Question 1
This essay will attempt to discuss the criminal liability of Tom, Liam and Steve. It will discuss the actus reas and mens rea of each offense and discuss the possible defence for each crime. This essay will outline each crime in order of seriousness and discuss the actus reas and mens rea to determine the potential liability for such a crime.
The first crime this essay will look at is the liability of Liam when attempting to resist arrest and scratching PC Coopers face in an attempt to escape. This would fall under factual causation and direct intent as PC Cooper would not have sustained the scratch but for Liam attempting to resist arrest by scratching at PC Coopers face. Under s 18 the actus reas for grievous bodily harm is satisfied …show more content…
This crime would fall under factual causation, as Sam would not have sustained the injury but for Liam swinging the bar stool in order to hit Tom. The actus reas of this crime is when Liam swings the bar stool and hits Sam with it inflicting some bruising. This act will fall under battery; battery is the infliction of violence. As it is unclear as to whether Sam apprehended the attack it cannot fall under common assault as common assault relies on the victim apprehending the immediate threat of violence. However, it will fall under battery as violence was physically inflicted. As it is stated that Liam intended to really hurt Tom it is apparent the mens rea is present in regards to battery. However, as Liam intended to hit Tom but in fact hit Sam this crime would be classed as indirect intent so the application of the doctrine of transferred malice will be used. The doctrine of transferred malice is that the mens rea of the act in this case is the intention of hitting Tom with the bar stool was transferred through the actus reas to Sam when the bar stool strikes Sam on the shoulder. Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 the actus reas is present for s.47. The actus reas is the assault which is Liam swinging the bar stool towards Tom and occasion is the stool hitting Sam and the actual bodily harm are the bruises inflicted as a result of the bar stool …show more content…
Ben begins to have sexual intercourse with Sara with her apparent consent but Sara then later withdraws her consent but Ben continues. In this instance, Ben in the beginning has not committed rape however, once Sara withdrawers her consent the act is then classed as rape. Ben will be liable for rape under s. 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The first aspect of the actus reas of rape is penile penetration by a person (in this case Ben) of the vagina of another person (in this case Sara). The second aspect is the lack of consent of the penetration. As Sara consented in the beginning Ben was not liable for rape until Sara withdrew her consent by shouting at Ben to stop. If Ben stopped penetration immediately he would not be liable, as in the case R v Kaitamaki [1985] AC 147. However, as he continued with the act this is then classed as rape. For the mens rea to be present in this crime Ben must have intentionally penetrated Sara which, is apparent and the absence of reasonable belief in consent which is also apparent as Sara had shouted at Ben. Therefore, Ben is liable. As it is stated in the police interview that Ben believed that Sara was at least 16 due to the information she had provided him it is apparent that Ben had reasonable belief that she was 16. Even though Sara was only 14 as Ben had reasonable belief she was over 16 so Ben is not guilty of child sex
This essay will attempt to discuss the criminal liability of Tom, Liam and Steve. It will discuss the actus reas and mens rea of each offense and discuss the possible defence for each crime. This essay will outline each crime in order of seriousness and discuss the actus reas and mens rea to determine the potential liability for such a crime.
The first crime this essay will look at is the liability of Liam when attempting to resist arrest and scratching PC Coopers face in an attempt to escape. This would fall under factual causation and direct intent as PC Cooper would not have sustained the scratch but for Liam attempting to resist arrest by scratching at PC Coopers face. Under s 18 the actus reas for grievous bodily harm is satisfied …show more content…
This crime would fall under factual causation, as Sam would not have sustained the injury but for Liam swinging the bar stool in order to hit Tom. The actus reas of this crime is when Liam swings the bar stool and hits Sam with it inflicting some bruising. This act will fall under battery; battery is the infliction of violence. As it is unclear as to whether Sam apprehended the attack it cannot fall under common assault as common assault relies on the victim apprehending the immediate threat of violence. However, it will fall under battery as violence was physically inflicted. As it is stated that Liam intended to really hurt Tom it is apparent the mens rea is present in regards to battery. However, as Liam intended to hit Tom but in fact hit Sam this crime would be classed as indirect intent so the application of the doctrine of transferred malice will be used. The doctrine of transferred malice is that the mens rea of the act in this case is the intention of hitting Tom with the bar stool was transferred through the actus reas to Sam when the bar stool strikes Sam on the shoulder. Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 the actus reas is present for s.47. The actus reas is the assault which is Liam swinging the bar stool towards Tom and occasion is the stool hitting Sam and the actual bodily harm are the bruises inflicted as a result of the bar stool …show more content…
Ben begins to have sexual intercourse with Sara with her apparent consent but Sara then later withdraws her consent but Ben continues. In this instance, Ben in the beginning has not committed rape however, once Sara withdrawers her consent the act is then classed as rape. Ben will be liable for rape under s. 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The first aspect of the actus reas of rape is penile penetration by a person (in this case Ben) of the vagina of another person (in this case Sara). The second aspect is the lack of consent of the penetration. As Sara consented in the beginning Ben was not liable for rape until Sara withdrew her consent by shouting at Ben to stop. If Ben stopped penetration immediately he would not be liable, as in the case R v Kaitamaki [1985] AC 147. However, as he continued with the act this is then classed as rape. For the mens rea to be present in this crime Ben must have intentionally penetrated Sara which, is apparent and the absence of reasonable belief in consent which is also apparent as Sara had shouted at Ben. Therefore, Ben is liable. As it is stated in the police interview that Ben believed that Sara was at least 16 due to the information she had provided him it is apparent that Ben had reasonable belief that she was 16. Even though Sara was only 14 as Ben had reasonable belief she was over 16 so Ben is not guilty of child sex