StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

The Offences against the Person Act 1861 - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
The paper "The Offences against the Person Act 1861" discusses that a number of rules regarding these offences also derive from civil cases as the civil torts of assault and battery are closely linked in definitive nature to those of a criminal essence…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER94.1% of users find it useful
The Offences against the Person Act 1861
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "The Offences against the Person Act 1861"

? Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person The proposition in question relates to theoffence of battery and assault as set out in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (hereon referred to as OAPA 1861), and also elements of common assault, the general principles of which are governed by a selection of criminal and civil cases as per development of the common law regime with regard to its criminal system. However, a number of rules regarding these offences do also derive from civil cases as the civil torts of assault and battery are closely linked in definitive nature to those of a criminal essence. In this particular case, nonetheless, Billy’s actions against Hilda and the nurse shall be assessed for any criminal charges that may be issuable against him. Any civil claims cannot be brought up whilst the case is in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service, which is strictly a criminal prosecution service. To begin with, it is necessary to see that Billy’s actions caused Hilda to suffer harm to an extent that she had to be taken to the hospital. These circumstances make it clear that the harm suffered by Hilda was aggravated in nature. She has been hit on the head by a chair leg and is in a condition that she is not allowed visitors. These evidential circumstances bring the harm caused into the ambit of a grievous nature which is governed by section 20 of the OAPA 1861. Section 20 of the OAPA states that: “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 guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for five years.” (Jacqueline, Chris 2011, pp 113-116) It is clear from the section that a few elements will need to be proven against Billy before a case under Section 20 can be made out. The first of these has to be the actus reus. For the purposes of Section 20, the actus reus, or the guilty act, has to consist of wounding which amounts to grievous bodily harm and has been inflicted by the defendant. The requirement of ‘wounding ‘ as defined in the case of Moriarty v Brookes ((1834) 6 C&P 684) states that the continuity of the skin as a whole should be disrupted. It is here to be noted that if the blow of the chair which was enough to land Hilda in a hospital whereby she was unavailable for visitors is a sign that the damage caused to her head would well have caused blood to flow, as might any such act where the impact is so harsh do so. As also mentioned in Section 20, the requirement that a weapon or instrument may have been used also stands proved as Billy used a chair to inflict harm onto Hilda’s person. More essentially, Hilda must prove that the harm caused was of the category of grievous bodily harm as set out in the OAPA 1861. It has been roughly defined as harm which ‘seriously interferes with health or comfort’ (Ashman, 1858 1 FF 88). Judges have also later refined this definition further in cases like Smith ((1961) AC 290), that the definition need not be confined in any sense; the jury and judge alike must take into account the totality of injuries caused and must consider liability for it accordingly. Here, it is clear that a woman who had to be admitted to the hospital had indeed suffered serious harm which cannot be taken lightly and is does qualify fully the requirement laid down in Section 20 of the infliction of grievous bodily harm. Further, it is necessary to prove that Billy has indeed ‘inflicted’ the injuries on Hilda for which he is to be held liable. It is expressly believed that in legal terms, infliction takes place when either the defendant directly and violently inflicts the injury by assaulting the victim or, more widely, where he does something which indirectly applies force on the victim’s person to cause injury. Under this definition, Billy has clearly been direct and violent in using force against Hilda as he hit her on the head with a chair leg and hence, infliction also stands proven. The next crucial issue is that of mens rea. It is clear from Section 20 that the intent necessary is that characterized by ‘malice’. This has been described by Lord Ackner (Baird, Fonda and Luckham (2007) p. 140) as foresight on the defendant’s part that ‘some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.’ It has been deemed unnecessary that the defendant should know the extent of the harm that he may be causing in the near future, or that he foresee that it may be serious bodily harm. As long as he is aware that he may cause any injury, great or dismissible, he is guilty of possessing the mens rea necessary to bring his actions under the ambit of Section 20. It is clear that Billy being a grown up of sound mind would know that his act of hitting another person on the head with a chair would have enough force to cause some hurt; in fact it is clear from the fact that he raised a chair and brought it down upon Hilda’s head that he meant, in fact, to meaningfully hurt her in some way. For Hilda’s case, it is quite clear from the above discussion of Section 20 of the OAPA 1861 that the CPS can prosecute Billy quite successfully for the alleged assault against her. The maximum penalty set out for an offence under this section is that of imprisonment for a term of five years, though this may be lessened in case of Billy successfully pleading any mitigating circumstances. This may not include the fact that he did not foresee that such a serious injury might have been caused by hitting her on the head with a chair, as such detailed foresight is not at all required for a case to be made under this particular section. Quite clearly, Billy is currently looking at any term of imprisonment under five years to be served. Now that Hilda’s situation has been settled, the circumstances of any claims the nurse might have against Billy are to be considered. As far as she is concerned, it is more a matter of common assault as no aggravating factors are present. Common assault and battery are summary offences as set out in Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. For the nurse’s case, it is the definition of battery that is crucial to look at. As defined in the case of Ralfe ((1936) Cr App R 4), a person commits a battery if he intentionally or recklessly inflicts immediate unlawful violence on another person. To prove a wholesome case, each element of this definition needs to be applied to the nurse’s situation. To begin with, the actus reus of battery has to be recognized as the immediate unlawful violence on another person. It follows as of course that any amount of force applied is sufficient and there is no need to prove that any injury was caused. Such frail instances as that of taking a person’s fingerprints without consent have been known to be held as battery as it was in Callis v Gunn ((1964) 1 QB 495). It can thus be imagined the extent to which English law commands that a person’s physical form be protected from unlawful and needless interferences regardless of whether they cause any harm or not. Also, it has been suggested quite clearly that though everyday touching will rarely amount to battery, any contact that may be hostile, in the sense that it is more than can be acceptable in an ordinary, layman perception as being normal, will be treated as battery. This was expressed by Lord Goff in Re F ((1990) 2 AC 1). In the light of this judgment, it is clear that Billy’s action was hostile; he slapped the nurse. A slap is body contact that two strangers might find acceptable as a matter of course in their meeting with each other. Hence, the slap qualifies as violent for the purposes of battery, and it was a voluntary action that Billy imposed on the person of the nurse. With the actus reus having been established, one needs to now consider whether Billy had the necessary mens rea in order to be found guilty of common assault. The mens rea has been defined as intention or recklessness. This means that the defendant ‘must either clearly intend to cause or be aware of the risk of causing the victim to apprehend the application of immediate, unlawful violence’ as stated in Venna ((1976) QB 421). This definition is quite strict in its requirement that the victim should be caused to apprehend the application of force; it needs to be proven in a subjective sense that the defendant knew that his victim would indeed be caused to fear such a thing. If the jury is left with any doubt as to whether the defendant foresaw it or not, he must be acquitted. This was set out quite clearly in Savage and Parmenter ((1991) 4 All ER 698). To apply these principles to the given circumstances, one would have to prove beyond doubt that Billy knew he would cause the nurse to apprehend the application of force. It is necessary to note here, that Billy had stopped over for an hour at ‘Two Ducks’, which by the nature of the products available, seems to be a bar or pub of some sort. Hence, it can be assumed that Billy must have been drunk to some extent when he arrived at the hospital and not entirely in his senses. This may cast a shadow of doubt in the mind of the jury; would Billy, in a more or less inebriated state, realize what his actions may or may not cause the nurse to apprehend? It is very likely that he did not. Unlike the case of Hilda against Billy, the nurse’s case does not seem to be strong enough to warrant the pressing of charges against him for it. Nonetheless, it is crucial that the purposes of legal developments of common assault be kept in mind whilst considering this; the purpose has long been a relentless struggle, through definition and redefition, to preserve the sanctity of a person’s safety from physical invasion and unwarranted contact which a person may not want to welcome or view as downright hostile. In the nurse’s case, if a purposive approach were adopted, this is the case. In an equitable sense, if one is to move away from the stringent literalism of common law, the nurse may have an open and shut case whereby Billy slapped her, and by instinct should have known that it is not a very well mannered or acceptable sort of force to apply to a stranger who in his or her capacity is actually doing him a public service. Nonetheless, the requirement of mens rea is not an easily dismissible one and it is more than necessary that it should be proven before Billy may be punished for it. The criminal legal system also views the liberty of its subjects very seriously, and no defendant may be made to suffer for a crime that he did not intend. In light of this argument, it might just be so that Billy might be acquitted for common assault in the case of the nurse. To conclude and summarize Billy’s position and as to whether the CPS should prosecute him for the alleged assaults, it is clear that they should do so in Hilda’s case as under Section 20 of the OAPA, as a very strong case can be made. In Hilda’s case, though prosecution may be warranted, it is highly likely that he will be acquitted for lack of mens rea. Bibliography REDRESS (2000). Challenging imprints for torture: a manual for bringing criminal and civil proceeding in England and Wales for torture committed abroad [London], The Redress Trust. MARTIN, J., TURNER, C., (2011). Key Cases Criminal Law. Hodder Education. GREAT BRITIAN (2006). A new homicide act for England and Wales? A consultation paper. Norwich Stationery Office. ORMEROD, D.C., SMITH, J.C., & HOGAN, B., (2005). Smith and Hogan criminal law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. WOLF, D., NOTH, C., HILL, S., & ORBACH, J. (1999) Law and Order. Universal City, CA, Wolf Films/Universal. BAIRD, N., FIONDA, J., LUCKHAM, M., (2007) Criminal Law. University of London, University of London Press. BATTERY. www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Battery.php Cases cited: Moriarty v Brookes (1834) 6 C&P Ashman, 1858 1 FF Smith (1961) AC 290 Ralfe (1936) Cr App Callis v Gunn (1964) 1 QB Re F (1990) 2 AC Venna (1976) QB Savage and Parmenter (1991) 4 All ER Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Prosecute Billy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words”, n.d.)
Prosecute Billy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/law/1464895-prosecute-billy
(Prosecute Billy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words)
Prosecute Billy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words. https://studentshare.org/law/1464895-prosecute-billy.
“Prosecute Billy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/law/1464895-prosecute-billy.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF The Offences against the Person Act 1861

How Lawyers Reason within Field of Litigation

or example, if a person commits murder and the judge keeps in mind the circumstances do not find the accused guilty and orders to release the innocent person, therefore a case of equal standing can have the same ruling.... The paper "How Lawyers Reason within Field of Litigation" tells that lawyers while pleading the cases of their clients in a competent court of law use certain legal and logical tools and reiterate it in line with the provisions of law, statement of witnesses, documentary evidence....
11 Pages (2750 words) Essay

Legal Method Skills & Reasoning

4 Pages (1000 words) Coursework

Offences Against the Person Act

This case study "offences against the person act" presents criminally liable for homicide for Danni's death.... Finally, Danni could be liable for murder or manslaughter because her act of sending a mail bomb (though merely intended to frighten Gordon) actually caused or brought about the instant death of the victim Sharon.... Homicide is the general term given to the unlawful killing of a person which usually takes the form of either murder or manslaughter....
6 Pages (1500 words) Case Study

Criminal Law: Grievous Bodily Harm

In order to prove that the defendant acted maliciously, it is sufficient to prove that he intended his act to result in some unlawful bodily harm to some other person, albeit of a minor nature, or was subjectively reckless as to the risk that his act might result in such harm (See: R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421).... Section 1(1) of the Theft act 1968 (TA 1968) creates the offence of theft.... Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for five years....
5 Pages (1250 words) Essay

The Offences Against the Person Act

t present, within the UK those deliberately or recklessly infecting others in the manner described above are likely to find themselves charged with offenses covered by The Offences against the Person Act 1861.... This coursework "the offences against the person act" critically discusses sections 18, 20 and 47 from Offences Against the Person Act.... hen deliberating on what charges can be brought against those who infect others with HIV the courts will look for proof that the person is aware of their condition that they know the risk of transmission, and they are aware that it passes through sex....
12 Pages (3000 words) Coursework

Summary of an appeal case

That was dissimilar to section 20 of The Offences against the Person Act 1861.... That was dissimilar to section 20 of The Offences against the Person Act 1861.... By concealing any information about one's HIV status, the subject denies the other person the freedom to make a choice.... The nature of the case engrosses an appeal by Feston Konzani against a conviction passed by the Crown Court at Teesside on 14th May 2004, before the Honour Judge Fox and a jury....
1 Pages (250 words) Essay

The Bail Act of 1976

he Bail act 1976 provides that the court should presume that the defendant should be granted bail unless there are circumstances to justify refusal of bail.... Part II of the act provides circumstances when the defendant need not be granted bail.... The alleged crime was committed on April 2 where it is alleged that the defendant unlawfully and maliciously wounded Oliver Davies with intent to cause him....
9 Pages (2250 words) Essay

Offences against the Person Act 1861

'In LC218 the Law Commission was unequivocal that The Offences against the Person Act 1861 could be used to prosecute the transmission of disease, and recommended that the proposed new offences should enable the intentional or reckless transmission of disease to be prosecuted in appropriate cases'.... The paper "offences against the person act 1861" discusses that the inherent issues with OAGA 1861 would not so much in the wordings that construed and constructs the rudiments for legal interpretation, but also in terms of how its surviving provisions are interpreted in the current context....
10 Pages (2500 words) Case Study
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us