Criminal Liability of Tony Smith
Arguably, Tony will be charged with numerous offences regarding his actions on March 11 2017.
Offences Against Rebecca:
Firstly, the most severe indictable offence committed was that against Rebecca. As stated on the facts Tony verbally abused Rebecca “yelling and screaming that she was a slut” Rebecca was crying hysterically. Tony later slapped Rebecca “hard across the face, continuing to call her a slut.” He then “punched her as hard as he could in the jaw.” The ambulance treated Rebecca for “broken jaw and serious bruising to the left side of her face.”
For these actions of battery and assault it is arguable that Tony would be charged with “Wounding or Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent” under section …show more content…
One option is, “Wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent” as the action that caused the harm to the baby was the same continuing action that was intentional towards Rebecca. Actus reus is demonstrated on the facts as Tony punched Rebecca who fell with the baby in her arms, there was no break in the chain of causation and as such its arguable that Tony is liable for the harm to the baby. Similarly, the mens rea is superimposed from the intention of hitting Rebecca as per the doctrine of transferred malice. As stated in the legislation that the intent is to “cause grievous bodily harm to that or any other person is guilty of an offence”. The elements to be proved in as outlined by legislation are firstly, that “the accused wounded or caused grievous bodily harm to the victim.” Secondly, that this is done so “with intent to cause GBH.” Both of which as discussed, have been satisfied here.
Secondly, a charge of “Assault occasioning actual bodily harm” is possible if that was the charge for actions regarding Rebecca. Also likely to succeed for the reasons mentioned just …show more content…
On the facts actus reus is evident from the “brawl” between Tony and Michael where it is stated that punches were exchanged. It’s reasonable to assume that this is where Michael sustained the bruising he was treated for. Mens rea is also evident on the facts as the term “brawl” would imply a fight between the two. It is also stated that Michael was trying to restrain Tony, therefore it’s possible that Tony was the aggressive party here. The only element to prove in Common Assault is that the accused assaulted the victim. Therefore, as demonstrated on the facts, it is arguable that Tony will be held criminally liable for the harm as a direct result of his actions towards
Arguably, Tony will be charged with numerous offences regarding his actions on March 11 2017.
Offences Against Rebecca:
Firstly, the most severe indictable offence committed was that against Rebecca. As stated on the facts Tony verbally abused Rebecca “yelling and screaming that she was a slut” Rebecca was crying hysterically. Tony later slapped Rebecca “hard across the face, continuing to call her a slut.” He then “punched her as hard as he could in the jaw.” The ambulance treated Rebecca for “broken jaw and serious bruising to the left side of her face.”
For these actions of battery and assault it is arguable that Tony would be charged with “Wounding or Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent” under section …show more content…
One option is, “Wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent” as the action that caused the harm to the baby was the same continuing action that was intentional towards Rebecca. Actus reus is demonstrated on the facts as Tony punched Rebecca who fell with the baby in her arms, there was no break in the chain of causation and as such its arguable that Tony is liable for the harm to the baby. Similarly, the mens rea is superimposed from the intention of hitting Rebecca as per the doctrine of transferred malice. As stated in the legislation that the intent is to “cause grievous bodily harm to that or any other person is guilty of an offence”. The elements to be proved in as outlined by legislation are firstly, that “the accused wounded or caused grievous bodily harm to the victim.” Secondly, that this is done so “with intent to cause GBH.” Both of which as discussed, have been satisfied here.
Secondly, a charge of “Assault occasioning actual bodily harm” is possible if that was the charge for actions regarding Rebecca. Also likely to succeed for the reasons mentioned just …show more content…
On the facts actus reus is evident from the “brawl” between Tony and Michael where it is stated that punches were exchanged. It’s reasonable to assume that this is where Michael sustained the bruising he was treated for. Mens rea is also evident on the facts as the term “brawl” would imply a fight between the two. It is also stated that Michael was trying to restrain Tony, therefore it’s possible that Tony was the aggressive party here. The only element to prove in Common Assault is that the accused assaulted the victim. Therefore, as demonstrated on the facts, it is arguable that Tony will be held criminally liable for the harm as a direct result of his actions towards