Introduction First of all, a defendant will only be found guilty of a crime if the prosecution can establish two main elements of a crime, which are actus reus and the mens rea. Actus reus is the wrongful act or omission that comprises the physical component of a crime. Mens rea is a person’s awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal. For a defendant to be held liable, it has to be proved that the defendant voluntarily performed the act or omission. In Hill v Baxter , it was established that the driver did not commit the offence voluntarily as he was attacked by a swarm of bees when driving.
The due process model is seen to focus on the suspect whereas the crime control model focuses on the society. This paper analyzes these two models and based on the rate of crime in the society, makes recommendations as to which is the best model in criminal justice. The principle in law that one is innocent until proven guilty has created much discourse. There are those who feel that the moment that one is arrested, there is reasonable belief that they committed the crime. However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty.
False imprisonment is an act punishable under criminal law as well as under tort law. Under tort law, it is classified as an intentional tort as trespass to a person.False Imprisonment has been defined as the total restraint of the liberty of a person. The word ‘false’ means ‘erroneous’ or ‘wrong’. It is a tort of strict liability and the plaintiff has not to prove fault on part of the defendant. It safeguards the right to freedom of a person so that they may be able to move without restraint.
The second type of law of tort is intentional torts. It is a purpose of the acts committed by a person towards another person that result can bring some damage. There are different types of the intentional tort which are: slander and libel, slander of title, intentional interference with contractual relations and fraud. Lastly, the last type of law of tort is strict liability. For civil law, liability generates damages in life, without having to prove that the defendant was negligent.
Judge Haugh declared that “One is not entitled to seek damages for mere bad manners or mere sensitivity, but there is however an action known to the law of tort that entitles a person to compensation when they suffer a recognized psychiatric consequence of harassment ,that is inexcusable conduct intentionally or recklessly handed out. Before he can succeed in an action for the wilful or reckless infliction or emotional harm there must be a form of harassment or a form of misconduct formed on the part of the defendant that any right-minded right-thinking person would consider to be gratuitous or reprehensible. It must be done either with the intention of humiliating or embarrassing the butt of the harassment ,or it must be done where there is a risk of such an adverse reaction and that risk is unjustifiably
It entails the court asking if the accused’s conduct caused the unlawful consequence. It is only relevant for consequence crimes, such as murder or arson, and there must be a causal link between the conduct of the accused and the unlawful consequence. In order to determine if there is a link, the court makes use of two tests: factual and legal causation. 2 1 Factual causation Factual causation links the conduct of the accused to the end result of the unlawful consequence. For factual causation, we use the conditio sine qua non test which translates to the “but for” test and is used in practice as “but for the accused’s conduct, would the victim have suffered the same fate?” 2 2 Legal causation Legal causation is when we establish, based on policy considerations, whether it is reasonable and fair to hold somebody criminally liable for their conduct.
Recklessness, indeed is a term used to condemn the actions of a person who is the cause of an undesirable circumstance. It features as one of four possible mental states that may constitute the mens rea of a crime. To be reckless, a person is involved with ‘’the taking of an unreasonable risk of which the risk taker is aware.’’ However, it is important to note that the risk ‘’does not have to be foreseen as highly likely to occur.’’ Recklessness, a term that is commonly featured within the criminal law system, is said to be problematic as there is no set definition. Such confusion surrounding the idea of what amounts to being reckless has indeed prompted the Law Commission into releasing papers to remedy the issue. ‘Unchariness’, ‘dolus
This happens to be a special Court and confessions before a Police Officer in such cases can be admissible in the Special Court, as mentioned earlier. The evidentiary standards in such cases are lower than what the Evidence Act prescribes. Periyasamy v. State (2014 6 SCC 59) affirms this rule. If the Court is reasonably satisfied that the confession made before the Police officer was voluntary, in accordance with Section 15 of the TADA Act, it can be admissable. One of the foundations of criminal law is to presume a man innocent until proven gulty.
What is necessity? The defence of necessity, otherwise known as compulsion, arises when a person choses to break the law in order to avoid an imminent evil, this situation whether brought about by the force of the surrounding circumstances or by human influence such as compulsion, duress or coercion is treated uniformly by the law. The defence is invoked where the conduct of the defendant was directed against an innocent third party to protect the interest of the defendant or another third party from danger. Necessity is a legal defence that, when successful, can find a crime that has been recognised in the criminal law, to usually be void of the element of unlawfulness. Whether or not the defendant’s conduct would be covered by the defence of necessity will depend on the specific facts of the case.
The plaintiff must furthermore employ this standard to establish that the defamatory material relates to his reputation and not that of another. A presumption of wrongfulness ensues. In refutation of this presumption, the defendant may assert justifications similar to those listed in the context of criminal defamation. Intention on the part of the defendant, alleged but not proven by the plaintiff, requires both deliberate action and cognizance of the wrongfulness thereof. Publication of defamatory material leads to a presumption of deliberate action by the defendant which the defendant may refute by establishing mistake or jest.