Introduction This question requires for an understanding on the rules and principles relating to criminal liability for an omission. As well as whether the rules and principles are too restrictive on individual freedom. In order to have an understanding of the rules and principles of omissions, one first must understand how criminal liability is imposed. For a person to be found guilty of a crime they must have both the mens rea and actus reus of the committed crime. Actus reus is the guilty deed or act and mens rea is the guilty state of mind.
In some cases of False Imprisonment may be of both civil and criminal nature. The elements of False Imprisonment are- 1. There should be willful detention- The concept of False Imprisonment, in the first place starts with the detention of the plaintiff by the defendant. This detention may be ‘actual’ i.e., physical. In physical detention the plaintiff may be restricted to freedom of movement, this may be done by locking the person in a room or restricting him from entering into any particular area.
The burden of proof is an obligation on one party to persuade the jury or a judge of an alleged claim. The defendant need not prove his own innocence; it is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty and the standard of proof here is beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to discharge such legal burden would result in the defendant being acquitted. This principle is especially important in criminal cases because a person’s liberty is at stake. In doing so, it will help to promote fair trial and somewhat uphold human rights.
Tort law refers to the set of laws that provides remedies to individuals who have suffered harm by the unreasonable acts of another. Tort law is based on the idea that people are liable for the consequences of their actions, whether intentional or accidental, if they cause harm to another person or entity. Torts are the civil wrongs that form the basis of civil lawsuits. To explore this concept, consider the following tort law definition. The legal term tort refers to an action in which one person or entity causes injury, harm, or damage to another person or entity.
LAW OF TORTS LIABILITY UNDER TORTS NATURE AND DEFINITION OF TORT Origin of the word tort is from latin term ‘tortum’ that means ‘twisted conduct’. Tort, in common law jurisdictions, is defined as a civil wrong that causes someone else to suffer loss or injury resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act, called the tortfeasor. It may or may not always be a crime or a breach of contract. As in crime there is a wrongful act recognized by criminal law and is generally serious in nature, and a ‘breach of contract’ is the non-performance of a duty undertaken by a party to a contract, while tort is the breach of duty primarily fixed by law and not the parties involved. The person who suffers can recover the loss as
This paper focuses on the principle of mens rea together with actus reus and their effects with regard to determination of criminal cases. There are two main elements that constitute a crime and these include mens rea and actus Reus. Mens rea Mens rea is a term that is used to describe the mental intention or the defendant’s mental state in the course of committing the offense and is also referred to as “guilty Mind”. This is a critical element of a crime in the sense that the occurrence of a criminal offense is either voluntary or purposeful. A crime act usually comes from what is popularly referred to as ancient maxim that is the “act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty.” As such, it is required that for on to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused not only
Lack of better evidence than acts and statements including that of co-conspirators in pursuance of the conspiracy requires appreciation of circumstantial evidence following the well established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence can be reasonably made the basis of an accused person's conviction if it is of such a character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt...But in applying this principle, it is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other...When it is held that a certain fact is proved, the question arises whether that fact leads to the inference of guilt of the accused person or not, and in dealing with this aspect of the problem the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his
Nominal damages, given although there is no harm at all, or merely a slight one, may also be awarded in an assault and battery action. Punitive Damages are often given when the offense was committed maliciously to punish the defendant for the wrongful act and to deter others from engaging in similar acts in the future. If a defendant is found criminally liable, the punishment is imprisonment, a fine, or both. CRITISISM In assault intention is necessary so even if the defendant commits a crime and does not have an intent to harm the victim, the individual cannot be guilty of the offense. SUGGESTIONS The law must then balance the degree of the risk and the likelihood of injury occurring, against the expense and difficulty of taking precautions both in assault and battery more precautiously.
Pursuant to Article 3, ‘inferences may be drawn from an accused’s failure to mention particular facts when questioned about or charged with an offence’. Article 4 stipulates that ‘an accused person may be called upon by the court to give evidence at his trial, and certain inferences may be drawn if he refuses to do so’. Mirfield, amongst others, argue that the rules curtailing the right to silence ‘require the suspect to be his own betrayer.’ Whether guilty or innocent, Leng submits that the fact that some hardened criminals will remain silent no matter what defeats any claim that ‘silence can be taken as evidence of guilt.’ Due to the strength of the challenges posed by the benefits to the defendant of remaining silent, the NI legislature did not address the possibility that there may be reasons for maintaining silence other than guilt or ambush defences, the ascertainment of which is at the courts’ discretion. For instance, a suspect may be embarrassed to admit their whereabouts; they may be afraid of giving inaccurate information and being punished as a result; they may be suffering from ill-health, a mental or learning disability; or they may be in an intoxicated state at the time of questioning. The minority of the Irish Committee which was established to review the matter
Case Study On The Role Of Intoxication In Making A Contract Invoidble With Ref: Blomley V. Ryan …death is final. This finality makes it proper to regard death as the most serious harm that may be inflicted on another, & to regard a person who chooses to inflict that harm without justification or excuse as the most culpable of offenders . An intoxicated person in a contract dispute may find that the contract under discussion is either voidable or valid. The standard of intoxication is similar to that which must be present in a criminal defense attempting to excuse the actions due to intoxication. A valid contract is a contract that has the full force of law & is binding to both parties.