Elizaaaah
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#1
//
Last edited by Elizaaaah; 6 months ago
0
reply
Harl1403
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 months ago
#2
(Original post by Elizaaaah)
Hi I need someone to help me on this “william can not afford to pay joe who is a 17 year old performance artist working for William, who owns a tattoo shop, due to not being able to pay joe William offers him a free tattoo which joe enthusiastically agrees to, Sarah Williams trainee tattoos a rose on joes arm” discuss the criminal liability for Sarah for offences against the person. Please could someone help with this.
Hey,

Sounds like a lot going on!
Here’s an extremely short guide -

So tattoos are not considered as gbh if consented to and the client is over 18. Yours is 17 therefor under the legal age so his “enthusiastic consent” is disregarded and this would be classed as Sarah committing an offence against him refer to case Burrell v harmer with very similar problems going on as your question it’s likely Sarah will be committing assault occasioning actual bodily harm towards William and then go into the realms of assault ar and mr as well as ABH AR and MR.

This is extremely brief and not all the info you need but it may good enough to make a plan I would type the long answer however I’ve just finished 4 essays myself and I’m shattered 🤣 good luck though!!
0
reply
Elizaaaaxx
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 months ago
#3
(Original post by Harl1403)
Hey,

Sounds like a lot going on!
Here’s an extremely short guide -

So tattoos are not considered as gbh if consented to and the client is over 18. Yours is 17 therefor under the legal age so his “enthusiastic consent” is disregarded and this would be classed as Sarah committing an offence against him refer to case Burrell v harmer with very similar problems going on as your question it’s likely Sarah will be committing assault occasioning actual bodily harm towards William and then go into the realms of assault ar and mr as well as ABH AR and MR.

This is extremely brief and not all the info you need but it may good enough to make a plan I would type the long answer however I’ve just finished 4 essays myself and I’m shattered 🤣 good luck though!!
Hi would this be under section 47 of offences against the person act 1861
1
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 months ago
#4
(Original post by Elizaaaah)
Thank you so much for your help so would this fall under a section 47 offence of a section 20 unlawful wounding?
Yes. Tattooing does not involve a break in the continuity of the whole skin so s. 20 wounding would not be appropriate.
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 months ago
#5
(Original post by Elizaaaah)
Thanks so much sorry for being so annoying, I’m also stuck on the second part of the q which is, joe decides the best way to catch the eye of potential customers would be to juggle dangerous items and begins to juggle 2 knives and a replica gun, Zara is passing with her husband Tom when joe shouts “come in here and have a tattoo, or I’ll shoot you!” Seeing the gun Zara is scared and runs to the safety of a nearby shop. As she pushes the door open she bangs her hand on the doorframe causing a small but painful bruise. Discuss the criminal liability for joe for offences against the person. I’m so sorry it is quite long to read I’m stuck between section 20 gbh and section 47 assault Occasioning abh
The injuries in this case are nowhere near “really serious harm”, so it’s not going to be GBH. Personally if I were charging this based on the injuries I would go for common assault. I know you are taught that bruising = ABH but this is small, so it’s pretty borderline. However this isn’t really the focus of the question, which is more trying to get you to talk about issues of Joe’s intention, and whether Zara’s actions break the chain of causation for the assault.

Also - obviously this is not your fault at all - but what a ridiculous scenario! 🙄
1
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 months ago
#6
(Original post by Elizaaaah)
Hi thank you! so much for your help and I know it is ridiculous I have one last part to this question which is also complicated I think it is a section 18 GBH offence and also involves involuntary man slaughter maybe it is “ Tom who served in the army recognised the gun as a replica. Upset about joe scaring his wife Zara Tom storms into the tattoo shop demanding to see the owner. When William comes out Tom, intending serious harm, pushes William into a glass cabinet. William loses his sight and suffered serious facial injuries. After unsuccessful medical treatment William decides he is unable to continue with the job he loves and commits suicide” discuss the criminal liability of Tom for offences against the person. I’m genuinely sorry you have to read this it is actually the last part to it now.
Don’t worry. You have a death, so you have to think about liability for homicide. You are told Tom intends to cause really serious harm so you have the MR for murder (and involuntary manslaughter for that reason is not appropriate). The question is whether William’s decision to commit suicide breaks the chain of causation for the purposes of establishing the AR. There is specific authority on this point so look it up. If you think it does, there’s no liability for homicide - just the s. 18 you’ve already identified. If you think it doesn’t break the chain, you’ve got murder. If you think liability for murder is made out then you should probably consider loss of control. But - spoiler alert - you probably don’t have to...
Last edited by legalhelp; 6 months ago
0
reply
Elizaaaaxx
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 months ago
#7
(Original post by legalhelp)
Don’t worry. You have a death, so you have to think about liability for homicide. You are told Tom intends to cause really serious harm so you have the MR for murder (and involuntary manslaughter for that reason is not appropriate). The question is whether William’s decision to commit suicide breaks the chain of causation for the purposes of establishing the AR. There is specific authority on this point so look it up. If you think it does, there’s no liability for homicide - just the s. 18 you’ve already identified. If you think it doesn’t break the chain, you’ve got murder. If you think liability for murder is made out then you should probably consider loss of control. But - spoiler alert - you probably don’t have to...
Thank you so much you have been extremely helpful I appreciate it very much. Would I have to go through the AR/MR battery base offence before Commencing talking about all this stuff
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 months ago
#8
(Original post by Elizaaaaxx)
Thank you so much you have been extremely helpful I appreciate it very much. Would I have to go through the AR/MR battery base offence before Commencing talking about all this stuff
No - like I said, involuntary manslaughter (including unlawful act manslaughter) is not relevant on these facts because you are explicitly told that Tom has the mens rea for murder (intention to kill or cause really serious harm). Involuntary manslaughter is for situations where you don’t have evidence of that intent. You are therefore considering liability for murder, but the obvious issue here is whether William's suicide breaks the chain of causation.
Last edited by legalhelp; 6 months ago
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 (13)
14.29%
I need help researching courses (7)
7.69%
I need help with filling out the application form (6)
6.59%
I need help with my personal statement (36)
39.56%
I need help with understanding how to make my application stand out (23)
25.27%
I need help with something else (let us know in the thread!) (2)
2.2%
I'm feeling confident about my application and don't need any help at the moment (4)
4.4%

Watched Threads

View All