riamichaels
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Here is the coursework question:

Steve and Leo were trainee chefs at a college. Steve was jealous that Leo was a better cook and was likely to be given a full apprenticeship at a top London restaurant. One day while they were working in the kitchen, Steve threw a glass of water over Leo. He tried to make it look accidental but his hand slipped shattering the glass on a table. Flying pieces of glass flew into Leo’s face causing a deep cut to his jaw. Steve was reprimanded and suspended from the college by Mr Harsh, his tutor.
Steve, who never liked the college anyway, decided to play a practical joke on Mr Harsh. He crept into the male staff toilet and placed acid in the hot air drier at a time he knew that Mr Harsh finished his class. In fact Mr Fidel, another tutor, was burned by the acid when he attempted to dry his hands.
Determined to get his revenge on Mr Harsh, Steve placed a frightening mask over his head and hid behind some bushes in the college car park near to Mr Harsh’s car. It was dark and Mr Harsh approached his car fumbling in his pockets looking for his car keys. He suddenly heard a noise in the bushes and spotted a figure with the mask. Terrified, Mr Harsh turned and started running. As he could not see where he was running he tripped over a large stone and fell sustaining cuts and bruises in the fall.
Advise Steve of his criminal liability, if any.

Could I please get some help on what cases I can use as evidence, tips on how to structure the essay and any points I can use? Thanks!
0
reply
agaata5
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
(Original post by riamichaels)
Here is the coursework question:

Steve and Leo were trainee chefs at a college. Steve was jealous that Leo was a better cook and was likely to be given a full apprenticeship at a top London restaurant. One day while they were working in the kitchen, Steve threw a glass of water over Leo. He tried to make it look accidental but his hand slipped shattering the glass on a table. Flying pieces of glass flew into Leo’s face causing a deep cut to his jaw. Steve was reprimanded and suspended from the college by Mr Harsh, his tutor.
Steve, who never liked the college anyway, decided to play a practical joke on Mr Harsh. He crept into the male staff toilet and placed acid in the hot air drier at a time he knew that Mr Harsh finished his class. In fact Mr Fidel, another tutor, was burned by the acid when he attempted to dry his hands.
Determined to get his revenge on Mr Harsh, Steve placed a frightening mask over his head and hid behind some bushes in the college car park near to Mr Harsh’s car. It was dark and Mr Harsh approached his car fumbling in his pockets looking for his car keys. He suddenly heard a noise in the bushes and spotted a figure with the mask. Terrified, Mr Harsh turned and started running. As he could not see where he was running he tripped over a large stone and fell sustaining cuts and bruises in the fall.
Advise Steve of his criminal liability, if any.

Could I please get some help on what cases I can use as evidence, tips on how to structure the essay and any points I can use? Thanks!
You should be looking at The Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Steve, who never liked the college anyway, decided to play a practical joke on Mr Harsh. He crept into the male staff toilet and placed acid in the hot air drier at a time he knew that Mr Harsh finished his class. In fact Mr Fidel, another tutor, was burned by the acid when he attempted to dry his hands.

This part has a very similar facts to DPP v K [1990]
A school boy has stolen some acid from the science lab and poured it into a hand dryer in the toilet. V used the hand dryer and the acid splashed.

You can use IRAC method as a structure:
- Identify all the relevant issues
- State the law
- Apply the law to the facts
- Conclusion

I would break the question into parts.
0
reply
agaata5
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
The first part of the question: Steve would be possibly charged under section 20.

MALICIOUS WOUNDING
Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 states:
Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument shall be liable … to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Actus reus: the defendant unlawfully either:
(1) wounded the victim; or
(2) inflicted grievous bodily harm to the victim.
Mens rea: the defendant foresaw that the victim might suffer some harm. (NB: It is not necessary to show that the defendant intended or foresaw that the victim would suffer grievous bodily harm).


Unlawfully – defendant acted without lawful justification. An example of a lawful justification is where the defendant was acting in self-defence.


Wound – this has been interpreted in C v Eisenhower to mean a break in the continuity of the whole of the skin. A rupture of an internal blood vessel is not a wound. However, the breaking of an inner membrane which analogous to skin may constitute a wound.


The breaking of just the outer skin is unsufficient (M’Loughlin)


Grievous bodily harm – ‘really serious bodily harm’. It is necessary to consider the totality of the injuries inflicted on the victim. Can include very serious psychological harm (Burstow).


Infliction of grievous bodily harm – it is necessary to show that the defendant inflicted the grievous bodily harm.


The mens rea requirement – the mens rea for section 20 is that the defendant must intend or foresee (Cunningham recklessness) that he or she may cause some kind of harm, albeit minor harm. So it is not necessary for the prosecution to show that the defendant intended or foresaw grievous bodily harm.
0
reply
agaata5
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
And the last part: Steve could be charged under section 47.

ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM
Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 states:
Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable … to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding five years.
Actus reus: the defendant must commit an assault or battery which causes the victim to suffer actual bodily harm.
Mens rea: the defendant must intend or to be reckless as to the assault or battery.


The offence can be broken down into three elements:
(1) It must be shown that there was an assault;
(2) The victim must suffer actual bodily harm;
(3) It must be shown that the actual bodily harm was occasioned (caused) by the common assault or battery of the defendant.


There is no need to show that the defendant foresaw the actual bodily harm. This was made clear in the House of Lords’ decision in Savage and Parmenter.


By the way, use this as suggestion, not correct answer - just make sure you are using the correct sections of the act to explain the liability.
0
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

What support do you need with your UCAS application?

I need help researching unis (10)
13.89%
I need help researching courses (5)
6.94%
I need help with filling out the application form (4)
5.56%
I need help with my personal statement (30)
41.67%
I need help with understanding how to make my application stand out (18)
25%
I need help with something else (let us know in the thread!) (2)
2.78%
I'm feeling confident about my application and don't need any help at the moment (3)
4.17%

Watched Threads

View All