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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I find this question very difficult, any ideas how to tackle it?

    Giles and Sophie are at a student party which is gatecrashed by Jack and Steve, who appear to be the worse for drink. Jack and Steve begin to behave in loutish fashion, and refuse all pleas from Giles to calm down. Jack pours a drink over Giles' head, which causes his contact lenses to dislodge so that he cannot see, and falls, bumping his head badly on the floor. Sophie is so incensed that she slaps Steve around the face, causing Steve to reel back in amazement. As he puts out his hand to steady himself, his glass flies out of his hand, shattering against the wall. A fragment of glass lands in Sophie's eye, so that she needs surgery. Thinking himself about to be attacked again, Steve lashes out with a lava lamp, missing Sophie and hitting Jack by mistake, fracturing his skull.

    Discuss

    Mario
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mario88)
    I find this question very difficult, any ideas how to tackle it?

    Giles and Sophie are at a student party which is gatecrashed by Jack and Steve, who appear to be the worse for drink. Jack and Steve begin to behave in loutish fashion, and refuse all pleas from Giles to calm down. Jack pours a drink over Giles' head, which causes his contact lenses to dislodge so that he cannot see, and falls, bumping his head badly on the floor. Sophie is so incensed that she slaps Steve around the face, causing Steve to reel back in amazement. As he puts out his hand to steady himself, his glass flies out of his hand, shattering against the wall. A fragment of glass lands in Sophie's eye, so that she needs surgery. Thinking himself about to be attacked again, Steve lashes out with a lava lamp, missing Sophie and hitting Jack by mistake, fracturing his skull.

    Discuss

    Mario

    this question clearly relates to consideration of the Offences Against the Person ACT 1861

    you will need to consider in each circumstance, whether section 18, 20 or 47 applies. start with the most ersious offence first and then work your way down. Be sure however to consider each offence in turn until you reach one that is no longer applicable.

    you can do this by first defining the actus reus and mens rea of each offence briefly, and then see if it applies to each incident,

    so for example
    "Sophie is so incensed that she slaps Steve around the face"

    Start by asking does she fulfill the actus reus of the most serious offence- s.18 intention to wound or cause grevious bodily harm? that would be, does she actually cause grevious bolidly harm?--the answer is no. Whilst steve reels back in amazement there is no evidence of any wound or serious injury. This would also mean no offence under s.20, as that too requires a wound or infliction of greivous bodily harm (It is only the mens rea that differes between the two offences).
    You only need to consider the Mens rea once the actus reus has been satisfied.

    So from this consider section 47 of the OAPA 1861-
    actual boily harm
    does sophie commit the actus reus of the offence, that is does she cause any bodily harm? the answer would once again be no. no apparent harm has been caused.

    so move onto the offence of battery- does she satisfy the actus reus of that offence? which is infliction of personal violence..the answer is yes. she clearly has inflicted violence. Now consider the mens rea, which is, did she have intention or was she reckless as to inflict such violence. The answer is yes, she clearly aimed to inflict violence, it was her clear intention.

    thus sophie would be liable for commiting a battery.

    Once establishing liability you must go on to consider if sophie can rely on a defence. Such as self defence, duress or intoxication amongst others.

    Some universities urge students to consider the least serious offence and work your way up. Starting from the most serious is the way i was told to tackle it at mine. Its entirely up to you, there is no right or wrong way, just as long as your answer is clear and you consider each offence in turn.

    whats also worth noting is that when steve lashes out with the lava lamp at the end you need to consider the doctrine of transferred malice.
    (if he has the the actus reus and mens rea of an offence, it doent matter whether he acheives his result). Though steve would not be liable for a s.18 offence ..to cause grevious bodily harm with intent as he would be able to rely on the defence of self defence

    good luck..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by equinoxsolar)
    this question clearly relates to consideration of the Offences Against the Person ACT 1861

    you will need to consider in each circumstance, whether section 18, 20 or 47 applies. start with the most ersious offence first and then work your way down. Be sure however to consider each offence in turn until you reach one that is no longer applicable.

    you can do this by first defining the actus reus and mens rea of each offence briefly, and then see if it applies to each incident,

    so for example
    "Sophie is so incensed that she slaps Steve around the face"

    Start by asking does she fulfill the actus reus of the most serious offence- s.18 intention to wound or cause grevious bodily harm? that would be, does she actually cause grevious bolidly harm?--the answer is no. Whilst steve reels back in amazement there is no evidence of any wound or serious injury. This would also mean no offence under s.20, as that too requires a wound or infliction of greivous bodily harm (It is only the mens rea that differes between the two offences).
    You only need to consider the Mens rea once the actus reus has been satisfied.

    So from this consider section 47 of the OAPA 1861-
    actual boily harm
    does sophie commit the actus reus of the offence, that is does she cause any bodily harm? the answer would once again be no. no apparent harm has been caused.

    so move onto the offence of battery- does she satisfy the actus reus of that offence? which is infliction of personal violence..the answer is yes. she clearly has inflicted violence. Now consider the mens rea, which is, did she have intention or was she reckless as to inflict such violence. The answer is yes, she clearly aimed to inflict violence, it was her clear intention.

    thus sophie would be liable for commiting a battery.

    Once establishing liability you must go on to consider if sophie can rely on a defence. Such as self defence, duress or intoxication amongst others.

    Some universities urge students to consider the least serious offence and work your way up. Starting from the most serious is the way i was told to tackle it at mine. Its entirely up to you, there is no right or wrong way, just as long as your answer is clear and you consider each offence in turn.

    whats also worth noting is that when steve lashes out with the lava lamp at the end you need to consider the doctrine of transferred malice.
    (if he has the the actus reus and mens rea of an offence, it doent matter whether he acheives his result). Though steve would not be liable for a s.18 offence ..to cause grevious bodily harm with intent as he would be able to rely on the defence of self defence

    good luck..
    many thanks. now i understand where to start. great post.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Any specific cases you would use to answer these questions?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.