Offences against the Person Act 1861 Essays

There has been much debate on the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861 since The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is widely recognised as being outdated. Several arguments find the Act as outdated, its wording are vague and difficult to explain. Both the Law Commission and the Government have observed at possible reforms for the act in order to improve its position in English Law. The current law, examined the problems with it and suggested some options for future reform. As a result

No doubt the doctrine of the judicial precedent has proved to be a real advantage to society. However, we cannot neglect the fact that there are some disadvantages associated with this doctrine. 1. The very first disadvantage of this doctrine is the fact that not all the judges will have the same conclusion on a matter; therefore increasing the complexity of a case. Just like human beings differ from each other physically, they also differ mentally. Different judges will have different interpretation

discuss whether this statement “intoxication as a defence applies to all criminal offences and regardless whether it’s voluntary intoxication or otherwise” is accurate. Discussion Intoxication can be divided into voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication. In R v Sheehan and Moore that “a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent”. Voluntary intoxication would be defined as intoxication resulting from a person intentionally taking a drink or drug knowing that sufficient quantity of it will

it will first define what Bigamy is, which will ultimately help shape the understanding of the offence. This essay will then begin to focus on explaining the components of the offence. In order to address this, it will look in detail on a variety of cases about the lacking nature of Section 57. Subsequently, this essay will cover critically on the section 57 of the offences Against the Person Act 1861, clearly arguing on the obscure wording of the statue and how the judges can use a range of rules

different degrees of intent. A person may be considered to be reckless when a person does not intend to cause harm but brings about some form of harm by virtue of having taken an unjustifiable risk. Sometimes such person's conduct is so reckless that it becomes the basis for a lawsuit or criminal prosecution. If a person acts with such utter disregard for the safety of others -- and knows (or should know) that such actions may cause harm to someone else – that person may be liable for injuries caused

In case study three Mr H. Brown, 18-year-old, who is charged with Actual Bodily Harm. Which falls under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. ABH is a triable either way offence so it can be seen in either the Crown Court or Magistrates Court, depending on the severity of the case. The legal personnel involved in this case is dependent on which Court Mr H. Brown would be tried at, if the magistrates then he would be seen by: • The magistrates/ district judge

actions against Cain. Jakes issue is if he is likely to be charged for the actions he inflicted upon Cain, the potential charge being Harassment, under the protection of Harassment Act 19971. These actions included sending 30 letters to Cains's home containing warnings of his safety in work, wrote in red pen, a series of silent phone calls, as well as a note being left on his car saying he is being watched. Jake has no defence to these charges as he of sound mind at the time of the offences.

In order for a person to be found guilty of a crime, two elements must be present which are the actus reus (guilty act) and the mens rea (guilty mind). The first part of this essay seeks to consider the liability for homicide offences and also assess whether Jason, Welch, Ellis and Stevens have any potential defences based on the crimes they committed. P360 Will Jason be held liable for the death of pinky? Pinky suffered harm from Jason’s act, in a situation like this, we would need to look at s

However, Feinberg articulated that ‘legal moralism’ and paternalism are insufficient grounds for criminalising conduct . He convincingly argued that under a liberal scheme for criminalisation, ‘the Harm and Offence Principles’ diminish the good reasons (critical moral justifications) for criminal prohibitions . The exposition of harm principle is provided by J.S Mill, stating the state can only exercise its power over any state members when its purpose is to

In criminal law when a criminal act is alleged to have been committed, the essential requirement for the crime is that the victim was opposed to the crime. One of the available defences when a criminal act is committed is that the victim actually gave consent to the acts . The defence of consent is available to certain case that result in bodily harm which includes assault and battery. For instance, in sports there is a physical contact. Participants are deemed to have consented to the physical

formed. This stated that a person is reckless where property is destroyed or damage where: the appellant partakes in an act which creates an apparent risk of destruction or damage of property, or when the appellant formulates an act in where they have not given any thought to the consequences of their act and has continued with the act regardless. The decision in R v Caldwell was reached through interpretation of Criminal Offences Act 1971 . The interpretation of this act was that recklessness was

In this case a railway worker was killed along the railway line while he was oiling the railway tracks. The widow of the railway worker sued the London & North Eastern Railway for compensation. The court stated that according to the Fatal Accident Act the railway are liable to pay compensation to only those people who were killed while relying or repairing the track. The court held in favor of the London & North Eastern Railway and said that oiling of track does not come in the category of relying

The price of freedom is too expensive to be purchased. The American Civil War is one of the determinant factor of who our nation is today. The war was fought from 1861 to 1865 by The Confederate State of America and The Union. The Confederate States of America also known as the confederacy, consisted of seven official southern states. Though The Confederacy claimed thirteen states and some states from the Midwest, they were never diplomatically recognized by foreign countries. The union consisted

The case I observed was a case of minor-assault brought against one Mr. S Mohammed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Both the defence and the plaintiff (prosecuting) lawyers were solicitors. The case was a non-jury trial as it was held in a magistrates' court. There were three presiding Magistrates, known as a bench in the case, consisting of two women and a man. The chairman of the bench was a black female (name not given). There was also the court clerk, the court usher and an Iranian interpreter

Result/Impact: This is an action in trespass which exists only where the ‘trespass’ is the direct result of a voluntary act. Salmond & Heuston’s definition:‘An injury is said to be direct when it follows so immediately upon the act of the defendant that

long been due ‘Euthanasia’ (also known as ‘assisted suicide’ or ‘mercy killing’) refers to an act of killing an incurably ill person out of concern and compassion for that person's suffering . Euthanasia is perhaps one of the most controversial and debated topics for raising political, legal and religious questions. In the United Kingdom, euthanasia is illegal by virtue of section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. But some of the UK’s European neighbours have legalised euthanasia where many British citizens

Article 7 of the Convention which the European Courts of Human Right held that to convict under the circumstances of rape is not in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention. Moreover, to discard the idea that a husband could rape his wife goes against the fundamental objectives of the Convention which is the principle of human dignity. 2.2) Application of Theoretical

At common law, there exists a number of fundamental rights for those being questioned by police. In this regard, the emergence of the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence represents a ‘landmark event in the history of Anglo-American criminal procedure.’ As we shall see, these principles are intrinsically linked to the presumption of innocence and burden of proof. Policy makers in Northern Ireland contended that defendants were afforded too much of an advantage by virtue

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

resulting in the death of the gun man. Upon later inspection there appeared to be no firearm in sight. It was held that Beckford was found guilty of murder however it was later quashed after an appeal on the grounds of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (2008) S. 76(3)