GTee93
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Amber is charged with grievous bodily harm. The prosecution case is that she punched Daniel, her husband, while waiting for a bus. She claims in her defence that Daniel had tried to push her into the
road and that she “lashed out” to protect herself. A 12 year old boy, Leon, unrelated to Amber or Daniel, witnessed the event, but the judge rules that he is too young to give evidence. The judge in her summing up tells the jury that the defence had the legal burden of proving that Amber had acted in self-defence. Amber is convicted.

Critically discuss whether Amber should have been convicted, with particular reference to the decisions made by the judge.
0
reply
Student-95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Sounds fair. If she can't prove it was self defence then what choice does the judge have.
0
reply
GTee93
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
Would you say that Amber should of been charged with ABH rather than GBH?
0
reply
Student-95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by GTee93)
Would you say that Amber should of been charged with ABH rather than GBH?
Can't really say without details of the injury.
0
reply
GTee93
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#5
Bio 7

This is the scenario.
0
reply
Bio 7
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
I wouldn't have thought 12 is too young to give evidence. Self-defence can be difficult to prove though so it isn't surprising that she got done for it. GBH seems like an excessive charge though.
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
What is this for OP? I assume it's somehow academic but I'd have thought if you're being asked questions about criminal evidence you'd have been, well, taught about criminal evidence.

So, for a start, the decision that the twelve year old is too young to give evidence is wrong in law.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s. 53(1):

'At every stage in criminal proceedings all persons are (whatever their age) competent to give evidence'.

The exception is where a person is not capable of understanding questions put to him or of giving comprehensible answers. This is not suggested in relation to the twelve year old boy.

The position in relation to self-defence is also wrong. The defence bears a limited evidential burden of raising a prima facie case of self-defence. Once this is established, the prosecution bears the legal burden of disproving self-defence beyond reasonable doubt.

The conviction is clearly unsafe and would be quashed on appeal.
1
reply
GTee93
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#8
TimmonaPortella

What do you mean by OP?

What conviction would you say would be most suited to this scenario?

Thank you so much for your help, I appreciate it.
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by GTee93)
TimmonaPortella

What do you mean by OP?

What conviction would you say would be most suited to this scenario?

Thank you so much for your help, I appreciate it.
OP means 'original poster'. i.e. the thread starter. i.e. you, in this case.

Well the scenario doesn't directly describe the injuries. That's what's important. But really on the facts we have a GBH charge seems seriously disproportionate.

No worries
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

Should the school day be extended to help students catch up?

Yes (28)
26.92%
No (76)
73.08%

Watched Threads

View All