Law study help, Is this section 18 or s20???

Watch
npic9
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#1
Consider the criminal liability for Henry for his actions in relation Jez?

Henry was furious when he began to suspect Jez was not going to pay for the watch. He sent a text to Jez warning him that there would be trouble if he did not pay. Jez was anxious and barely left his house. Eventually, Henry went to the house and shouted loudly, persistently banged on the door and finally broke a window. Jez had suffered from a heart condition for a number of years and he suddenly collapsed when Henry broke the window. Jez had to spend a number of weeks in hospital, recovering from a heart attack.
-----------------------------------
I'm getting kind of confused whether this would be section 18 or 20. I thought it could possibly be section 18 since Henry did have intent to basically threaten Jez which would leave him scared.Since Jez had suffered from a heart condition, the factor of the thin skull rule would apply.

However I can also see it being section 20

If anyone can clarify it will be helpful thanks, as well as if there is a defence involved
1
reply
tinygirl96
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 months ago
#2
Use your class notes. Make your own decision based on the information given.
0
reply
neal95
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 months ago
#3
S18 is a clear intention to wound, inflict GBH or prevent lawful arrest. From the information provided, we don't know if Henry knew that Jez had suffered from the heart condition for years. You could raise the possibility that if Jez knew he suffered from heart condition, then it is S18, as there is an intent. If not, it is S20, as it is merely reckless.

I studied Law at A-Level and at degree level, so thats what I would put, but would be good to see what others think too.
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 months ago
#4
(Original post by npic9)
Consider the criminal liability for Henry for his actions in relation Jez?

Henry was furious when he began to suspect Jez was not going to pay for the watch. He sent a text to Jez warning him that there would be trouble if he did not pay. Jez was anxious and barely left his house. Eventually, Henry went to the house and shouted loudly, persistently banged on the door and finally broke a window. Jez had suffered from a heart condition for a number of years and he suddenly collapsed when Henry broke the window. Jez had to spend a number of weeks in hospital, recovering from a heart attack.
-----------------------------------
I'm getting kind of confused whether this would be section 18 or 20. I thought it could possibly be section 18 since Henry did have intent to basically threaten Jez which would leave him scared.Since Jez had suffered from a heart condition, the factor of the thin skull rule would apply.

However I can also see it being section 20

If anyone can clarify it will be helpful thanks, as well as if there is a defence involved
Start first by identifying the harm to the victim (in this case, a heart attack, which is GBH). Then look to D’s intent: did he intend to give the victim a heart attack? If the answer is no, then there is no s. 18. I can see no basis on these facts for concluding that D intended to give V a heart attack. Then you consider whether D might have intended or been reckless as to causing *some* harm (not necessarily GBH). Intending to scare someone wouldn’t be enough, you would need D to intend or be reckless as to some form of real harm. As the above poster said, you might be able to get over the line if D knew V had a heart condition that would be aggravated by loud noises, stress etc. Equally, you might be able to infer that by his manner of entering the house, D might have intended to cause some harm once inside. But neither of these are completely clear cut on your facts.


You have also sensibly raised the issue of causation here. The defendant must take the victim as he finds him (the thin skull rule), and so D will be responsible for causing V to suffer a heart attack as a result of an underlying condition, regardless of whether he knew about the condition or not. But the question is whether you can establish that D intended or was reckless as to any harm at all. If so, you probably have your s. 20. If not, you might be stuck with assault ABH (s. 47).
Last edited by legalhelp; 4 months ago
0
reply
npic9
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#5
(Original post by legalhelp)
Start first by identifying the harm to the victim (in this case, a heart attack, which is GBH). Then look to D’s intent: did he intend to give the victim a heart attack? If the answer is no, then there is no s. 18. I can see no basis on these facts for concluding that D intended to give V a heart attack. Then you consider whether D might have intended or been reckless as to causing *some* harm (not necessarily GBH). Intending to scare someone wouldn’t be enough, you would need D to intend or be reckless as to some form of real harm. As the above poster said, you might be able to get over the line if D knew V had a heart condition that would be aggravated by loud noises, stress etc. Equally, you might be able to infer that by his manner of entering the house, D might have intended to cause some harm once inside. But neither of these are completely clear cut on your facts.


You have also sensibly raised the issue of causation here. The defendant must take the victim as he finds him (the thin skull rule), and so D will be responsible for causing V to suffer a heart attack as a result of an underlying condition, regardless of whether he knew about the condition or not. But the question is whether you can establish that D intended or was reckless as to any harm at all. If so, you probably have your s. 20. If not, you might be stuck with assault ABH (s. 47).
(Original post by neal95)
S18 is a clear intention to wound, inflict GBH or prevent lawful arrest. From the information provided, we don't know if Henry knew that Jez had suffered from the heart condition for years. You could raise the possibility that if Jez knew he suffered from heart condition, then it is S18, as there is an intent. If not, it is S20, as it is merely reckless.

I studied Law at A-Level and at degree level, so thats what I would put, but would be good to see what others think too.
Thank you both for clarifying!
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

Poll: What factors affect your mental health most right now? Post-lockdown edition

Anxiousness about restrictions easing (43)
5.83%
Uncertainty around my education (84)
11.4%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (79)
10.72%
Lack of purpose or motivation (94)
12.75%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (39)
5.29%
Impact lockdown had on physical health (41)
5.56%
Social worries (incl. loneliness/making friends) (79)
10.72%
Financial worries (50)
6.78%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (32)
4.34%
Exposure to negative news/social media (45)
6.11%
Difficulty accessing real life entertainment (24)
3.26%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (70)
9.5%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (57)
7.73%

Watched Threads

View All