's anxiety constitute insanity as a defence? Is duress a defence to him because of the previous threats to kill from Bryan with his shotgun? Can a defence of duress apply if the situation is removed to a previous time, i.e threat that Bryan will go and get the gun and shoot him? (even though William does not know it is loaded, it is still a threat)

    I have emailed the tutors and they have been absolutely useless.
    Bryan did not die from the smashing of object over his head.
    So William cannot rely on the defence of loss of self-control via s54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
    this law replaced the previous one which was known as the defence of provocation.
    He also cannot rely on diminished responsibility.

    The whole discussion on insane and/or non-insane automatism is unnecessary here.
    This question only deals with
    1)assault by words in R v Ireland (1983)
    2) GBH/ABH (you will have to explore both) and then normally, you will have to decide which one it is.
    But this portion is tricky because the question said 'split skull'. normally questions will say 'fractured skull'.
    So you have to decide if split skull and fractured skull is one and the same.
    3) sexual offences namely rape and the issue of consent in that after William said 'stop', Bryan continued penetrating William.

    on the part about rubbish tutors, well, welcome to the real world.
    This is how it is at uni and this is how its going to be.
    Learn how to deal with it. and deal with it now.

    Good luck.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.

  • 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.